All-New 2019 Mazda3 Looks Sleek Inside And Out In Best Photos Yet
Ladies and gentlemen, these are the very first spy shots of the upcoming 2019 Mazda3 hatchback.
Scheduled to debut later this month at the LA Auto Show both in hatchback and sedan body styles, Mazda's all-new compact model looks promising in these first spy shots.
Our photographers spotted a fully-camouflaged prototype in Europe during testing and even got a peek at its interior. Fortunately, Mazda didn't bother disguising the cabin that much.
As you can see in our gallery, engineers tested the all-new Mazda3 alongside a VW Golf and Audi A3. Furthermore, a current Mazda3 was also part of the test group.
(https://images.carscoops.com/2018/11/77ef0a8e-2019-mazda3-hatchback-spy-shots-8-768x485.jpg)
The design may be a bit toned down compared to the Mazda Kai Concept...
Both the bodywork and the cabin reveal clear influences from the Kai Concept, although the 2019 Mazda3 obviously looks a bit toned down in comparison.
The new Japanese compact hatchback displays harmonious proportions and striking details. Those include the sharp headlights and taillights, the gaping grille, as well as the dynamic treatment of the C-pillar. All of the above are influences from the Kai Concept.
(https://images.carscoops.com/2018/11/f1bf807d-2019-mazda3-hatchback-spy-shots-3-768x512.jpg)
Inside, the dashboard is also reminiscent of said study, adopting a similar layout with as few buttons as possible. As with the concept, the instrument panel features three round gauges and the steering wheel has three spokes. The big difference compared to the concept is the addition of a floating central touchscreen that breaks the continuity of the dashboard but is a "necessary evil."
The prototype seems to be a well-equipped model that features red leather upholstery, leather-wrapped dashboard with contrast stitching, and polished-aluminum trim, among other materials.
(https://images.carscoops.com/2018/11/b40ef9a9-2019-mazda3-hatchback-spy-shots-4-768x512.jpg)
... but the technology certainly isn't...
The all-new Mazda3 will be the first production vehicle to use the automaker's SkyActiv Vehicle Architecture. The new platform is expected to bring improved refinement, a lower seating position, and better handling.
(https://images.carscoops.com/2018/11/e9f94a71-2019-mazda3-hatchback-spy-shots-14-768x486.jpg)
Link: https://www.carscoops.com/2018/11/new-2019-mazda3-hatchback-looking-sleek-inside-first-spy-shots/
Looking good.
Interesting that they haven't unveiled 2019 yet. Usually they're already on sale by now.
Looks a bit snug in rear seat head room
Can it be a 5-door Miata?
That interior looks BMWesque
Intrigued
Looks better than my Mazda3.
And it still has the manual :dance:
Crisis averted, for at least one more generation.
Just heard from a very reliable source this will not have IRS??!??
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 18, 2018, 10:09:14 AM
Just heard from a very reliable source this will not have IRS??!??
:wtf:
I legitimately hate the term "IRS" now.
The Golf I was notable for having "IRS". You know what it was? A torsion beam.
Early drives of the Mazda 3 prototypes talk about the switch to a twist axle out back (cost, weight).
Torsion beams and solid axles aren't the same. The internet has conflated the two.
Like...y'all make it sound like they took the rear axle off of an old Chrysler van.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 18, 2018, 10:09:14 AM
Just heard from a very reliable source this will not have IRS??!??
So, torsion beam? A step backwards.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 18, 2018, 10:09:14 AM
Just heard from a very reliable source this will not have IRS??!??
A very reliable source? Are Big Things Coming
TM?
https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/2019-mazda-3-to-adopt-torsion-beam-rear-suspension-for-refinement-58696 (https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/2019-mazda-3-to-adopt-torsion-beam-rear-suspension-for-refinement-58696)
This article?
So what's the likelihood that this will turn out to be a scourge for reliability?
IMO the fact that this has so much latitude for software tuning means that there's a lot of room for adjustment if Mazda really drops the ball. They could declutch the supercharger, tighten the conditions for compression ignition, adjust the spark timings, and so on.
It really is a lot, and to be honest I'm worried. It's going to have to run perfectly, with A-1 management of all the parameters.
Mazda has been working on this for a while, so I think if they're putting it out they feel it's ready. But I still think this is a missed opportunity to make fun 3 pedal hybrids.
Eh, Mazda's raison d'etre is good performance from low GVWR. They derive their sporting characteristics from weird engineering, not batteries or cubic inches.
After thinking about this, could this be an evolution of the Millenia Miller 2.3 engine? After all, a major part of the cylinder is to use a positive displacement supercharger to increase the effective pressure of the cylinder. Obviously there's a lot more to the solution, but the broad strokes do ring familiar...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 19, 2018, 06:31:46 PM
It really is a lot, and to be honest I'm worried. It's going to have to run perfectly, with A-1 management of all the parameters.
Mazda has been working on this for a while, so I think if they're putting it out they feel it's ready. But I still think this is a missed opportunity to make fun 3 pedal hybrids.
There's a reason nobody does 3-pedal hybrids anymore (not that there were ever many of them for sale). They aren't that efficient. Can't run fully electric. Basically restricted to a mild hybrid where the electric motor gives you some assist (allowing for an undersized IC engine).
Quote from: MX793 on November 19, 2018, 08:01:54 PM
There's a reason nobody does 3-pedal hybrids anymore (not that there were ever many of them for sale). They aren't that efficient. Can't run fully electric. Basically restricted to a mild hybrid where the electric motor gives you some assist (allowing for an undersized IC engine).
The eCVT is an excellent piece of engineering, yet boring as fuck to drive. I think some of the automated functions should be given manual controls. Maybe someone has already hacked a Prius's software in order to do something like that.
CVTs should come with an airplane throttle lever to control the ratio.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on November 19, 2018, 09:31:25 PM
CVTs should come with an airplane throttle lever to control the ratio.
I've always wanted this, lol!
Quote from: 2o6 on November 18, 2018, 11:29:36 AM
Like...y'all make it sound like they took the rear axle off of an old Chrysler van.
:lol:
It's a downgrade. If torsion beams were equal to IRSs, IRSs would not exist.
To be fair there are great driving cars with torsion beams. But if you had the choice between a (torsion) beam and IRS what would you pick?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 20, 2018, 05:03:50 AM
:lol:
It's a downgrade. If torsion beams were equal to IRSs, IRSs would not exist.
To be fair there are great driving cars with torsion beams. But if you had the choice between a (torsion) beam and IRS what would you pick?
Its not always that simple
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 20, 2018, 06:02:30 AM
Its not always that simple
Of course not. But that doesn't close the gap
The 3 is a little too big and way too expensive IMO for a torsion beam.
Virtually nobody that's going to buy this thing gives a fuck about the rear suspension.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 20, 2018, 07:46:00 AM
Of course not. But that doesn't close the gap
The 3 is a little too big and way too expensive IMO for a torsion beam.
Not much bigger than a MkIV Golf, and those were torsion beam. As was the Euro Civic of a generation or two ago.
New car buyers expectations on a "good driving" car has been so diluted by the SUV craze and general "buy tons of cheap shit" consumerism that this sort of think no longer matters.
Mazda is just cashing in on their brand equity they built in the late 90s and 00s. They will need a new CEO with a new direction when they run out of equity.
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 09:21:08 AM
New car buyers expectations on a "good driving" car has been so diluted by the SUV craze and general "buy tons of cheap shit" consumerism that this sort of think no longer matters.
Mazda is just cashing in on their brand equity they built in the late 90s and 00s. They will need a new CEO with a new direction when they run out of equity.
Mazda is making great stuff right now. Ur just mad they killed the RX-8.
They make nothing with any actual "zoom" for probably over 5 years now
Luckily they still have some good designers.
ND Miata is zoomier than the NB and Protege that were the foundation of the whole "Zoom" campaign.
Quote from: MX793 on November 20, 2018, 09:53:45 AM
ND Miata is zoomier than the NB and Protege that were the foundation of the whole "Zoom" campaign.
You can say that about practically anything compared to its 20 year old relative. Progress has been made.
Saying that, the 2019 MX5 is no faster than the 15 year old Mazdaspeed Miata. Mazdaspeed and all "tuner" type mentality died a sad death many years ago.
Torsion beams work great and are easy to maintain. No drawbacks for the average person.
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 09:59:13 AM
You can say that about practically anything compared to its 20 year old relative. Progress has been made.
Saying that, the 2019 MX5 is no faster than the 15 year old Mazdaspeed Miata. Mazdaspeed and all "tuner" type mentality died a sad death many years ago.
The next generation would rather call an Uber so they can spend more time staring at their phones.
Quote from: MX793 on November 20, 2018, 08:29:21 AM
Not much bigger than a MkIV Golf, and those were torsion beam. As was the Euro Civic of a generation or two ago.
MkIV Golf is >10 years old, Euro Civic got dinged for said suspension.
Hell, a rear MacP suspension would be enough.
Suspension design is increasingly important as our infrastructure goes to shit.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 20, 2018, 10:20:08 AM
MkIV Golf is >10 years old, Euro Civic got dinged for said suspension.
Hell, a rear MacP suspension would be enough.
Suspension design is increasingly important as our infrastructure goes to shit.
I bet a solid axle 1970 Cadillac rides better than an IRS Civic. ;)
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 20, 2018, 08:12:39 AM
Virtually nobody that's going to buy this thing gives a fuck about the rear suspension.
We said the same thing about the Corolla for god knows how many years and Toyota apparently came to the conclusion that people care enough to actually put in a competent rear suspension in the new one. I think people get hung up on the average consumer not knowing the difference vs the average consumer feeling the difference which driving these cars back to back you totally can.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on November 20, 2018, 10:32:09 AM
I bet a solid axle 1970 Cadillac rides better than an IRS Civic. ;)
Bring back the tire! This giant wheel craze has got to end. The roads are too shitty for them.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 20, 2018, 10:20:08 AM
MkIV Golf is >10 years old, Euro Civic got dinged for said suspension.
Hell, a rear MacP suspension would be enough.
Suspension design is increasingly important as our infrastructure goes to shit.
Torsion beam is actually a superior setup than a MacP strut. Performs similarly, less packaging space, fewer parts.
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 09:59:13 AM
You can say that about practically anything compared to its 20 year old relative. Progress has been made.
Saying that, the 2019 MX5 is no faster than the 15 year old Mazdaspeed Miata. Mazdaspeed and all "tuner" type mentality died a sad death many years ago.
A full second quicker to 60, .7s and 4 mph quicker in the quarter, 2 seconds quicker to 100, and 1.7s quicker 5-60 is "no faster"? That's a lot faster. And for less money, adjusting for inflation. The ND runs about on par with the RX-8, at least in acceleration.
My only experience with a torsion beam car was an early model Pontiac Sunfire that I got as a loner. Upon leaving the lot, I had to pull over to the side of the road to see if the tires were flat, the suspension seemed so unresponsive compared to the Focus my wife had at the time.
Hopefully, Mazda has put a bit more effort into the driving dynamics. Torsion beams seem okay on A body cars; not so much on bigger models.
Yea, torsion beam rear suspensions are very superior after looking past the lack of spring rate adjustability, sway bar adjustability, basic control over camber and toe (and well rear wheel position in general), ect
Quote from: MX793 on November 20, 2018, 10:42:03 AM
A full second quicker to 60, .7s and 4 mph quicker in the quarter, 2 seconds quicker to 100, and 1.7s quicker 5-60 is "no faster"? That's a lot faster. And for less money, adjusting for inflation.
Bullshit... Mid 14 sec 1/4 mile just like today
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/miata-mx-5/2004/2004-mazdaspeed-mx-5-miata/
Same goes for the current 3... Gets obliterated by a Mazdaspeed 3 and equalled by the ancient Mazdaspeed Protege. There are no mazda performance offerings anymore... The company would rather try to be a budget Lexus.
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 10:45:25 AM
Yea, torsion beam rear suspensions are very superior after looking past the lack of spring rate adjustability, sway bar adjustability, basic control over camber and toe (and well rear wheel position in general), ect
You can add a roll bar to a torsion beam, providing some level of adjustment. MkIV GTIs had torsion beams with sway bars.
MacPs have shitty articulation and kinematics that results in camber changes when the suspension moves. They also frequently have no camber adjustment (Mustangs use MacP fronts and there's no way to adjust camber without cutting metal). Like the torsion beam, it's a rear suspension design suited for low-demand commuters, but has worse packaging than the torsion beam.
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 10:51:54 AM
Bullshit... Mid 14 sec 1/4 mile just like today
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/miata-mx-5/2004/2004-mazdaspeed-mx-5-miata/
Same goes for the current 3... Gets obliterated by a Mazdaspeed 3 and equalled by the ancient Mazdaspeed Protege. There are no mazda performance offerings anymore... The company would rather try to be a budget Lexus.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/mazdaspeed-mx-5-miata-road-test (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/mazdaspeed-mx-5-miata-road-test)
:huh:
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 10:51:54 AM
Bullshit... Mid 14 sec 1/4 mile just like today
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/miata-mx-5/2004/2004-mazdaspeed-mx-5-miata/
Same goes for the current 3... Gets obliterated by a Mazdaspeed 3 and equalled by the ancient Mazdaspeed Protege. There are no mazda performance offerings anymore... The company would rather try to be a budget Lexus.
The
only time they've truly gone balls to the wall with horsepower was with the FC RX-7.
The RX8 has always been regarded as a "do more with less" type of car compared to its V6 peers.
Quote from: MX793 on November 20, 2018, 10:53:37 AM
You can add a roll bar to a torsion beam, providing some level of adjustment. MkIV GTIs had torsion beams with sway bars.
MacPs have shitty articulation and kinematics that results in camber changes when the suspension moves. They also frequently have no camber adjustment (Mustangs use MacP fronts and there's no way to adjust camber without cutting metal). Like the torsion beam, it's a rear suspension design suited for low-demand commuters, but has worse packaging than the torsion beam.
Packaging is super important in this segment, since the platforms are donors for CUVs which sell on cargo volume and cupholder count.
Quote from: MX793 on November 20, 2018, 10:53:37 AM
You can add a roll bar to a torsion beam, providing some level of adjustment. MkIV GTIs had torsion beams with sway bars.
MacPs have shitty articulation and kinematics that results in camber changes when the suspension moves. They also frequently have no camber adjustment (Mustangs use MacP fronts and there's no way to adjust camber without cutting metal). Like the torsion beam, it's a rear suspension design suited for low-demand commuters, but has worse packaging than the torsion beam.
Camber is easily adjusted in Mc P suspension. Mc P can also have a variable rate springs. The sway bar actually does something! The rear wheel doesn't relocate itself forward like on a twist axel when it moves... but who the hell wants a suspension that locates the wheel
Good grief... and then let's not mention double wishbone or multilink setups exist
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 20, 2018, 05:03:50 AM
:lol:
It's a downgrade. If torsion beams were equal to IRSs, IRSs would not exist.
To be fair there are great driving cars with torsion beams. But if you had the choice between a (torsion) beam and IRS what would you pick?
stop saying IRS. Torsion beams are independent.
"IRS" could be a multilink setup, or it could be simple struts on all four corners.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 20, 2018, 06:02:30 AM
Its not always that simple
Also this! Torsion beams work plenty fine for the applications they're commonly used for. They're also really compact.
Quote from: Laconian on November 20, 2018, 11:04:43 AM
Packaging is super important in this segment, since the platforms are donors for CUVs which sell on cargo volume and cupholder count.
All the more reason to go with a multilink/strut suspension. I don't think any crossover has a torsion beam, maybe aside from the CH-R which makes no sense anyway.
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 11:12:13 AM
Camber is easily adjusted in Mc P suspension. Mc P can also have a variable rate springs. The sway bar actually does something! The rear wheel doesn't relocate itself forward like on a twist axel when it moves... but who the hell wants a suspension that locates the wheel
Good grief... and then let's not mention double wishbone or multilink setups exist
Yea I am seeing all the kinds of camber kits that were available for my Civic. I ran -1.5 at the front with nothing but the adjustability of the coilovers (stock top hat)
Plus the rear is a lot more flexible for MacP struts... you can pivot them basically at the middle of the car to help with the articulation
Lets not forget that struts have been OK for Porsche/BMW for 40+ years...................................
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 20, 2018, 12:11:38 PM
All the more reason to go with a multilink/strut suspension. I don't think any crossover has a torsion beam, maybe aside from the CH-R which makes no sense anyway.
The CH-R has a multilink setup.
The crossovers that have torsion beams are:
Ecosport
HR-V
Trax
Encore
Soul
Kicks
Juke (FWD)
CX-3
Kona (FWD)
In fact, I think the only car that has a multilink setup is the C-HR, and the Jeep Renegade. And the renegade isn't known for good handling.
Also...have you looked underneath a modern car? Putting struts in place over a simple trailing arm setup with a torsion beam would be a net negative with regards to packaging.
Even in the old Golf IV, the models with 4motion and a multilink rear, the trailing arms are pretty similar to the torsion beam model. and that setup really does fuck with packaging.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on November 20, 2018, 10:32:09 AM
I bet a solid axle 1970 Cadillac rides better than an IRS Civic. ;)
That's all about that sprung/unsprung weight ratio.
Quote from: 2o6 on November 20, 2018, 11:57:46 AM
stop saying IRS. Torsion beams are independent.
"IRS" could be a multilink setup, or it could be simple struts on all four corners.
ehh, semi-independent. Motion of one wheel causes motion in the other. No, its not a live axle (which Lotus used for both weight and handling advantages), but its not completely independent either.
It is however likely (gasp!)- right for the application.
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 11:12:13 AM
Camber is easily adjusted in Mc P suspension. Mc P can also have a variable rate springs. The sway bar actually does something! The rear wheel doesn't relocate itself forward like on a twist axel when it moves... but who the hell wants a suspension that locates the wheel
Good grief... and then let's not mention double wishbone or multilink setups exist
Manufacturers spend countless time and money finding what works best alignment wise for the product they're making. They aren't interested in making it easy for random changes.
Quote from: 2o6 on November 20, 2018, 12:20:58 PM
The CH-R has a multilink setup.
The crossovers that have torsion beams are:
Ecosport
HR-V
Trax
Encore
Soul
Kicks
Juke (FWD)
CX-3
Kona (FWD)
In fact, I think the only car that has a multilink setup is the C-HR, and the Jeep Renegade. And the renegade isn't known for good handling.
Also...have you looked underneath a modern car? Putting struts in place over a simple trailing arm setup with a torsion beam would be a net negative with regards to packaging.
Even in the old Golf IV, the models with 4motion and a multilink rear, the trailing arms are pretty similar to the torsion beam model. and that setup really does fuck with packaging.
So a list of fucking terrible CUV things have torsion beams... What point were you trying to make?
Plus you are missing that multilinks are actually better at rear suspension packaging... While having better handling/control
I think his point was a response to "I don't think any CUVs have torsion beams."
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 20, 2018, 12:51:30 PM
I think his point was a response to "I don't think any CUVs have torsion beams."
and they all universally suck.... Which is what the whole bitch fest is about
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 12:53:06 PM
and they all universally suck.... Which is what the whole bitch fest is about
Amazing that such a universally sucky setup is so widely used.
I honestly don't know if the Juke I drove was AWD or FWD, but its handling was perhaps the best thing about it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 20, 2018, 12:56:09 PM
Amazing that such a universally sucky setup is so widely used.
I honestly don't know if the Juke I drove was AWD or FWD, but its handling was perhaps the best thing about it.
Mazda (supposedly) is about driving dynamics at its core. Yes, the setup is widely used and sucks in every single example for what is (supposedly) a core Mazda value.
As mentioned earlier, it's just Mazda being cheap and cashing in on its past brand equity (that came at the expense of unique and costly multilink rear suspensions for the last 15 years). Nothing more, nothing less.
Strong words for a car you haven't driven.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on November 20, 2018, 01:03:35 PM
Strong words for a car you haven't driven.
This forum wouldn't exist if posters couldn't have an opinion on on cars we haven't driven.
You know what car also has a torsion beam?
The Cobalt SS.
The 500 abarth.
The fiesta ST.
Quote from: 2o6 on November 20, 2018, 01:22:09 PM
You know what car also has a torsion beam?
The Cobalt SS.
The 500 abarth.
The fiesta ST.
Don't forget the Fiesta SFE 1.0 Ecobooost.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 20, 2018, 12:28:45 PM
ehh, semi-independent. Motion of one wheel causes motion in the other. No, its not a live axle (which Lotus used for both weight and handling advantages), but its not completely independent either.
It is however likely (gasp!)- right for the application.
This is the biggest impact on vigorous driving I would think; that both wheels are impacted when one wheel goes over a bump. Not so good for rally driving or racing in general, but likely okay for the average romp around town.
Quote from: FoMoJo on November 20, 2018, 01:27:26 PM
This is the biggest impact on vigorous driving I would think; that both wheels are impacted when one wheel goes over a bump. Not so good for rally driving or racing in general, but likely okay for the average romp around town.
And it's the same for any suspension with a sway bar.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on November 20, 2018, 01:29:19 PM
And it's the same for any suspension with a sway bar.
Yeah, a torsion bar is basically just a trailing arm suspension with a built-in sway bar.
My only wish is that I could also have a torsion beam in the front.
Quote from: FoMoJo on November 20, 2018, 01:27:26 PM
This is the biggest impact on vigorous driving I would think; that both wheels are impacted when one wheel goes over a bump. Not so good for rally driving or racing in general, but likely okay for the average romp around town.
It definitely handles rough stuff with more chop and bucking than a proper gravel spec suspension would; but nobody yet has mentioned rallycross or even dirt in any form. On pavement, even a well sorted live axle can produce good handling, and sometimes has advantages over IRS suspensions.
My sonic has a torsion beam and it drives great. The only tendency I've noticed is maybe a little more bump steer, but in the grand scheme of things I've driven "IRS" setups that feel significantly less secure.
It's just such a silly hill to die on. The internet has latched onto "IRS" as the new way to shit on cars they've never driven.
A go kart with no suspension is great until you hit a bump... Like what happens in the real world
Quote from: CaminoRacer on November 20, 2018, 01:30:29 PM
Yeah, a torsion bar is basically just a trailing arm suspension with a built-in sway bar.
I suspect that the stress factors are different.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 20, 2018, 01:45:20 PM
It definitely handles rough stuff with more chop and bucking than a proper gravel spec suspension would; but nobody yet has mentioned rallycross or even dirt in any form. On pavement, even a well sorted live axle can produce good handling, and sometimes has advantages over IRS suspensions.
Certainly terrain makes a big different. We also need to consider unsprung weight.
Quote from: r0tor on November 20, 2018, 01:01:03 PM
Mazda (supposedly) is about driving dynamics at its core. Yes, the setup is widely used and sucks in every single example for what is (supposedly) a core Mazda value.
As mentioned earlier, it's just Mazda being cheap and cashing in on its past brand equity (that came at the expense of unique and costly multilink rear suspensions for the last 15 years). Nothing more, nothing less.
Ah yes. When I think of automotive OEMs with massive brand equity that they can cash in on, Mazda is the first one that comes to mind :lol: :wtf:
Quote from: MrH on November 20, 2018, 03:17:20 PM
Ah yes. When I think of automotive OEMs with massive brand equity that they can cash in on, Mazda is the first one that comes to mind :lol: :wtf:
Strip away the "zoom zoom" equity and your pretty much left with mediocre powered cars with nice interiors (as of late) and of have died a decade ago
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on November 20, 2018, 01:23:09 PM
Don't forget the Fiesta SFE 1.0 Ecobooost.
And the Chevy Sonic
Quote from: 2o6 on November 20, 2018, 01:59:05 PM
My sonic has a torsion beam and it drives great. The only tendency I've noticed is maybe a little more bump steer, but in the grand scheme of things I've driven "IRS" setups that feel significantly less secure.
It's just such a silly hill to die on. The internet has latched onto "IRS" as the new way to shit on cars they've never driven.
Your Sonic is tiny and doesn't get too pricey
Lets put this way.... what other $30K hatch/sedan can you buy with a torsion beam?
My mom just found out that the new 3 won't have IRS, so she's buying a current gen 3 as we speak.
Quote from: Laconian on November 20, 2018, 05:17:56 PM
My mom just found out that the new 3 won't have IRS, so she's buying a current gen 3 as we speak.
Smart woman :ohyeah:.
Actually it's more to do with risk aversion for the new engine. My dad found it very upsetting how Honda badly biffed the CR-V Earth Dreams rollout. He thought the Japanese manufacturers were above that. He's newly skeptical of "new engine tech" like forced induction, sigh.
Quote from: Laconian on November 20, 2018, 05:29:50 PM
Actually it's more to do with risk aversion for the new engine. My dad found it very upsetting how Honda badly biffed the CR-V Earth Dreams rollout. He thought the Japanese manufacturers were above that. He's newly skeptical of "new engine tech" like forced induction, sigh.
Small displacement twin scroll turbo engines are excellent at this stage. Surprising how much performance is available when needed and, yet, with careful driving, mileage is exceptional. This is what I've found.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 20, 2018, 05:05:28 PM
And the Chevy Sonic
Your Sonic is tiny and doesn't get too pricey
Lets put this way.... what other $30K hatch/sedan can you buy with a torsion beam?
- A Class.
- Buick Verano (old)
Quote from: 2o6 on November 20, 2018, 06:19:01 PM
- A Class.
- Buick Verano (old)
I mean...............................
The Verano doesn't even exist anymore...............................
What about cars which use use a watt linkage? Some of the Opel/Buicks employ that.
Quote from: Galaxy on November 20, 2018, 10:45:19 PM
What about cars which use use a watt linkage? Some of the Opel/Buicks employ that.
A Watt's linkage is a way of locating an axle so it moves freely up and down, but will not shift laterally. Its an addition to a suspension, not the suspension geometry itself; usually a used on a live axle, but can also be used on a torsion beam and some trailing arm arrangements in which case it reduces side shift.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--V9YtpY0V--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/dktpp5ean4mvgwraodaz.jpg)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--reUjlzTl--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/dnksxwjbihnltfp4xf3o.jpg)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/sr746noaeeqnspnnqbqg.jpg)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--qIOiE1nM--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/s3nkfz3fghyuqqyhnzbo.jpg)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ZcHvZXFl--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/klgdnd600mqiopgyxqnm.jpg)
I'm gonna be blunt- I don't like the exterior. Hatch has too much C pillar sheet meat as someone else put it; both look bland and a little old? Real step back from the current gen
Interior looks great though and I'm really waiting to see what's up with the powertrain, and whether or not that's getting ported to the 6. Just like with the current 3/6, I think the 6 with this design language will look incredible. Though I do wish they added some more tension or variation to the surfaces
I love it.
As usual, looks fantastic. Mazda and Audi don't change much between gens but it works.
I have mixed feelings about all of the metal that is the C pillar on the hatch. Especially since it's not broken up by any kind of character lines. I feel like there needs to be some kind of crease or line from the corner of the tail light to break up that big slab of metal.
That ass looks terrible
I think the lens is making it look narrower and longer than it actually is.
Oh God it's beautiful. :wub:
I love the ass, butt the hood looks too long.
That C "pillar" (more like C wall) is absolutely horrible, at least from that first angle. The front and back halves look like completely different vehicles.
Yeah, not feelin' the hatch. The "visual heft" at the back is just... too much. Sedan looks nice though.
Interior is... :/ I don't know, there's just something weird about the way the big piece that goes across the middle meets the other parts of the dash. I think it's the way it slopes up to meet the binnacle over the gauges, and how it seemingly cuts off the bottom of the 'infotainment' screen.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ZcHvZXFl--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/klgdnd600mqiopgyxqnm.jpg)
Mazda designers be thinkin' 'bout Halo.
(https://www.gamestop.com/gs/images/content-pdp/halo-energy-sword-only-at-gamestop_128701/Energy_Sword_Full_2_Lifestyle.jpg)
I see a lot of influence from the RX-7 concept car.
I like it a lot. Very clean design - so much better than the crap that Civics have going on.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on November 28, 2018, 08:28:17 AM
I like it a lot. Very clean design - so much better than the crap that Civics have going on.
But fake vents and too many creases and crazy bullshit look so much better!
(https://www.hondacivicusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Screenshot_14-1.jpg)
Nobody on Google Earth thinks the 10th gen Civic is a good looking car. But IMO the only thing the 3 has on the Civic is looks. The Civic is the better car.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 28, 2018, 10:37:19 AM
But IMO the only thing the 3 has on the Civic is looks. The Civic is the better car.
It is not even out yet. :huh:
Quote from: Galaxy on November 28, 2018, 10:39:31 AM
It is not even out yet. :huh:
Doesn't matter. If it doesn't have IRS it simply cannot be comparable.
Man, I'm not liking it :mask:
It sounds like Mazda put all of its development money in the interior and the engine, figured the chassis was too good for the class anyway so dumbed it down, and added a ton of sheet-metal in the rear to make sure you feel extra claustrophobic.
I love the outside, but yes, it's going to be claustrophobic inside. I think my mom made the right choice with her purchase of the 2018.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 28, 2018, 10:37:19 AM
Nobody on Google Earth thinks the 10th gen Civic is a good looking car. But IMO the only thing the 3 has on the Civic is looks. The Civic is the better car.
:wtf:
Quote from: Laconian on November 28, 2018, 10:49:54 AM
I love the outside, but yes, it's going to be claustrophobic inside. I think my mom made the right choice with her purchase of the 2018.
For the first time, I actually think the 3 sedan looks better than the hatch.
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 28, 2018, 09:04:06 AM
But fake vents and too many creases and crazy bullshit look so much better!
At least the general proportions are reasonable though. I'd rather have a few weird angles than a C pillar I could play tennis on.
Quote from: Xer0 on November 28, 2018, 10:57:32 AM
For the first time, I actually think the 3 sedan looks better than the hatch.
Me too.
Is it news that the Skyactiv-X is launching "at a later date", or was that always the plan?
Quote from: Galaxy on November 28, 2018, 02:41:07 PM
Is it news that the Skyactiv-X is launching "at a later date", or was that always the plan?
WHAT
Is Jacob back at Mazda?
Quote from: Laconian on November 28, 2018, 02:41:36 PM
WHAT
"and eventually will be offered with an advanced new engine technology called Skyactiv-X."
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/2019-mazda-3-sedan-hatchback-photos-info
It is launching with the 2.5.
Looks better with the camo on it. :huh:
(https://images.carscoops.com/2018/11/77ef0a8e-2019-mazda3-hatchback-spy-shots-8-768x485.jpg)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--V9YtpY0V--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/dktpp5ean4mvgwraodaz.jpg)
Quote from: Xer0 on November 28, 2018, 10:57:32 AM
For the first time, I actually think the 3 sedan looks better than the hatch.
Quote from: 93JC on November 28, 2018, 02:34:19 PM
Me too.
+ about 2000
(https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/mQ9qP/s1/2019-mazda3.jpg)
(https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/7lVoJ/s1/2019-mazda3.jpg)
I dunno. I think the hatch has a nice 90's Saab meets Alfa butt.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 28, 2018, 11:09:20 AM
At least the general proportions are reasonable though. I'd rather have a few weird angles than a C pillar I could play tennis on.
That is a fair point.
Pardon the crappy MSPaint editing job, but even just extending the waistline a bit further back on the door and making that little quarter window bigger would help a lot, IMO.
EDIT: In fact, that's pretty close to what they did with the rear door on the sedan, except that the sedan does a better job of keeping the kink in the door that's become a trademark of Mazda3s than my edit does. Not sure why they didn't keep that on the hatch.
ORIGINAL:
(https://i.imgur.com/h2znDxi.jpg)
EDITED:
(https://i.imgur.com/vbKdqPM.jpg)
EDIT 2: Here's another version with more window, but retaining the kink. So much better, IMO. There's just too much metal back there on the real car. I think I'd even keep the waistline on the rear door a bit lower to let the kink stand out more, but I don't feel like doing another edit.
(https://i.imgur.com/QLY35ww.jpg)
Nope. I love it as is. Like Kevin said, it has an Alfa vibe. 30 years of fat Golf C pillar, and this bugs you guys? It's not even a distinct C pillar, but a beautiful blending of pillar and rear quarter.
I like edit #2 but I still think this is going to look great on the road.
Especially in that gunmetal metallic mica like on my RF.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 28, 2018, 06:16:47 PM
Nope. I love it as is. Like Kevin said, it has an Alfa vibe. 30 years of fat Golf C pillar, and this bugs you guys? It's not even a distinct C pillar, but a beautiful blending of pillar and rear quarter.
It is admittedly a little reminiscent of an Alfa Brera, but I didn't care much for the Brera either. :mask:
YES, that's the one, the Brera. It's a better-looking Brera!
(https://res.cloudinary.com/carsguide/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy,q_auto,t_cg_hero_large/v1/editorial/dp/albums/album-6316/lg/2006_Alfa_Romeo_Brera_rear-gallery.jpg)
(https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/gallery_slide/public/images/car-reviews/first-drives/legacy/alfa-brera-ubg-28thdec-0135.jpg?itok=aXdZIViA)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/z1hxmr6djzjxq8zvyajj.jpg)
Minimalist interior, seems inspired by the Model 3 but with better ergonomics
Quote from: Rockraven on November 28, 2018, 10:51:45 AM
:wtf:
I have driven the current Civic and 3 and I stand by this. 3 is nice to look at but the Civic is just as nice to drive with the 2.0 and way better with the turbo
Quote from: Laconian on November 28, 2018, 11:33:03 PM
(https://res.cloudinary.com/carsguide/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy,q_auto,t_cg_hero_large/v1/editorial/dp/albums/album-6316/lg/2006_Alfa_Romeo_Brera_rear-gallery.jpg)
(https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/gallery_slide/public/images/car-reviews/first-drives/legacy/alfa-brera-ubg-28thdec-0135.jpg?itok=aXdZIViA)
But Alfa had the good sense to put a crease in the sheet metal at the base of the C pillar to visually break up the sheetmetal and cleanly demarcate where the fender stops and C pillar (and green house) begins. Mazda didn't, and it looks really awkward for it.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 29, 2018, 05:06:32 AM
I have driven the current Civic and 3 and I stand by this. 3 is nice to look at but the Civic is just as nice to drive with the 2.0 and way better with the turbo
But we're talking about the new not released yet 3, not the old one.
Quote from: MX793 on November 29, 2018, 05:10:23 AM
But Alfa had the good sense to put a crease in the sheet metal at the base of the C pillar to visually break up the sheetmetal and cleanly demarcate where the fender stops and C pillar (and green house) begins. Mazda didn't, and it looks really awkward for it.
I think that's missing the point. It looks like their design intent is a continuous flow where the C pillar visually disappears into the rear quarters, and I think it works.
Goddamn the Brera. :wub: What years were they produced? I oughta import one under our 15 year rule. 2004's are eligible now.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 29, 2018, 05:14:52 AM
But we're talking about the new not released yet 3, not the old one.
Same engines, worse suspension. We'll see what happens I guess.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 29, 2018, 05:17:42 AM
I think that's missing the point. It looks like their design intent is a continuous flow where the C pillar visually disappears into the rear quarters, and I think it works.
The Mazda looks unfinished. Like a CG model that has been de-featured due to lack of computing resources.
Quote from: MX793 on November 29, 2018, 06:29:26 AM
The Mazda looks unfinished. Like a CG model that has been de-featured due to lack of computing resources.
Or is it just ultra streamlined and efficiently assembled?
Quote from: MX793 on November 29, 2018, 06:29:26 AM
The Mazda looks unfinished. Like a CG model that has been de-featured due to lack of computing resources.
Maybe we're all used to the overdone cars from other manufacturers, making the 3 stick out as odd to some. Just a thought... it's all subjective and personal taste anyways.
Quote from: MX793 on November 29, 2018, 05:10:23 AM
But Alfa had the good sense to put a crease in the sheet metal at the base of the C pillar to visually break up the sheetmetal and cleanly demarcate where the fender stops and C pillar (and green house) begins. Mazda didn't, and it looks really awkward for it.
+1
They should have made the little spoiler above the rear windshield body colored too. It'd give the rear of the car more shape instead of just a giant blob.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 29, 2018, 07:40:19 AM
Maybe we're all used to the overdone cars from other manufacturers, making the 3 stick out as odd to some. Just a thought... it's all subjective and personal taste anyways.
I wouldn't call the Brera overdone at all. A subtle crease in the sheetmetal would make a huge difference between a car with clearly defined lines and one suffering from blobby bar of soap syndrome. That C pillar doesn't even jive with the rest of the design. There are clear character lines Incorporated in the front of the car that travel back to about the rear door handle, then just vanish into a huge slab of poorly defined sheetmetal.
(https://http2.mlstatic.com/puerta-trasera-izquierda-mazda-3-sin-maleta-D_NQ_NP_449021-MLV20684168457_042016-F.jpg)
(https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/2018-mazda3-in-for-mild-updates-all-new-model-with-hcci-engine-in-the-pipeline-119361_1.jpg)
(https://c.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/09_Mazda3_5HB_EXT_9-1280x607.jpg)
It just looks weird without a more defined 'shoulder' at the rear quarter...
How the hell are you supposed to see out of that thing? The visibility must be terrible.
Something else I'm kind of irrationally upset with:
(https://s.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/916x515/quality/95/https://s.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/747/669/3/S7476693/slug/l/2019-mazda3-1.jpg)
That is NOT the Mazda script, god dammit!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/81/Mazda1.svg/640px-Mazda1.svg.png)
Ahura-dammit
Quote from: WookieOnRitalin on November 29, 2018, 09:43:07 PM
How the hell are you supposed to see out of that thing? The visibility must be terrible.
You don't. You signal, call your insurance agent, and brace for impact.
Quote from: WookieOnRitalin on November 29, 2018, 09:43:07 PM
How the hell are you supposed to see out of that thing? The visibility must be terrible.
It's a small car. I bet IRL that C-pillar is hardly a blind spot.
Not a fan of the hatch. It's got an ugly butt. The sedan looks OK for a car in this class. I had told my girlfriend to hold off getting a Mazda6 or CX-5 until we saw the new 3. Now I'm going to tell her to get one of those over this.
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 30, 2018, 01:20:36 PM
It's a small car. I bet IRL that C-pillar is hardly a blind spot.
Well, reports from the LA Autoshow say it's pretty bad. Definitely form over function, but whatever. I still love it and I'd love it even more if it had just 2 doors.
Quote from: 93JC on November 29, 2018, 09:38:50 PM
(https://http2.mlstatic.com/puerta-trasera-izquierda-mazda-3-sin-maleta-D_NQ_NP_449021-MLV20684168457_042016-F.jpg)
(https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/2018-mazda3-in-for-mild-updates-all-new-model-with-hcci-engine-in-the-pipeline-119361_1.jpg)
(https://c.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/09_Mazda3_5HB_EXT_9-1280x607.jpg)
It just looks weird without a more defined 'shoulder' at the rear quarter...
The roll down part of the rear side glass is almost identical. The gripes would be about the rear fixed quarter windows, and the previous car had a black plastic fillet that covered the back part of it.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 30, 2018, 01:37:41 PM
Well, reports from the LA Autoshow say it's pretty bad. Definitely form over function, but whatever. I still love it and I'd love it even more if it had just 2 doors.
An autshow is hardly real world. I can climb into almost any new car sitting on the showroom floor and cringe at the apparent blind spot.
I'm not doubting it, just saying it's probably not terrible in real life driving.
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 30, 2018, 01:41:05 PM
An autshow is hardly real world. I can climb into almost any new car sitting on the showroom floor and cringe at the apparent blind spot.
I'm not doubting it, just saying it's probably not terrible in real life driving.
I'm sure it's perfectly fine for driver and passenger. Fuck 'em in the back anyways.
I'm sure it has warning lights and sounds and heads up shit so you don't even have to look anymore. My Mazda6 would be a drunk drivers dream. Damn car tells me things I don't even want to know.
Honestly, how many of you are doing over the shoulder checks anymore?
In the 4Runner - every time
S2000 - everytime, but the top is always down so I can see everything
Accord - never. Blind spot monitoring is great. Once you get used to the lights, you just trust those more than a quick head check.
Quote from: MrH on November 30, 2018, 01:47:56 PM
Honestly, how many of you are doing over the shoulder checks anymore?
In the 4Runner - every time
S2000 - everytime, but the top is always down so I can see everything
Accord - never. Blind spot monitoring is great. Once you get used to the lights, you just trust those more than a quick head check.
I always do. Taco has excellent visibility with its short cab.
But I do appreciate the blind spot monitors on cars when I do drive a customer's vehicle that has them. They're neat and quite accurate/useful. Still physically check by habit, though.
Anyways, it's the B pillar that creates blindspots, not the C. Partly why I prefer the longer doors of a coupe.
Shit I'd love for them to make an MX-3 or MX-6 out of the 6 and 3. It won't happen however.
I saw an MX-3 GS today, first one in years. Made me miss my old car.
Quote from: Onslaught on November 30, 2018, 01:52:51 PM
Shit I'd love for them to make an MX-3 or MX-6 out of the 6 and 3. It won't happen however.
I saw an MX-3 GS today, first one in years. Made me miss my old car.
The loss of coupes and manuals makes me sad. This new 3 makes me a little happier, with coupish looks and a manual.
Quote from: Onslaught on November 30, 2018, 01:52:51 PM
Shit I'd love for them to make an MX-3 or MX-6 out of the 6 and 3. It won't happen however.
I saw an MX-3 GS today, first one in years. Made me miss my old car.
I had a '92 Nissan NX2000. I haven't seen another in 20 years.
Quote from: MrH on November 30, 2018, 01:47:56 PM
Honestly, how many of you are doing over the shoulder checks anymore?
In the 4Runner - every time
S2000 - everytime, but the top is always down so I can see everything
Accord - never. Blind spot monitoring is great. Once you get used to the lights, you just trust those more than a quick head check.
Motorcycles don't always show up.
The 3 has a HUD which displays blindspot detector warnings.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 30, 2018, 01:51:24 PM
Anyways, it's the B pillar that creates blindspots, not the C. Partly why I prefer the longer doors of a coupe.
I do not agree with that lol
I can't see shit on the right side if the passenger-side rear seat headrest is up in the Explorer because it blocks 100% of the cargo window on that side.
But I also adjust my side mirrors way wider than most people. Moves the blind spot a bit further back, but also makes it waaaaay smaller.
Do you guys know the trick to adjust your side mirrors to eliminate blind spots?
Put your left cheek to the driver mirror and move the driver's side mirror until you just barely see your car's sheet metal.
Move your head to the middle of the car, and again, move the passenger window until you barely see the sheet metal.
Voila, no blind spots.
Quote from: Laconian on November 30, 2018, 03:04:04 PM
Do you guys know the trick to adjust your side mirrors to eliminate blind spots?
Put your left cheek to the driver mirror and move the driver's side mirror until you just barely see your car's sheet metal.
Move your head to the middle of the car, and again, move the passenger window until you barely see the sheet metal.
Voila, no blind spots.
pfff
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1aoSYIFXXXXb_XFXXq6xXFXXXJ/120825503/HTB1aoSYIFXXXXb_XFXXq6xXFXXXJ.jpg)
Quote from: Laconian on November 30, 2018, 03:04:04 PM
Do you guys know the trick to adjust your side mirrors to eliminate blind spots?
Put your left cheek to the driver mirror and move the driver's side mirror until you just barely see your car's sheet metal.
Move your head to the middle of the car, and again, move the passenger window until you barely see the sheet metal.
Voila, no blind spots.
I'm a little confused. Put your left cheek to the driver mirror? :confused: I don't think I could do that without being outside of the car.
Quote from: FoMoJo on November 30, 2018, 03:16:36 PM
I'm a little confused. Put your left cheek to the driver mirror? :confused: I don't think I could do that without being outside of the car.
I believe he meant driverside window.
Quote from: Laconian on November 30, 2018, 03:04:04 PM
Do you guys know the trick to adjust your side mirrors to eliminate blind spots?
Put your left cheek to the driver mirror and move the driver's side mirror until you just barely see your car's sheet metal.
Move your head to the middle of the car, and again, move the passenger window until you barely see the sheet metal.
Voila, no blind spots.
That's effectively what I do, but I was taught to do it by staying in your normal driving position (other than rotating your head, just no leaning) and adjusting your side mirrors so that there's no (or only a tiny) overlap between the rear view mirror and each side view mirror. When I do that, it leaves a tiny blind spot (that maybe a motorcycle could fit in, but very few if any cars), but I can lean like you're describing to see it if I need to.
Quote from: WookieOnRitalin on November 29, 2018, 09:43:07 PM
How the hell are you supposed to see out of that thing? The visibility must be terrible.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--GfJjxdV0--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/lpyt8zx5t51khwi13svv.jpg)
Uhhh yeah that's a cave lol
And yes, I meant window :lol:
Quote from: Rockraven on November 30, 2018, 01:40:03 PM
The roll down part of the rear side glass is almost identical. The gripes would be about the rear fixed quarter windows, and the previous car had a black plastic fillet that covered the back part of it.
That's not what he's talking about. Look at the quarter panel sheetmetal above the rear wheel. On the generation 2 and 3 cars, there's a crease/ridge in the metal that visually separates the top of the fender from the base of the C pillar, creating a sort of "shoulder". That's what the gen 4 car needs.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 30, 2018, 01:51:24 PM
Anyways, it's the B pillar that creates blindspots, not the C. Partly why I prefer the longer doors of a coupe.
Coupes can have terrible blind spots too. I used to make my wife guide me to parallel park the Z. And I used to parallel park damn near daily in NYC.
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 30, 2018, 03:13:59 PM
pfff
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1aoSYIFXXXXb_XFXXq6xXFXXXJ/120825503/HTB1aoSYIFXXXXb_XFXXq6xXFXXXJ.jpg)
+1
I get the giant convex mirrors and cover up that useless flat mirror.
Completely unsurprising... No t Mazdaspeed version... Or rotary couple for that matter. Mazda as we know it is dead.
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/12/03/mazda3-mazdaspeed-mps-hot-hatch/
Much better pictures...
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGqRzN4y/2019-mazda3-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXMtyyLJ/2019-mazda3-1-1.jpg)
Nice looking car.
Looks good to me. Maybe a bit flat, but not offensive.
Charlie's 2nd pic (?) with the rear triangle window extended down does look better. The "kink" continued on from the 2018 model, but it probably shouldn't have.
It would look better with a huge turbo and 300 HP.
Quote from: r0tor on December 03, 2018, 05:18:37 PM
Completely unsurprising... Not Mazdaspeed version... Or rotary couple for that matter. Mazda as we know it is dead.
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/12/03/mazda3-mazdaspeed-mps-hot-hatch/
Mazda lost it's sugar daddy when Ford dumped them. They're too small to go whole hog into niche segments like hot hatches. Not when the market wants EVs, PHEVs, and automation (technologies Mazda doesn't have and doubtfully has the money to develop). We should count our lucky stars they are still making the Miata (and that is likely only because Fiat went in as partners on a roadster).
Are hot hatches niche? IIRC the GTI outsells the regular Golf in the US. Hyundai/Kia just launched 1 hot hatch and 2 warm sedans. Honda brought back the CTR. There's the Golf R. For all Mazda's talk of driving, and the money they just spent developing that 2.5T, seems like a slam dunk. They have to get every bit of volume they can grab.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2018, 05:06:43 AM
Are hot hatches niche? IIRC the GTI outsells the regular Golf in the US. Hyundai/Kia just launched 1 hot hatch and 2 warm sedans. Honda brought back the CTR. There's the Golf R. For all Mazda's talk of driving, and the money they just spent developing that 2.5T, seems like a slam dunk. They have to get every bit of volume they can grab.
Which sells more worldwide: regular Golf or GTI? And by what margin? Also bear in mind that, like the Mustang, the GTI was segment-defining. It can endure downturns in the segment that other, less-storied competitors cannot (hence why the Mustang is the only pony car to last 50+ years of continuous production while competitors have come and gone, and in some cases come back again).
Ford canned their hot hatches. So did GM (a long time ago). Subaru stopped selling a WRX hatch. It's not just hatches. Hot econocars in general are dwindling, especially in North America. Ford, GM, Chrysler/Dodge, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Toyota, and Mazda have all bailed on the segment within the past decade.
Quote from: MX793 on December 04, 2018, 06:34:19 AM
Which sells more worldwide: regular Golf or GTI? And by what margin? Also bear in mind that, like the Mustang, the GTI was segment-defining. It can endure downturns in the segment that other, less-storied competitors cannot (hence why the Mustang is the only pony car to last 50+ years of continuous production while competitors have come and gone, and in some cases come back again).
Ford canned their hot hatches. So did GM (a long time ago). Subaru stopped selling a WRX hatch. It's not just hatches. Hot econocars in general are dwindling, especially in North America. Ford, GM, Chrysler/Dodge, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Toyota, and Mazda have all bailed on the segment within the past decade.
Ford is no longer making their ST and RS models?
Quote from: FoMoJo on December 04, 2018, 08:16:07 AM
Ford is no longer making their ST and RS models?
They're not bringing them to the US... for now.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2018, 05:06:43 AM
Are hot hatches niche? IIRC the GTI outsells the regular Golf in the US. Hyundai/Kia just launched 1 hot hatch and 2 warm sedans. Honda brought back the CTR. There's the Golf R. For all Mazda's talk of driving, and the money they just spent developing that 2.5T, seems like a slam dunk. They have to get every bit of volume they can grab.
If Mazda dumps that 2.5 in a branded MPS 3 people will complain. That is not a performance engine and from all the reviews I've read of it in the 6 its just kinda "eh". Mazda definitely tested out this engine in the 3 at some point and was probably bored to tears and decided against it. Mazda is very conservative about where its spending its resources and a performance engine that it can't dump in every application is probably not in the cards. We should be thankful they updated the Miata's 2.0 but that car is literally the soul of Mazda so its a very special case.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2018, 08:45:12 AM
They're not bringing them to the US... for now.
I'm fairly certain they've shelved the RS world-wide. Not sure what the status on the ST models in Europe is.
As I have been pointing out, Mazda is no longer worried about being sporty and as the 3 is showing are spending money usually spent on performance/suspension on perceived quality items. It's no longer the "zoom-zoom" company (I think they killed that a year or two ago).
QuoteMarumoto stated that Mazda would rather establish itself as a genuine premium carmaker comparable to its European rivals, stressing that this would be achievable through quality, comfort and refinement improvements in the existing lineup rather than expanding into other segments.
It's "jinba ittai" now. Get with it!
Quote from: MX793 on December 04, 2018, 10:12:20 AM
I'm fairly certain they've shelved the RS world-wide. Not sure what the status on the ST models in Europe is.
As older article, but it seems that they plan to, gradually, electrify it...https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/2020-ford-focus-rs-have-400bhp-425lb-ft-mild-hybrid-powertrain (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/2020-ford-focus-rs-have-400bhp-425lb-ft-mild-hybrid-powertrain)
Quote from: Laconian on December 04, 2018, 11:03:29 AM
It's "jinba ittai" now. Get with it!
That's like 3 slogans old
Nah, it's still in their current brochures.
Quote from: Xer0 on December 04, 2018, 09:04:23 AM
If Mazda dumps that 2.5 in a branded MPS 3 people will complain. That is not a performance engine and from all the reviews I've read of it in the 6 its just kinda "eh". Mazda definitely tested out this engine in the 3 at some point and was probably bored to tears and decided against it. Mazda is very conservative about where its spending its resources and a performance engine that it can't dump in every application is probably not in the cards. We should be thankful they updated the Miata's 2.0 but that car is literally the soul of Mazda so its a very special case.
I mean, if they can retune the Miata engine they can retune the 2.5T for an MS3. I suppose they are getting the volume they need from the CX-5, CX-9 and 6 but IMO they should put it in the 3 too.
Quote from: Laconian on December 04, 2018, 12:43:47 PM
Nah, it's still in their current brochures.
Yea one of their engineers just said it in a recent interview.
REALLY looking to see what's up with the mild hybrid powerplant and if it's coming to the 6 any time soon.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2018, 12:55:39 PM
I mean, if they can retune the Miata engine they can retune the 2.5T for an MS3. I suppose they are getting the volume they need from the CX-5, CX-9 and 6 but IMO they should put it in the 3 too.
Yea one of their engineers just said it in a recent interview.
Depends on the extent of the re-tune. Not sure what they changed on the Miata (cams, heads?). If it was minimal changes to physical hardware, it may not have cost much. With the turbo, you could be looking at a different turbocharger, heads, valves, cams, intercooler. If the turbo is integrated into the exhaust manifold, then a new manifold. Could add up pretty quick.
Quote from: Laconian on December 04, 2018, 11:03:29 AM
It's "jinba ittai" now. Get with it!
I thought it was "Dogs love trucks!"
Quote from: Laconian on December 04, 2018, 12:43:47 PM
Nah, it's still in their current brochures.
It dates back to the NC mx5
Quote from: MX793 on December 04, 2018, 01:50:50 PM
Depends on the extent of the re-tune. Not sure what they changed on the Miata (cams, heads?). If it was minimal changes to physical hardware, it may not have cost much. With the turbo, you could be looking at a different turbocharger, heads, valves, cams, intercooler. If the turbo is integrated into the exhaust manifold, then a new manifold. Could add up pretty quick.
I mean they need all those parts anyway. The cost increase would be incremental and mostly related to the R&D to do it. Bottom line if they have money to keep making the Miata, make a new turbo engine, and reinvent the combustion engine, I think they can find some change under the couch to hop up an existing engine. It really comes down to the will to do it, which they seem adamant to reject, which is a shame.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2018, 04:47:18 PM
I mean they need all those parts anyway. The cost increase would be incremental and mostly related to the R&D to do it. Bottom line if they have money to keep making the Miata, make a new turbo engine, and reinvent the combustion engine, I think they can find some change under the couch to hop up an existing engine. It really comes down to the will to do it, which they seem adamant to reject, which is a shame.
Lower volume -> higher unit costs.
And had Mazda not had Fiat, or someone else, as a partner for the ND, I'm not sure there'd be an ND today.
Quote from: r0tor on December 04, 2018, 02:57:27 PM
It dates back to the NC mx5
Goes further back than that. Mazda started the Zoom Zoom campaign in 2000. Corresponded with the Protege facelift and release of the MP3 model, as I recall.
Quote from: MX793 on December 04, 2018, 05:13:21 PM
Goes further back than that. Mazda started the Zoom Zoom campaign in 2000. Corresponded with the Protege facelift and release of the MP3 model, as I recall.
I was talking about jinba itai
The earliest I remember zoom zoom was the Protege 5
Quote from: Laconian on December 04, 2018, 11:03:29 AM
It's "jinba ittai" now. Get with it!
So, horses again. Where do the bows and arrows fit in?
MAZDA Lane Assist(TM) drives the car for you while you line up your shot.
Fun fact!
The new Mercedes W177 A-Class also features a rear torsion beam suspension on the lower end and midrange models. These are the A160, A180, A200, A220, A220 4Matic, A180d, A200d and A220d - basically the cars which driving enthusiasts (aka people who care about fun) wouldn't buy. :tounge:
Beginning with the A250 and A35 AMG, the rear wheels are managed by a multi-link suspension.
:cheers:
Sporty will be here any minute.
Regarding the exterior, I think it looks great. Seems like a natural evolution based on Mazda's current design language and the influence one no doubt expects from their concept cars.
The visibility issue seems to be serious, though, especially when it comes to this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1HCBDGM/89410-B35-115-B-4-AF0-88-C2-A43-EC94-DD3-E6.jpg)
Forget the electronic nannies and blind spot monitors which will no doubt work flawlessly. But as I am finding out with my new A-Class when making right-hand turns, seeing cyclists is a little difficult, particularly at night. I will need to check twice or thrice and slowly creep forward. Cyclists in my city tend to come out of nowhere and are very fast, so one always has to be alert. And they drive very aggressively and have the right of way. And despite the insane rules we have here regarding lights and helmets, many cyclists have no light and love to dress in black, so seeing them at night is difficult, even in areas that are well lit.
So, it's a little difficult seeing what's going on the rear right-hand side with the A-Class. On the new Mazda 3, the same situation would appear to be a total nightmare. One really has to be on the lookout and take it slow and steady. Safety first.
In the BMW, that extra rearward rounded Hoffmeister Kink gave the driver some excellent rear right-side vision when making right-hand turns.
(https://i.postimg.cc/D0wcf6Fm/C961-C92-C-239-F-41-EF-9-D08-CC08-E7669144.jpg)
Pricing has just been released for this thing and its.....well its ambitious.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a26011657/2019-mazda-3-sedan-hatchback-pricing/
It loses the 2.0 and now comes standard with only the 2.5 starting @ 22K. Ends at 31K for the AWD hatch in the top trim. Only way to get a manual is in the hatch with FWD and it costs 28K which really begs the question; why not just buy a GTI or Veloster N for the same price?
This looks to be some 2K more expensive across the board vs the current 3 while having a, presumably, worst suspension. Unless the interior is vastly better than the current model, or the AWD makes it that much better, kinda feels like Mazda jumped the shark with pricing.
"why not just buy a GTI or Veloster N for the same price?"
I think I asked a similar question elsewhere and someone said some bullshit like "for some it's not about performance, it's about the feel and connection"
Well to me the 3 had the exact amount of feel and connection as a Golf. Miata aside, Mazda's greatest strength seems to be its marketing.
I still need to drive a newer generation model. The originals were fantastic drivers.
Mazda's been slowly trying to position themselves as a "premium mainstream" or "affordable luxury" brand for awhile, but doing so with their cheapest model is a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.
Entry costs for a manual hatchback is 27k.
That's more expensive than the Civic Si, and a lot of new manual small cars.
This car might end up flopping :banghead:
The car might flop, but if it does, it won't have anything to do with manual transmissions. It's just not a big enough percentage of the market anymore, though I couldn't find MT vs AT numbers for the current 3 in a quick search.
Still seems odd to only offer it on the highest trim - probably an attempt to milk some extra money out of manual enthusiasts.
Isn't there some other car where the manual is only offered on the highest trim? Or maybe I'm thinking of this car and we just already knew that info.
Perhaps this is just a concession to American buyer preferences: they're not even going to bother offering manuals in the lower trims. I bet the take rate was quite low.
In Canada the pricing is pretty similar to what it was before, with the trims exactly as before: base GX, midlevel GS and top-of-the-line GT. GXs in both sedan and hatchback get the 2.0 L, the GS sedan gets the 2.0 L with the 2.5 as an option, and GS hatch and GTs get the 2.5 as standard equipment. The manual transmission is available in every trim except the sedan GT. When equipped with AWD they're automatic-only, no manual.
Poverty-spec GX sedan starts at $18,000, which is in line with the poverty-spec Civic DX @ $17,790 (even more poverty-spec Corolla CE starts at $16,790). GX hatch (2.0 L) is $21,300, but it's better equipped than the sedan. (Civic LX hatch is $22,090; Corolla hatch w/ manual is $20,980, CVT is a $1,000 option.) GS hatch (2.5 L) is $24,000 (Civic Sport is $25,790). GT hatch with manual is $28,400; Civic Sport Touring is $29,990. Civic Sport Touring w/ CVT is $31,290; Mazda 3 Sport (hatchback) GT with all the bells and whistles, including AWD, is $31,400.
So, at least in Canada, not much has changed pricing-wise and it's still pretty much in line with the competition. :huh:
EDIT: As a point of comparison the VW Golf is $22,500 to start, and tops out at $31,420 with an automatic and 147 hp 1.4 TSI; can't get the 1.8 anymore. A Golf GTI starts at $30,845 but comes with cloth seats, halogen headlights, manual seats, no 'safety' features like blindspot monitoring and adaptive cruise control... To get that stuff you have to step up a couple trim levels to a GTI 'Autobahn', which is $36,145; $37,545 with the DSG.
I respect the manual move. The manual whiners always complained about manuals being sold in poverty spec
Overall though :facepalm: This starts at $22K with the 2.5. You know what else starts at 22K with the 2.5? The 6 :banghead: What would you choose for the same money? Oh god I hope Mazda doesn't try to move the 6 upmarket.
Quote from: 93JC on January 23, 2019, 04:49:17 PM
Perhaps this is just a concession to American buyer preferences: they're not even going to bother offering manuals in the lower trims. I bet the take rate was quite low.
In Canada the pricing is pretty similar to what it was before, with the trims exactly as before: base GX, midlevel GS and top-of-the-line GT. GXs in both sedan and hatchback get the 2.0 L, the GS sedan gets the 2.0 L with the 2.5 as an option, and GS hatch and GTs get the 2.5 as standard equipment. The manual transmission is available in every trim except the sedan GT. When equipped with AWD they're automatic-only, no manual.
Poverty-spec GX sedan starts at $18,000, which is in line with the poverty-spec Civic DX @ $17,790 (even more poverty-spec Corolla CE starts at $16,790). GX hatch (2.0 L) is $21,300, but it's better equipped than the sedan. (Civic LX hatch is $22,090; Corolla hatch w/ manual is $20,980, CVT is a $1,000 option.) GS hatch (2.5 L) is $24,000 (Civic Sport is $25,790). GT hatch with manual is $28,400; Civic Sport Touring is $29,990. Civic Sport Touring w/ CVT is $31,290; Mazda 3 Sport (hatchback) GT with all the bells and whistles, including AWD, is $31,400.
So, at least in Canada, not much has changed pricing-wise and it's still pretty much in line with the competition. :huh:
EDIT: As a point of comparison the VW Golf is $22,500 to start, and tops out at $31,420 with an automatic and 147 hp 1.4 TSI; can't get the 1.8 anymore. A Golf GTI starts at $30,845 but comes with cloth seats, halogen headlights, manual seats, no 'safety' features like blindspot monitoring and adaptive cruise control... To get that stuff you have to step up a couple trim levels to a GTI 'Autobahn', which is $36,145; $37,545 with the DSG.
Where are you seeing Canadian pricing?
Quote from: 93JC on January 23, 2019, 04:49:17 PM
Perhaps this is just a concession to American buyer preferences: they're not even going to bother offering manuals in the lower trims. I bet the take rate was quite low.
In Canada the pricing is pretty similar to what it was before, with the trims exactly as before: base GX, midlevel GS and top-of-the-line GT. GXs in both sedan and hatchback get the 2.0 L, the GS sedan gets the 2.0 L with the 2.5 as an option, and GS hatch and GTs get the 2.5 as standard equipment. The manual transmission is available in every trim except the sedan GT. When equipped with AWD they're automatic-only, no manual.
Poverty-spec GX sedan starts at $18,000, which is in line with the poverty-spec Civic DX @ $17,790 (even more poverty-spec Corolla CE starts at $16,790). GX hatch (2.0 L) is $21,300, but it's better equipped than the sedan. (Civic LX hatch is $22,090; Corolla hatch w/ manual is $20,980, CVT is a $1,000 option.) GS hatch (2.5 L) is $24,000 (Civic Sport is $25,790). GT hatch with manual is $28,400; Civic Sport Touring is $29,990. Civic Sport Touring w/ CVT is $31,290; Mazda 3 Sport (hatchback) GT with all the bells and whistles, including AWD, is $31,400.
So, at least in Canada, not much has changed pricing-wise and it's still pretty much in line with the competition. :huh:
EDIT: As a point of comparison the VW Golf is $22,500 to start, and tops out at $31,420 with an automatic and 147 hp 1.4 TSI; can't get the 1.8 anymore. A Golf GTI starts at $30,845 but comes with cloth seats, halogen headlights, manual seats, no 'safety' features like blindspot monitoring and adaptive cruise control... To get that stuff you have to step up a couple trim levels to a GTI 'Autobahn', which is $36,145; $37,545 with the DSG.
Are you looking at 2018 pricing? This is a screenshot of a brochure on Mazda Canada's website.
(https://i.imgur.com/KjszokM.png)
https://cdn.mazda.ca/common/cars/brochures/2019_mazda3_sport_specs_en.ts.1901171815350000.pdf?_ga=2.3620464.1358847905.1548288292-1248489051.1548288292
I don't understand why they'd cut the 2.0L entirely for the US. I'm pretty sure the take rate of a 2.0L manual was higher than the 2.5L as a whole....
Quote from: 2o6 on January 23, 2019, 05:02:37 PM
Where are you seeing Canadian pricing?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on January 23, 2019, 05:07:36 PM
Are you looking at 2018 pricing? This is a screenshot of a brochure on Mazda Canada's website.
(https://i.imgur.com/KjszokM.png)
https://cdn.mazda.ca/common/cars/brochures/2019_mazda3_sport_specs_en.ts.1901171815350000.pdf?_ga=2.3620464.1358847905.1548288292-1248489051.1548288292
That's the pricing for the 'Sport' (hatchback). This is for the sedan: https://cdn.mazda.ca/common/cars/brochures/2019_mazda3_sedan_specs_en.ts.1901171815550000.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/HIZvAtf.png)
I wonder if they have supply issues with the 2.0L and it's too hard to make enough for the US
Quote from: 93JC on January 23, 2019, 05:14:01 PM
That's the pricing for the 'Sport' (hatchback). This is for the sedan: https://cdn.mazda.ca/common/cars/brochures/2019_mazda3_sedan_specs_en.ts.1901171815550000.pdf
Ah, my bad. Thanks.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on January 23, 2019, 06:26:42 PM
Ah, my bad. Thanks.
No worries, I'm just glad that now you know I wasn't pulling number out of my ass. :lol:
My 2010 Sport GS w/ automatic MSRPed for about $22,500-$22,800 (I can't remember exactly anymore), so the new one is about $2,500-$3,000 more. However, it's also far better equipped with infotainment and safety doodads, and $22,500 in 2009 dollars is >$26,000 in 2018 dollars.
Quote from: 93JC on January 23, 2019, 06:33:05 PM
No worries, I'm just glad that now you know I wasn't pulling number out of my ass. :lol:
My 2010 Sport GS w/ automatic MSRPed for about $22,500-$22,800 (I can't remember exactly anymore), so the new one is about $2,500-$3,000 more. However, it's also far better equipped with infotainment and safety doodads, and $22,500 in 2009 dollars is >$26,000 in 2018 dollars.
Well, the US site doesn't have 2019 info up yet, so from my perspective, it'd be an easy mistake to accidentally grab 2018 prices if you were moving quickly and didn't notice the year.
I don't think it's that outrageously priced, TBH. It's hard to compare the 3 to the Golf directly because they're equipped a bit differently (mostly that the 3 has more driving tech - radar cruise control and whatnot, and only the sedan is available in the cheapest trim), but it's roughly the same price here too for similar performance specs.
The GTI comparison that these guys are making is a bit of a stretch because they're comparing a loaded Mazda 3 to a "base" GTI (quotes because Golf is really the base model), though I admittedly don't know exactly how comparably equipped they they are at those levels. Though I did notice that radar cruise control isn't available in the GTI until the highest trim at $35k, so that's one thing the Mazda has in its favor.
I think it's odd that the US is 2.5L only.
How many 2.5L's did they really move last gen? Most of the listings I've seen are for the 2.0L.
I'd wager it was about half-and-half in Canada. :huh:
Quote from: 93JC on January 23, 2019, 07:28:24 PM
I'd wager it was about half-and-half in Canada. :huh:
The current shape, I meant.
The old one was definitely half 2.0, and half 2.5 - you couldn't get a 2.0L hatchback (Until the Skyactiv)
The 2.5L though? Maybe 25%? I feel like that's generous. You had to opt for an "s" touring or grand touring.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on January 23, 2019, 06:54:34 PM
I don't think it's that outrageously priced, TBH. It's hard to compare the 3 to the Golf directly because they're equipped a bit differently (mostly that the 3 has more driving tech - radar cruise control and whatnot, and only the sedan is available in the cheapest trim), but it's roughly the same price here too for similar performance specs.
The GTI comparison that these guys are making is a bit of a stretch because they're comparing a loaded Mazda 3 to a "base" GTI (quotes because Golf is really the base model), though I admittedly don't know exactly how comparably equipped they they are at those levels. Though I did notice that radar cruise control isn't available in the GTI until the highest trim at $35k, so that's one thing the Mazda has in its favor.
Yeah, I don't get the GTI comparison as the GTI is still quite a bit more money (in Canada, at least), and the comparison to a Civic Si or a Veloster N is kind of a non sequitur to me. I mean, sure: you can get a Civic Si (in Canada) for $28,990, and arguably that's a better "deal" as an "enthusiast" because it's 205 hp vs. 187 and the Honda has a manual whereas the Mazda doesn't. But the Mazda is better equipped and arguably has a nicer interior. The Veloster is an entirely different kind of car that—if I'm shopping for something like a Mazda 3, VW Golf or Honda Civic—doesn't even enter into the equation. It makes as much sense to me as asking "Why would I buy a Honda Civic Si when I could buy a Ford F-150 for $30,000?" (For that matter, why buy a Veloster N when I could buy a Mustang?)
Quote from: 2o6 on January 23, 2019, 07:32:44 PM
The current shape, I meant.
The old one was definitely half 2.0, and half 2.5 - you couldn't get a 2.0L hatchback (Until the Skyactiv)
I also meant "the current shape", the third-gen that's ending production.
QuoteThe 2.5L though? Maybe 25%? I feel like that's generous. You had to opt for an "s" touring or grand touring.
:huh: Your American trim names mean nothing to me. :lol: As I said w.r.t. Canada the availability of engines in the new generation will be the same as it was before: base-models and mid-level sedans get the 2.0, mid-level hatches and top-of-the-line trims get the 2.5. In fact you couldn't get the 2.5 in the mid-level (GS) sedan in the last generation, and the one before that, but the new generation will have it available as an option. I'd wager the last two generations of Mazda 3s have had a pretty even split between 2.0s and 2.5s in Canada, and the new one won't be any different.
The Veloster and GTI were brought up because the only way to get a manual 3 is in a fully loaded hatch which is almost 29K. At that point, the question becomes why over a GTI. It was more a meta point that Mazda doesn't care about enthusiasts anymore.
This is the most surprising thing to me in this entire thread:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 23, 2019, 04:50:14 PM
This starts at $22K with the 2.5. You know what else starts at 22K with the 2.5? The 6 :banghead: What would you choose for the same money?
I had to look this up just to believe it. Wow, you can get a Mazda 6 for $21,950 in the States. Golly. In Canada the 6 starts at $27,250. (For reference a Camry starts at $27,950, and an Accord starts at $28,090.) However, the US-market 6 Sport is missing several features that the Canadian-market 6 GS has a standard equipment: automatic transmission (can't get a manual 6 in Canada anymore), power driver's seat, heated seats front and rear, and rain-sensing wipers at the very least. Looks like you have to jump up to the Touring trim to get that, which is $25,700.
That said $21,950 USD is $29,300 CAD, so... I guess we get the better deal after all. :lol:
Quote from: Xer0 on January 23, 2019, 09:56:46 PM
The Veloster and GTI were brought up because the only way to get a manual 3 is in a fully loaded hatch which is almost 29K. At that point, the question becomes why over a GTI. It was more a meta point that Mazda doesn't care about enthusiasts anymore.
Because a loaded 3 is better equipped than a base GTI. If you want performance over features, get the GTI. If you want features over performance, get a 3.
Quote from: Xer0 on January 23, 2019, 09:56:46 PM
The Veloster and GTI were brought up because the only way to get a manual 3 is in a fully loaded hatch which is almost 29K. At that point, the question becomes why over a GTI. It was more a meta point that Mazda doesn't care about enthusiasts anymore.
I mean,
I guess... but if you're an enthusiast why settle for a GTI or a Veloster when you can get a Mustang for $26,395?
Quote from: 93JC on January 23, 2019, 10:02:22 PM
This is the most surprising thing to me in this entire thread:
I had to look this up just to believe it. Wow, you can get a Mazda 6 for $21,950 in the States. Golly. In Canada the 6 starts at $27,250. (For reference a Camry starts at $27,950, and an Accord starts at $28,090.) However, the US-market 6 Sport is missing several features that the Canadian-market 6 GS has a standard equipment: automatic transmission (can't get a manual 6 in Canada anymore), power driver's seat, heated seats front and rear, and rain-sensing wipers at the very least. Looks like you have to jump up to the Touring trim to get that, which is $25,700.
That said $21,950 USD is $29,300 CAD, so... I guess we get the better deal after all. :lol:
Yeah that surprised me as well, and I didn't know you could get a 6 with a manual at all until you mentioned it. :lol:
I had a Touring trim 6 as a rental last summer. I was really impressed, and the stop-and-go radar cruise control was a godsend getting through Atlanta during rush hour.
I can't believe there's a new Mazda3 coming out already. Seems like the current one was just released yesterday.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 23, 2019, 07:26:19 PM
I think it's odd that the US is 2.5L only.
How many 2.5L's did they really move last gen? Most of the listings I've seen are for the 2.0L.
For data like this I like to look at classifieds... mental HDD is still booting up
It's clear what Mazda is trying to do though and I don't know that it's gonna work.
Quote from: 93JC on January 23, 2019, 10:11:45 PM
I mean, I guess... but if you're an enthusiast why settle for a GTI or a Veloster when you can get a Mustang for $26,395?
The point isn't to compare the Mazda3 with every single enthusiast option at its price range because then you start cross shopping ridiculous things like the Mustang, a BRZ, a 2.0 Camaro 1LE, used Miatas, etc. The point is to compare it to its natural competition as a FWD hatchback with sporting pretensions which lands it squarely, and unfavorably imo, against the GTI.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 24, 2019, 04:55:11 AM
For data like this I like to look at classifieds... mental HDD is still booting up
It's clear what Mazda is trying to do though and I don't know that it's gonna work.
Like most compact cars, many of them I see are not stripper base (although base Mazda 3's are well equipped) but I don't see that many loaded out ones. So, the vast majority are 2.0L
Quote from: Xer0 on January 24, 2019, 10:03:41 AM
The point isn't to compare the Mazda3 with every single enthusiast option at its price range because then you start cross shopping ridiculous things like the Mustang, a BRZ, a 2.0 Camaro 1LE, used Miatas, etc. The point is to compare it to its natural competition as a FWD hatchback with sporting pretensions which lands it squarely, and unfavorably imo, against the GTI.
Eh... Again, I get the point you're trying to make, but as I said in my opinion it's a stretch because they really only overlap at the very, very high end of the Mazda 3's pricing scale and the very, very bottom of the GTI's. You could make the argument that the GTI is the more compelling buy because it has 40 hp more, but like I said this ignores that at that price the Mazda is far better equipped than a base GTI, and to get a GTI with the bells and whistles will be 15-20% more money. By the very same point of comparison it's like saying no one should ever buy a fully-loaded Golf 1.4T, because at that point they should just buy a Golf GTI.
The Veloster N comparison is not even a 'stretch'; again, they might both be front-drive hatchbacks but to me they're not even the same kind of car.
Yeah it seems like people are overstating the "sporting intentions" of the 3. It's not a Mazdaspeed.
Quote from: 93JC on January 24, 2019, 01:32:34 PM
Eh... Again, I get the point you're trying to make, but as I said in my opinion it's a stretch because they really only overlap at the very, very high end of the Mazda 3's pricing scale and the very, very bottom of the GTI's. You could make the argument that the GTI is the more compelling buy because it has 40 hp more, but like I said this ignores that at that price the Mazda is far better equipped than a base GTI, and to get a GTI with the bells and whistles will be 15-20% more money. By the very same point of comparison it's like saying no one should ever buy a fully-loaded Golf 1.4T, because at that point they should just buy a Golf GTI.
The Veloster N comparison is not even a 'stretch'; again, they might both be front-drive hatchbacks but to me they're not even the same kind of car.
You're getting too hung up on this. The only way to get a manual in your 3 is in a 29K hatchback which places it right in line with the GTI. As a car with sporting pretensions, and the model appealing to enthusiasts, it looks like this Mazda3 is not up to snuff as it is outclassed by everything in its competitive set while not being competitively priced.
Even ignoring the manual which was always a side note anyway, this car is too expensive, imo. The manual pricing and trim just highlights it better than anything else.
Well I think you're getting too hung up on this. :tounge:
Again, you're ignoring that a $29,000 Mazda 3 is far better equipped than a $29,000 GTI. The GTI is bare-bones and doesn't come with all sorts of stuff the comparably priced Mazda would. The 3's competition is the regular Golf, not the GTI. A well-equipped Golf 1.4T is going to cost about as much as a bare-bones GTI, so, again, you're making the argument that a well-equipped Golf isn't worth buying either because it's "overpriced".
And, again, if you're really going to go down the road of arguing the GTI is a better buy because of performance/$, then the Mustang trumps all and there's no reason for anyone to get anything else.
(As described in previous pages, I can get a manual in any trim with either the 2.0 or 2.5. ;) )
Quote from: 93JC on January 24, 2019, 03:20:46 PM
Well I think you're getting too hung up on this. :tounge:
Again, you're ignoring that a $29,000 Mazda 3 is far better equipped than a $29,000 GTI. The GTI is bare-bones and doesn't come with all sorts of stuff the comparably priced Mazda would. The 3's competition is the regular Golf, not the GTI. A well-equipped Golf 1.4T is going to cost about as much as a bare-bones GTI, so, again, you're making the argument that a well-equipped Golf isn't worth buying either because it's "overpriced".
And, again, if you're really going to go down the road of arguing the GTI is a better buy because of performance/$, then the Mustang trumps all and there's no reason for anyone to get anything else.
(As described in previous pages, I can get a manual in any trim with either the 2.0 or 2.5. ;) )
Dude, the only person making the argument that a well-equipped Golf is "overpriced" is the imaginary version of me that you're arguing with. Also, the GTI is actually on par to a better performer than the Mustang per the last Lightning lap they were both on in 2015-Mustang ran it at 3:15.6 vs GTI's 3:14.6. So that comparison is not only purposely obtuse to make a counterpoint that no one is arguing about, but also more or less wrong. That Mustang was also something like 10K more expensive and needs all the performance options to even stand a chance. Anway, here is my point, once again:
As a car with sporting pretensions, and the model appealing to enthusiasts (the 29K manual hatch), it looks like this Mazda3 is not up to snuff as it is outclassed by everything in its competitive set while not being competitively priced.
Even ignoring the manual which was always a side note anyway, this car is too expensive, imo. The manual pricing and trim just highlights it better than anything else.Feel free to ignore the GTI comparison, this car is more expensive at almost every level then its competitors. That interior better be damn good to justify it because the suspension probably took a step back.
Currently, I can spend like 20k even and get a decent manual 3 hatchback.
Next year's car is $8000 more to do that. I can spend that same cash, and get a GTI which has most of the options I care about and is a stronger performer.
Or I can spend less, and get a Civic Turbo, or the shockingly good Corolla hatchback. Or, if I really feel like driving a fast car, a base Cooper S.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 24, 2019, 03:58:09 PM
Or I can spend less, and get a Civic Turbo, or the shockingly good Corolla hatchback. Or, if I really feel like driving a fast car, a base Cooper S.
Yea the Civic Touring/Si are the 3's biggest problems
Well and the 6 too
I'm with 93JC for the most part.
Yes, many enthusiasts would chose a base GTI over a loaded Mazda 3. But that doesn't mean that there aren't reasons to choose the 3 over the GTI, and enthusiasts are a decreasing population.
Y'all are overstating the "sporting pretentions" of the Mazda3. That comparison would make more sense if they offered a Mazdaspeed version.
The best direct competitor for the 3 is the Golf. The Civic Si will be less practical than a 3 and has a (subjectively) worse interior. Again, not disagreeing that many people will choose a Civic, just pointing out that there are also valid reasons to get a 3 instead. I don't know much about the Corolla so maybe you have a point there.
I do agree that getting rid of the smaller engine is kinda risky, and that many people will go for a 6 instead, at least until the next generation that inevitably ups the price. Which are points that 93JC isn't even arguing against since they still get the 2.0 and their 6 is priced relatively higher.
But that was moving the goalposts; no one was ever really talking about the Canadian 2.0L. We were strictly talking that getting a manual trans Mazda 3 has a high cost of entry. The cost of entry for a manual 3 is roughly the same price as a GTI. A base Golf has nothing to do with this, although the cost of entry for that is 22K.
I don't care about the automatic cars, or the Canadian model.
*sigh* The issue I've had with you guys all along is your goalposts that you've set at "(very well-equipped) Mazda 3 hatchback w/ manual ("the model appealing to enthusiasts") = $29,000 (which is bunk anyway, it's $27,500 (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--wqtlWgPF--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/tsv83zgfp3twg8banrqo.png)) ∴ all Mazda 3s are overpriced".
98% of new cars sold in the United States of America come with automatics, so who fucking cares about the manual? You guys are pretending as though the only Mazda 3 that will be sold, or the only worth buying, must have a manual gearbox. As soon as this pretence is dropped your complaints go away. 98% of Americans see an automatic as a DESIRABLE FEATURE, not some sort of toxic detriment like you guys are treating it. You complain that the Mazda 3 is too much fucking money, but forget that most of its competitors make you pay EXTRA for one of the key features that 98% of American carbuyers WANT!
So I agree wholeheartedly with sportyaccordy's statement that "Civic Touring/Si are the 3's biggest problems". This GTI comparison is a BS non sequitur: the 3 is a Civic/Corolla(/Golf/Jetta/etc) competitor, not GTIs and Hyundai Velosters. Lets take that Civic Touring sedan as an example:
174 hp, CVT, Bluetooth, CarPlay/Android Auto, all the Honda lane-keeping/blindspot monitoring safety stuff, 10-speaker stereo w/ SiriusXM, 7" touchcreen, satnav, LED automatic headlights, moonroof, remote start, heated mirrors, heated leather seats, power front seats (8-way driver's, 4-way passenger's), rain-sensing wipers, for $27,300 (https://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan).
A "Premium" package 3 sedan, by comparison: 186 hp, 6-speed automatic, Bluetooth, CarPlay/Android Auto, all the Mazda lane-keeping/blindspot monitoring safety stuff, 12-speaker stereo w/ SiriusXM, 8.8" touchscreen, satnav, LED auto headlights (and LED taillights), sunroof, heated mirrors, heated leather seats, 10-way power driver's seat, rain-sensing wipers, heads-up display, blah blah blah, for $26,500.
If you acknowledge the existence of the automatic, and deign yourself to consider one, it turns out the 3 is actually competitively priced! :hammerhead:
Or you can Forte 5 SX 1.6 turbo with 7-speed DCT for $23900, emmanuel is $2200 option, kek.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 24, 2019, 06:06:27 PM
But that was moving the goalposts; no one was ever really talking about the Canadian 2.0L. We were strictly talking that getting a manual trans Mazda 3 has a high cost of entry. The cost of entry for a manual 3 is roughly the same price as a GTI. A base Golf has nothing to do with this, although the cost of entry for that is 22K.
I don't care about the automatic cars, or the Canadian model.
Oh, I was talking about whether or not it'll flop. :lol:
I'm not gonna sit here and argue that your preferences are wrong. It is a bummer for people who were in the market for a base manual, but unfortunately it's just not a significant portion of the market anymore. I guess I've just already come to peace with that fact.
If nobody cared about the manual Mazda wouldn't be offering it 93JC
Plus I would say a higher percentage of people buying 3s care about shit like dynamics and pedal count than people buying Civics. Mazda themselves go out of their way to wax poetic about jinbai ittai and all that shit, so they are the one prompting the comparison to the drivers' cars in the segment.
But the specs and choices put them at a further disadvantage this go round.
I think the Mazda 3 is an interesting proposition. I own a car that is int he same neighborhood as the high end Mazda 3 hatch and GTI...although I almost feel like I paid extra to get the best of both worlds.
For me, I would likely take a loaded Mazda 3 hatch over a GTI...mainly because I would prefer the AWD over the manual if it came down to choosing. I also like to get as many of the premium features as I can on any car I get.
I mean I would rather have both a manual and AWD (and based on my current car I was clearly happy to pay more than what the Mazda or GTI cost to get it), but for me AWD is the more important feature (even fake haldex).
https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-mazda-3-is-smoother-quieter-and-still-fantast-1832068014
Looks fine. Uninterested until the SkyActive X gets here. When that happens, my buddy is probably going to get an AWD one to replace his 2014 Mazda 6.
Relating back to another thread on grills, I think the over sized grill on this car looks really good.
I quite like that, actually.
"That, coupled with a new seat design meant to improve passenger posture and further reduce road impacts, is meant to offer a smoother, more comfortable and quieter ride experience. The new seats are meant to put a person's spine and pelvis in a walking position, which Mazda believes helps the brain subconsciously stabilize the head as the car turns and takes bumps, like it does with the impact of your legs walking beneath you.
Mazda even showed us videos of head movement over a speed bump in the new car compared to the old, and there was consistently a more visible impact from the old car."
Music to my ears. It's fantastic that Mazda's sweating the details WRT the ergonomics of driving enjoyment.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on January 28, 2019, 11:38:03 AM
Relating back to another thread on grills, I think the over sized grill on this car looks really good.
It's because it doesn't have a hare lip like the new 7 series does.
Hopefully they eventually pair the 2.5T with AWD in either this or the 6 (preferably the 6)
I wish it was Teuts that was BTAC'ing HCCI to the world.
Quote from: Laconian on January 28, 2019, 12:58:57 PM
I wish it was Teuts that was BTAC'ing HCCI to the world.
But then who would be there to assure us that all is well at Faraday Future, contrary to what the media is reporting?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on January 24, 2019, 05:41:51 PM
Y'all are overstating the "sporting pretentions" of the Mazda3. That comparison would make more sense if they offered a Mazdaspeed version.
I don't know. Autoblog seemed to think it was pretty "sporty".
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/01/27/2019-mazda3-first-drive-review-87hy65/
Quote from: 68_427 on January 28, 2019, 07:50:47 PM
I don't know. Autoblog seemed to think it was pretty "sporty".
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/01/27/2019-mazda3-first-drive-review-87hy65/
Well, good. :lol:
But it's still not a direct GTI competitor.
Girlfriend just got a 2018 Mazda3 grand touring. It's an ok car for what it is. Someone totaled her Civic so she couldn't hold out for the 19's to show up.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 30, 2019, 03:02:33 PM
Girlfriend just got a 2018 Mazda3 grand touring. It's an ok car for what it is. Someone totaled her Civic so she couldn't hold out for the 19's to show up.
My parents got a great deal on a 2018. I think they made the right choice; the rear visibility of the 19 is regrettable.
Quote from: Laconian on January 31, 2019, 12:47:59 PM
My parents got a great deal on a 2018. I think they made the right choice; the rear visibility of the 19 is regrettable.
So is the torsion beam.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 31, 2019, 12:53:03 PM
So is the torsion beam.
First reviews seem to like it.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 31, 2019, 12:53:03 PM
So is the torsion beam.
Not according to the reviews I've read.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 31, 2019, 01:20:28 PM
A step backwards. :(
Why does it matter if it drives just as well?
Mazda said that the torsion beam reduces cabin noise, which is 100% a thing my parents complain about in their '18.
I feel like 5 years ago most of y'all didn't know or care what a torsion beam was.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on January 31, 2019, 01:23:03 PM
Why does it matter if it drives just as well?
Just as well? It should be better.
Quote from: Laconian on January 31, 2019, 01:35:32 PM
Mazda said that the torsion beam reduces cabin noise, which is 100% a thing my parents complain about in their '18.
Insulation reduces noise as well.
They're also compact.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 31, 2019, 01:44:31 PM
They're also compact.
And cheaper. For most driving conditions, it wouldn't matter.
Don't Golf TDI's use torsion beams? Either way, they've increased leg room, made it quieter, ride better and still handle well. I don't see the problem.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 31, 2019, 01:20:28 PM
A step backwards. :(
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a26112429/what-needs-to-happen-to-bring-mazdaspeed-back/
Mazda is now too "mature" for Mazdaspeed products... Another in a long list of reasons the brand is dead to me
So they can retune the hell out of the 2.0i for the Miata but they can't retune the 2.5T for an MS3? Lol
Are the German brands less mature than Mazda?
Let me be nice.
I like Mazdaspeed. But let's be real, the Mazdaspeed cars didn't sell well not one of them. The MS Protege, MS MX-5 and MS6 collected dust on the lots. The MX-5 type R couldn't be given away. It's popular now but not then.
And the MS3 did ok. Better then the others but not great.
Quote from: Onslaught on February 06, 2019, 02:27:47 PM
I like Mazdaspeed. But let's be real, the Mazdaspeed cars didn't sell well not one of them. The MS Protege, MS MX-5 and MS6 collected dust on the lots. The MX-5 type R couldn't be given away. It's popular now but not then.
And the MS3 did ok. Better then the others but not great.
The Car industry has a parallel with the movie industry. No one wants to make anything that won't make money (I know, not a big revelation).
It seems as though none of the major manufacturers want to make "speed" products for the masses as there is no money there. It seems that most of the tuning will end up aftermarket. I would say if that is your schtick, then why not just buy something used and tune it if that's what you want to do.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 04, 2019, 01:28:02 PM
So they can retune the hell out of the 2.0i for the Miata but they can't retune the 2.5T for an MS3? Lol
Are the German brands less mature than Mazda?
Let me be nice.
What 2.0 did they "retune"?
Quote from: MrH on February 06, 2019, 02:50:55 PM
What 2.0 did they "retune"?
He's saying the MX-5 has 181 hp, and the 3 has only 155 hp, so if they can find an extra 25 hp in the naturally-aspirated 2.0 L how come they can't squeeze more power out of the 2.5 turbo (which has very deliberately been tuned for torque more than peak power)?
The engine in the miata now is totally different than the one in the Mazda 3. All new crankshaft, pistons, connecting rods, and valve train. The only thing shared between them is the block I think.
It was way more extensive than just a tune.
Quote from: WookieOnRitalin on February 06, 2019, 02:48:13 PM
The Car industry has a parallel with the movie industry. No one wants to make anything that won't make money (I know, not a big revelation).
It seems as though none of the major manufacturers want to make "speed" products for the masses as there is no money there. It seems that most of the tuning will end up aftermarket. I would say if that is your schtick, then why not just buy something used and tune it if that's what you want to do.
Most mainstreamers have V6 options that make them way, way faster than in house "tuner" models of just 10 years ago.
Quote from: Submariner on February 06, 2019, 03:58:25 PM
Most mainstreamers have V6 options that make them way, way faster than in house "tuner" models of just 10 years ago.
Everyone except Toyota has dropped their V6.
Quote from: MrH on February 06, 2019, 03:10:43 PM
The engine in the miata now is totally different than the one in the Mazda 3. All new crankshaft, pistons, connecting rods, and valve train. The only thing shared between them is the block I think.
It was way more extensive than just a tune.
Tuning isn't just limited to ECU programming :huh:
But the changes needed to make the 2.5T MS3 grade wouldn't need to be anywhere near as extensive as what Mazda did with the 2.0.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 06, 2019, 04:22:16 PM
Tuning isn't just limited to ECU programming :huh:
But the changes needed to make the 2.5T MS3 grade wouldn't need to be anywhere near as extensive as what Mazda did with the 2.0.
Depends on where the power restriction is. If you look at guys who tune Ford ST and RS models, tunes get them more peak torque (and low end power), but do very little to improve peak power because the turbo is already maxed out at higher RPM. I'm guessing that if the Mazda 2.5T was tuned for low end, it's a similar story. So you're looking at a bigger turbo, for starters. That may necessitate bigger injectors, which may prompt a higher volume HPFP. Intercooler may be undersized, so that could very well require replacement to a higher flow version. Maybe new cams and larger valves. Given that it's GDI, they may not need to change the compression ratio, but they might need sturdier rods. Possibly a forged crankshaft.
Shit ripples, brah.
Also keep in mind that unlike your shade-tree tuner, the OEM needs to make sure these things run reliably for the long haul.
Quote from: MX793 on February 06, 2019, 04:53:18 PM
Depends on where the power restriction is. If you look at guys who tune Ford ST and RS models, tunes get them more peak torque (and low end power), but do very little to improve peak power because the turbo is already maxed out at higher RPM. I'm guessing that if the Mazda 2.5T was tuned for low end, it's a similar story. So you're looking at a bigger turbo, for starters. That may necessitate bigger injectors, which may prompt a higher volume HPFP. Intercooler may be undersized, so that could very well require replacement to a higher flow version. Maybe new cams and larger valves. Given that it's GDI, they may not need to change the compression ratio, but they might need sturdier rods. Possibly a forged crankshaft.
Shit ripples, brah.
Also keep in mind that unlike your shade-tree tuner, the OEM needs to make sure these things run reliably for the long haul.
Not only that, but putting it in a car like a Mazda 3 represents a whole new challenge. There might be multiple things in the drivetrain that would be totally overwhelmed by the 2.5T. All of a sudden, it gets really expensive really fast when you have to redevelop tons of things over the base.
Mazda is best off getting SkyActive X out in as many applications as fast as they can.
:confused:
3, CX-5, 6 and CX-9 are all on the Skyactiv platform
CX-5, 6 and CX-9 have the 2.5T
I really don't think Mazda would have to move mountains to get the 2.5T in the 3. We are acting as if Mazda doesn't have a standalone RWD chassis with an engine some consider all new. As great as the Miata is, the MS3 makes much more sense, especially in the context of Mazda's platforms and lineup
And truthfully, as geeky and holy grailish as Skyactiv-X is, I'm skeptical. Immensely complex system for marginal gains. And I hear it's gonna be a mild hybrid system now. Why not just leverage the Toyota partnership and do a simple full hybrid?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2019, 05:40:05 AM
:confused:
3, CX-5, 6 and CX-9 are all on the Skyactiv platform
CX-5, 6 and CX-9 have the 2.5T
I really don't think Mazda would have to move mountains to get the 2.5T in the 3. We are acting as if Mazda doesn't have a standalone RWD chassis with an engine some consider all new. As great as the Miata is, the MS3 makes much more sense, especially in the context of Mazda's platforms and lineup
And truthfully, as geeky and holy grailish as Skyactiv-X is, I'm skeptical. Immensely complex system for marginal gains. And I hear it's gonna be a mild hybrid system now. Why not just leverage the Toyota partnership and do a simple full hybrid?
A lot of the Miata development was co-founded by Fiat.
The Speed3 was much lower volume than the Miata. Mazda only sold 5k MS3s per year in the US. Prior to the recession, they were moving 11k-12k Miatas annually in the US. They dropped to around 6k per year during the recession but have picked back up to 10k-11k since the ND came out.
Sure an MS3 wouldn't sell as much as a Miata. But it wouldn't take anywhere near as much effort to develop either. If there's a business case for a Miata there's a business case for an MS3. Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru, Volkswagen etc. all make it work
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2019, 06:57:25 AM
Sure an MS3 wouldn't sell as much as a Miata. But it wouldn't take anywhere near as much effort to develop either. If there's a business case for a Miata there's a business case for an MS3. Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru, Volkswagen etc. all make it work
Honda, H/K, VW, etc are all much larger than Mazda. Mazda put whatever niche segment money they had into the Miata (and even then had to partner with a larger company to foot the bill).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2019, 05:40:05 AM
:confused:
3, CX-5, 6 and CX-9 are all on the Skyactiv platform
CX-5, 6 and CX-9 have the 2.5T
I really don't think Mazda would have to move mountains to get the 2.5T in the 3. We are acting as if Mazda doesn't have a standalone RWD chassis with an engine some consider all new. As great as the Miata is, the MS3 makes much more sense, especially in the context of Mazda's platforms and lineup
And truthfully, as geeky and holy grailish as Skyactiv-X is, I'm skeptical. Immensely complex system for marginal gains. And I hear it's gonna be a mild hybrid system now. Why not just leverage the Toyota partnership and do a simple full hybrid?
I mean, you think you've really gone in depth more than Mazda on what makes sense for their lineup? Just seems weird you want to Monday morning quarterback every decision as if you hold the keys to the information and not them.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2019, 05:40:05 AM
As great as the Miata is, the MS3 makes much more sense, especially in the context of Mazda's platforms and lineup
The Miata is essentially their flagship vehicle. They've built their entire brand around its success.
Quote from: MrH on February 07, 2019, 07:19:32 AM
I mean, you think you've really gone in depth more than Mazda on what makes sense for their lineup? Just seems weird you want to Monday morning quarterback every decision as if you hold the keys to the information and not them.
You do the same with Tesla :lol:
If someone would have only done the same with GM way back they may not have gone bankrupt.
Quote from: MrH on February 07, 2019, 07:19:32 AM
I mean, you think you've really gone in depth more than Mazda on what makes sense for their lineup? Just seems weird you want to Monday morning quarterback every decision as if you hold the keys to the information and not them.
Oh brother. You are just arguing to argue. No I don't think I've gone more in depth than Mazda, just like I'm sure you haven't. I'm just offering my opinion based on the info I have available, just like you are. Get off corporate analyst nuts for once, you and me put our legs on one leg at a time like everyone else.
You and MX793 are making an MS3 sound like the moon landing, as if Mazda didn't
- design and launch a brand new turbocharged engine
- "create a new engine" for the Miata (in your opinion)
- bring a compression ignition gasoline engine to market (!!!!)
All in the last ~3 years. Taking and tweaking an engine they already made and putting it in a car on a platform they already developed to utilize said engine doesn't compare to any of that. IMO it's more likely to be a branding or product planning decision more than a lack of resources.... but ultimately none of us know (even you amazingly)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2019, 11:01:16 AM
Oh brother. You are just arguing to argue. No I don't think I've gone more in depth than Mazda, just like I'm sure you haven't. I'm just offering my opinion based on the info I have available, just like you are. Get off corporate analyst nuts for once, you and me put our legs on one leg at a time like everyone else.
You and MX793 are making an MS3 sound like the moon landing, as if Mazda didn't
- design and launch a brand new turbocharged engine
- "create a new engine" for the Miata (in your opinion)
- bring a compression ignition gasoline engine to market (!!!!)
All in the last ~3 years. Taking and tweaking an engine they already made and putting it in a car on a platform they already developed to utilize said engine doesn't compare to any of that. IMO it's more likely to be a branding or product planning decision more than a lack of resources.... but ultimately none of us know (even you amazingly)
Does Mazda have infinite funds? As noted, Mazda just dropped considerable money developing a multiple new engines. What makes you think they have enough additional cash to develop a Mazdaspeed3 right now?
Did you rush out to buy new cars for you and the Mrs the same month you closed on and made a down payment on your house? Why not? Buying a car or two is a drop in the bucket compared to buying a whole house...
Quote from: MX793 on February 07, 2019, 11:09:30 AM
Does Mazda have infinite funds? As noted, Mazda just dropped considerable money developing a multiple new engines. What makes you think they have enough additional cash to develop a Mazdaspeed3 right now?
Did you rush out to buy new cars for you and the Mrs the same month you closed on and made a down payment on your house? Why not? Buying a car or two is a drop in the bucket compared to buying a whole house...
Who the fuck knows man.
What's this about the SkyActiv X being hybrid!?
IIRC their hype has been "who needs hybrid?"
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/mazda-skyactiv-x-engine-range-gain-plug-hybrid-variant-2021
"variant" - as in, not all X's
"from 2021" - as in, not *now*
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2019, 11:01:16 AM
Oh brother. You are just arguing to argue. No I don't think I've gone more in depth than Mazda, just like I'm sure you haven't. I'm just offering my opinion based on the info I have available, just like you are. Get off corporate analyst nuts for once, you and me put our legs on one leg at a time like everyone else.
You and MX793 are making an MS3 sound like the moon landing, as if Mazda didn't
Bruh, they're just giving you a bunch of possible reasons why Mazda didn't do it. Seems to me like you're the one that's arguing for the sake of arguing.
To settle the argument, I called up my contact at Mazda, a fellow named Billy Mazda (yes, he's the grandson of the founder Ahura Mazda and secret CEO, don't bother looking him up) and he said that the Mazdaspeed3 is coming in 2021. It's a JV with GM and will have AWD and two LT5 Corvette engines for a total of 1,510 horsepower and a hybrid drive from the Chevy Volt adding another 90, for a total of 1600hp. Estimated top speed is 350mph and it can run fully on electric power for 10 miles before needing to switch over to the gas engines. It'll be priced at less than a GTI and offer fully automated parking, a Tesla-like self driving feature called SkyDriveInactiveDriverHappyFunTime, and comes with automatic dimming mirrors as standard.
Quote from: Raza on February 08, 2019, 08:02:19 AM
To settle the argument, I called up my contact at Mazda, a fellow named Billy Mazda (yes, he's the grandson of the founder Ahura Mazda and secret CEO, don't bother looking him up) and he said that the Mazdaspeed3 is coming in 2021. It's a JV with GM and will have AWD and two LT5 Corvette engines for a total of 1,510 horsepower and a hybrid drive from the Chevy Volt adding another 90, for a total of 1600hp. Estimated top speed is 350mph and it can run fully on electric power for 10 miles before needing to switch over to the gas engines. It'll be priced at less than a GTI and offer fully automated parking, a Tesla-like self driving feature called SkyDriveInactiveDriverHappyFunTime, and comes with automatic dimming mirrors as standard.
No manuel, no care.
Quote from: Raza on February 08, 2019, 08:02:19 AM
To settle the argument, I called up my contact at Mazda, a fellow named Billy Mazda (yes, he's the grandson of the founder Ahura Mazda and secret CEO, don't bother looking him up) and he said that the Mazdaspeed3 is coming in 2021. It's a JV with GM and will have AWD and two LT5 Corvette engines for a total of 1,510 horsepower and a hybrid drive from the Chevy Volt adding another 90, for a total of 1600hp. Estimated top speed is 350mph and it can run fully on electric power for 10 miles before needing to switch over to the gas engines. It'll be priced at less than a GTI and offer fully automated parking, a Tesla-like self driving feature called SkyDriveInactiveDriverHappyFunTime, and comes with automatic dimming mirrors as standard.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/m2Q7FEc0bEr4I/giphy.webp)
Quote from: 93JC on February 08, 2019, 08:16:37 AM
(https://i.giphy.com/media/m2Q7FEc0bEr4I/giphy.webp)
(https://pa1.narvii.com/6441/3f46fefa6bd9387eacc737c93dc9798e0ed8597c_00.gif)
Quote from: Raza on February 08, 2019, 08:02:19 AM
To settle the argument, I called up my contact at Mazda, a fellow named Billy Mazda (yes, he's the grandson of the founder Ahura Mazda and secret CEO, don't bother looking him up) and he said that the Mazdaspeed3 is coming in 2021. It's a JV with GM and will have AWD and two LT5 Corvette engines for a total of 1,510 horsepower and a hybrid drive from the Chevy Volt adding another 90, for a total of 1600hp. Estimated top speed is 350mph and it can run fully on electric power for 10 miles before needing to switch over to the gas engines. It'll be priced at less than a GTI and offer fully automated parking, a Tesla-like self driving feature called SkyDriveInactiveDriverHappyFunTime, and comes with automatic dimming mirrors as standard.
:lol: This was the best part. That's a pretty convincing name from a Japanese OEM.
Quote from: MrH on February 08, 2019, 08:52:35 AM
:lol: This was the best part. That's a pretty convincing name from a Japanese OEM.
Right in line with "Every Joy Pop Turbo" and the Suzuki Lapin's floormats that read "Life saying is first at home place."
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 08, 2019, 10:43:01 AM
Right in line with "Every Joy Pop Turbo" and the Suzuki Lapin's floormats that read "Life saying is first at home place."
wat
Mazda never did advertise the Speed very well. Not as well known as the Ford high performance monikers, or STI or WRX or .......
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 08, 2019, 10:24:40 PM
Mazda never did advertise the Speed very well. Not as well known as the Ford high performance monikers, or STI or WRX or .......
Mazda/Mazda Speed has had some success in racing, but does not match the involvement and history of the likes of Ford or even Subaru; especially on the WRC circuit.
One of the first reviews I've seen for both the hatch and sedan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epm7lUZqSfo
I just cannot get over that C pillar on the hatchback.
But damn the sedan looks great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CWVq2tckUQ
wtf is that Elantra. :puke:
Quote from: CaminoRacer on March 13, 2019, 09:30:15 AM
wtf is that Elantra. :puke:
lol yeah it's pretty fugly.
But I really watched the video for the Mazda. IDGAF about the Elantra.
When are they actually gonna start selling this thing in the states? They don't even have pricing on their website yet.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on March 14, 2019, 05:58:34 PM
When are they actually gonna start selling this thing in the states? They don't even have pricing on their website yet.
Likely Summer/Spring.
A handful of demos are making their way to dealers already.
So technically they're 2019 1/2
Mazda loves the 1/2! They would do 1/4s if they could.
2019 5/12
A number of local dealerships are listing them as in stock on their website(s) but perhaps they're just en route. Assuming the power numbers hold true, I think a Skyactive-X AWD hatch will be perfect for the wife.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on March 14, 2019, 05:58:34 PM
When are they actually gonna start selling this thing in the states? They don't even have pricing on their website yet.
Quote from: HurricaneSteve on March 15, 2019, 12:40:19 PM
A number of local dealerships are listing them as in stock on their website(s) but perhaps they're just en route. Assuming the power numbers hold true, I think a Skyactive-X AWD hatch will be perfect for the wife.
Do we have final MPG numbers?
Quote from: Laconian on March 15, 2019, 12:58:10 PM
Do we have final MPG numbers?
26 city/35 highway.
They finally listed the 2019 sedan online, but no hatchback yet lol.
https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/mazda3-sedan
Quote from: BimmerM3 on March 22, 2019, 10:25:56 AM
26 city/35 highway.
They finally listed the 2019 sedan online, but no hatchback yet lol.
https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/mazda3-sedan
How does a Mazda 3 start at damn $21K?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 22, 2019, 10:56:32 AM
How does a Mazda 3 start at damn $21K?
Even worse, a manual is 28k.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 22, 2019, 11:20:50 AM
Even worse, a manual is 28k.
For the sedan? Blehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The hatch will be like 30.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 22, 2019, 10:56:32 AM
How does a Mazda 3 start at damn $21K?
Go back like 3 pages in this thread :lol:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 22, 2019, 10:56:32 AM
How does a Mazda 3 start at damn $21K?
I think mostly because it has a relatively upscale interior for the class. Mazda is kind of trying to market themselves as premium mainstream or something.
It's not really
that crazy. Civic and Corolla both start at $19.5k. Golf starts at $21.9k.
Quote from: Xer0 on March 22, 2019, 11:40:32 AM
Go back like 3 pages in this thread :lol:
Oh. :partyon:
yeah, I actually posted on that page
Quote from: Laconian on March 22, 2019, 11:37:44 AM
For the sedan? Blehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The hatch will be like 30.
No manual option on the sedan. Only on premium FWD hatch, which, according to C&D, will be $28,395.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a26011657/2019-mazda-3-sedan-hatchback-pricing/
Quote from: BimmerM3 on March 22, 2019, 11:50:49 AM
No manual option on the sedan. Only on premium FWD hatch, which, according to C&D, will be $28,395.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a26011657/2019-mazda-3-sedan-hatchback-pricing/
OK, I can get behind that. My dad's 3 hatch had a MSRP of 27, but he got it for 23.5, which is a pretty nice price for the quality of the car he got. :huh:
A hatchback Civic turbo is 23k
I really like this new Mazda3. I don't think I could pull the trigger on it until they release the SkyActiveX though.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 22, 2019, 12:14:40 PM
A hatchback Civic turbo is 23k
... and is only available with a manual transmission in one trim level.
Quote from: MrH on March 22, 2019, 12:21:46 PM
I really like this new Mazda3. I don't think I could pull the trigger on it until they release the SkyActiveX though.
+1. It'd be on my test drive list along with the WRX and Si if I were actually ready to buy soon.
Quote from: 93JC on March 22, 2019, 12:22:14 PM
... and is only available with a manual transmission in one trim level.
And it's equipped exactly how I want it.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 22, 2019, 12:40:51 PM
And it's equipped exactly how I want it.
Si would be perfect in hatch form :cry:
The Civic sedan is the only body style I like.
When I first saw the new Civic in photos I thought it was hideous, but in person it's not so bad. I almost like the sedan.
Quote from: 93JC on March 22, 2019, 02:18:26 PM
When I first saw the new Civic in photos I thought it was hideous, but in person it's not so bad. I almost like the sedan.
+1. The front end isn't the prettiest thing in the world, and the fake bumper vents are kinda silly, but overall I think it looks fairly good.
I definitely prefer the sedan's rear end to both the coupe and hatch though. The coupe is OK, but I don't like the hatchback's rear end at all.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on March 22, 2019, 01:26:04 PM
The Civic sedan is the only body style I like.
Based on Honda generation spans the Civic replacement should be showing its face next year. Hoping they take all the good body parts and gauge cluster from the Insight. Would be cool if they moved the Si closer to the CTR in performance... maybe destroke the 2.0T to 1.75L :lol:
For me the GTI is the standout choice in this class though.... 5 years after release, no catastrophic issues. Looks like VW finally got its shit together
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM9bSydiwcc
"Finally" best in class? :confused: Already was, m8.
This one features Mazda's "Manager of Vehicle Dynamics" (in between other clips). Talks about Skyactive X, the improved AWD system, and how the suspension affects the driving dynamics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHQdxA5H00g
Agreed. Others do one up it in some areas but as far as the whole package (driving dynamics, interior, exterior, efficiency, reliability) I feel like it's been tops for quite some tine.
Quote from: 93JC on March 26, 2019, 09:38:06 AM
"Finally" best in class? :confused: Already was, m8.
I think it's a toss up between the 3, Civic and Golf. This gen of Golf has proven pretty reliable. If Honda can sort out the 1.5T all it would be missing is looks, which they might fix with the upcoming 11th gen
The Golf apparently has a 6 year warranty now? That definitely puts it in the hunt for me. I was definitely not interested in brittle mid-aught VWs when they came with puny warranties.
I still don't trust VW. And the Golf seems too bland. Plaid seats aren't enough.
I loved the Golf rental I had. Like a baby W124. APR has partnered with dealers so you can get a tune and retain your warranty. Only bummer is they only offer adaptive cruise control on the top trims. But for the money I think I'd rather have a brand new Golf SEL than a GTI S. All I need is torque and aftermarket support. Golf is def a top contender for the Optima's replacement
I was tempted by the warranty and clearance prices but I still can't trust a company with such a spotty reliability record. There are other cars that drive just as well, if not better, without the headaches.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on March 27, 2019, 11:18:24 AM
I still don't trust VW. And the Golf seems too bland. Plaid seats aren't enough.
I'll never own a VW product off warranty again. Not sure I'd own another even with a warranty.
It's entirely possible that cars sold in the US have to be built with different standards in mind because of how harsh the salt used in states with wintery climates can be. Is that the case for Europe? Perhaps some of the members here can chime in on the type or level of salt used in their countries and if their used cars suffer from the kind of rust issues that are found here.
Quote from: MX793 on March 28, 2019, 04:48:49 AM
I'll never own a VW product off warranty again. Not sure I'd own another even with a warranty.
I believe NA market Golfs and Jettas are made in Puebla, Mexico? But the GTi's are made in Germany?
Quote from: MX793 on March 28, 2019, 04:48:49 AM
I'll never own a VW product off warranty again. Not sure I'd own another even with a warranty.
This is my current feeling as well.
Quote from: HurricaneSteve on March 28, 2019, 12:18:41 PM
It's entirely possible that cars sold in the US have to be built with different standards in mind because of how harsh the salt used in states with wintery climates can be. Is that the case for Europe? Perhaps some of the members here can chime in on the type or level of salt used in their countries and if their used cars suffer from the kind of rust issues that are found here.
Rust isn't the problem. The car is actually remarkably rust free. I just noticed some bubbling on one of the fender edges, which is remarkable for a car this age in this climate. It's the electrical issues, interior falling apart due to adhesives and paints/coatings breaking down, and poor design for maintenance practices (that aren't isolated to Golf platform cars, my co-worker with a T-reg has similarly complained at the difficulty and cost to replace failed components).
I think starting in 2014 they switched to Germany?
Quote from: Rockraven on March 28, 2019, 01:30:38 PM
I believe NA market Golfs and Jettas are made in Puebla, Mexico? But the GTi's are made in Germany?
Hopefully I am not jinxing myself by posting this, but so far I have not had a single problem with my Golf. Since I have done the maintenance myself it has never actually even been back to the dealer once (a little over 2 and a half years so far).
When I had a GTI it never had any major issues either. I think I had an O2 sensor go bad once (which caused the check engine light to come on) but otherwise it was fine also.
SavegeGeese's Mazda3 review is out and the TL;DR of it is: Best Mazda3, no handling detriment, great interior, infotainment doesnt suck, super comfy. Seems like the screaming about the twist beam was way overwrought by some, myself included.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQDqwecojc
They focused on making it a better car, which makes sense. I still don't like the exterior and am hoping they make a hi po version
I really find Mazda's data-driven obsession on the anatomy of driving to be really interesting. I hope other manufacturers take note.
It's a breath of fresh air when all the other cars are about swaddling drivers with cotton wool and distracting them with "Aha" infotainment garbage.
Quote from: Xer0 on April 05, 2019, 11:56:35 AM
SavegeGeese's Mazda3 review is out and the TL;DR of it is: Best Mazda3, no handling detriment, great interior, infotainment doesnt suck, super comfy. Seems like the screaming about the twist beam was way overwrought by some, myself included.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQDqwecojc
Twist beam, depending on design, may not be noticeable on the street, but would likely show up on a race track; so it really doesn't make a difference for the most part.
That Black Mazda looks really cool.
Quote from: Laconian on April 05, 2019, 12:24:07 PM
I really find Mazda's data-driven obsession on the anatomy of driving to be really interesting. I hope other manufacturers take note.
It's a breath of fresh air when all the other cars are about swaddling drivers with cotton wool and distracting them with "Aha" infotainment garbage.
For better or worse, Mazda focuses on making the cars enjoyable to own, whereas others seem focused on making them convincing to buy. I say possibly for worse because I don't know how well Mazda's strategy will translate to the showroom. However it does seem like they have dialed up the wow factor and livability simultaneously.
I'm a big Mazda booster in the workplace. I sell my geeky colleagues on the geeky merits of Mazders.
Quote from: Rockraven on March 28, 2019, 01:30:38 PM
I believe NA market Golfs and Jettas are made in Puebla, Mexico? But the GTi's are made in Germany?
N. American GTIs are from Mexico, the R, and the E-Golf are from Germany, hence the reason those two can be ordered with the 40+ exterior paints.
The Ford Fiesta and Mazda 2 were both cars that rode pretty decently for torsion beam subcompacts and those were designed in the mid 2000's and not only that, Golf TDI's are torsions as well so I do think the hand wringing was a bit premature.
Quote from: Xer0 on April 05, 2019, 11:56:35 AM
SavegeGeese's Mazda3 review is out and the TL;DR of it is: Best Mazda3, no handling detriment, great interior, infotainment doesnt suck, super comfy. Seems like the screaming about the twist beam was way overwrought by some, myself included.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQDqwecojc
My wife has said this will be her next car in a couple of years after how unresponsive the Impreza feels. I'm pretty sure the overall sales will fall short of the previous generation's which is why I think the price and premium feel went up accordingly. I'm still hoping that they'll drop the 2.5T in at some point but I'm very interested to see how the Skyactiv-X performs.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 05, 2019, 12:53:12 PM
For better or worse, Mazda focuses on making the cars enjoyable to own, whereas others seem focused on making them convincing to buy. I say possibly for worse because I don't know how well Mazda's strategy will translate to the showroom. However it does seem like they have dialed up the wow factor and livability simultaneously.
Unfortunately the number of people at my workplace who even drive is pretty low but I'm with you there. I strongly believe that Mazda has one of the most well rounded lineups of any manufacturer.
Quote from: Laconian on April 05, 2019, 01:37:36 PM
I'm a big Mazda booster in the workplace. I sell my geeky colleagues on the geeky merits of Mazders.
I'm tired of the "torsion beam" argument. Five years ago, no one online knew what they were. This is the new "flash to pass" internet outrage.
I think the car looks great. I just can't picture spending 28K for it.
I kinda hate that the amazing white interior that all of the press cars have had is only available on the highest trim level.
This has a lot of high praise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQDqwecojc
Quote from: CaminoRacer on April 13, 2019, 01:27:52 PM
This has a lot of high praise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQDqwecojc
High praise? It looks like the rear wheels are about to fall off. Must be a torsion beam axle. :lol:
I'm feeling that Mazda engineering is going through something akin to Citroen's glory days of the 50's and 60's.
Quote from: Laconian on April 13, 2019, 02:19:57 PM
I'm feeling that Mazda engineering is going through something akin to Citroen's glory days of the 50's and 60's.
I don't know about all that....
Quote from: Laconian on April 13, 2019, 02:19:57 PM
I'm feeling that Mazda engineering is going through something akin to Citroen's glory days of the 50's and 60's.
They might be left in the dust if they don't get with more electrics.
Quote from: 2o6 on April 13, 2019, 02:21:40 PM
I don't know about all that....
* Low-travel, high-effort brake pedal, just like the Citroen mushroom.
* A rear-end that squats while braking to eliminate nose dive, just like Citroen.
* Holistic thinking about how the driver interfaces with the car. A lot of contemporary cars are the result of focus grouping and parts-bin engineering. It looks like there's a lot of new tech here.
* Audacious R&D in the drivertrain department (SkyActive X, rotary). Hit and miss but they've got guts.
* Emphasis on well-roundedness, their cars aren't overly *anything*.
* Unappreciated in their time.
Quote from: Laconian on April 13, 2019, 02:33:22 PM
* Low-travel, high-effort brake pedal, just like the Citroen mushroom.
* A rear-end that squats while braking to eliminate nose dive, just like Citroen.
* Holistic thinking about how the driver interfaces with the car. A lot of contemporary cars are the result of focus grouping and parts-bin engineering. It looks like there's a lot of new tech here.
* Audacious R&D in the drivertrain department (SkyActive X, rotary). Hit and miss but they've got guts.
* Emphasis on well-roundedness, their cars aren't overly *anything*.
* Unappreciated in their time.
That seems like a stretch; most of the reviews right now are really using a lot of Mazda PR etc. the Mazda 3 is probably a great car; but aside from the new skyactiv X engine (which isn't even on sale anywhere yet) I fail to see how it's that much different in ethos than a regular compact car.
I also don't think the "parts bin engineering" is accurate for most other cars, either, or at least don't apply to Mazda as well as any other manufacturer. I mean, Mazda doesn't have any hybrid or EV worth a damn, and the old Skyactiv engines are...average. Not as nifty and cutting edge as the Ford Ecoboost engines. And I don't mean to shit on Mazda, but I don't see what's so outstanding about them.
Also, it's expensive.
They combine design, driving dynamics and reliability better than any manufacturer. Their overall lineup is one of Consumer Reports' best (in both road tests and reliability) and this is all done with one of the smallest budgets in the industry. When you're comparing Skyactiv motors to Ecoboost, are you talking NA to turbo or turbo to turbo? Because as far as NA engines go, Mazda's are still pretty good and so far their turbos are too.
Quote from: 2o6 on April 13, 2019, 02:48:27 PM
That seems like a stretch; most of the reviews right now are really using a lot of Mazda PR etc. the Mazda 3 is probably a great car; but aside from the new skyactiv X engine (which isn't even on sale anywhere yet) I fail to see how it's that much different in ethos than a regular compact car.
I also don't think the "parts bin engineering" is accurate for most other cars, either, or at least don't apply to Mazda as well as any other manufacturer. I mean, Mazda doesn't have any hybrid or EV worth a damn, and the old Skyactiv engines are...average. Not as nifty and cutting edge as the Ford Ecoboost engines. And I don't mean to shit on Mazda, but I don't see what's so outstanding about them.
Also, it's expensive.
Mazda is killing the mainstream game right now. Honda makes a slightly better appliance but Mazda is more well rounded in most segments.
There's rumors of an AWD Mazdaspeed3 again. I'd be very very interested if they actually came out with that.
Quote from: 2o6 on April 05, 2019, 04:04:21 PM
I'm tired of the "torsion beam" argument. Five years ago, no one online knew what they were. This is the new "flash to pass" internet outrage.
Just weird that a push upmarket came with a theoretical push downmarket in a key chassis component. But they made it work. I don't think people were wrong to be skeptical.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 14, 2019, 02:28:34 PM
Just weird that a push upmarket came with a theoretical push downmarket in a key chassis component. But they made it work. I don't think people were wrong to be skeptical.
Did you watch the video I posted? He said the Mazda engineers liked the torsion beam better because they could tune it better at this price point. I don't know how true it is, but it kinda makes sense. This new model seems to be about perfecting and simplifying things vs. coming out with crazy new stuff. They're figuring out how to make cars better through ingenuity and design instead of throwing features at it.
Sometimes old-school is the way to go.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 14, 2019, 05:10:57 PM
Sometimes old-school is the way to go.
Leaf springs?
Got my first chance to have a seat in one at our local auto show.
The interior is very nice. The hype there is real. Lots of soft touch surfaces, very well screwed together. Very comfortable behind the wheel, but I wish the seat cushion was longer for better thigh support (pretty common complaint for me).
That said the back seats and cargo area in the hatch are waaay too small. Disastrously small. I think they really screwed the pooch with this. The biggest complaint I think one can levy against my car is the back seat room, which the third generation rectified, but this new one is not only smaller than the last it's smaller than mine. The door openings at the back are too small, headroom sucks, and with the driver's seat set for my comfort there's no legroom at all.
The hatch's cargo area seems teeny tiny. The rake of the hatch window cuts deeply into it.
The view out the back is abysmally small as expected.
The sedan does not have these issues and is therefore the far more compelling buy. Why they made the hatch so much smaller baffles me.
I think the sedan looks better, too
Quote from: 93JC on April 19, 2019, 09:43:49 AM
Got my first chance to have a seat in one at our local auto show.
The interior is very nice. The hype there is real. Lots of soft touch surfaces, very well screwed together. Very comfortable being the wheel, but I wish the seat cushion was longer for better thigh support (pretty common complaint for me).
That said the back seats and cargo area in the hatch are waaay too small. Disastrously small. I think they really screwed the pooch with this. The biggest complaint I think one can levy against my car is the back seat room, which the third generation rectified, but this new one is not only smaller than the last it's smaller than mine. The door openings at the back are too small, headroom sucks, and with the driver's seat set for my comfort there's no legroom at all.
The hatch's cargo area seems teeny tiny. The rake of the hatch window cuts deeply into it.
The view out the back is abysmally small as expected.
The sedan does not have these issues and is therefore the far more compelling buy. Why they made the hatch so much smaller baffles me.
At least Canada gets more budget oriented pricing. The US gets a tight interior and an expensive price....
Well, that's good news for my parents who bought a 2018. Tight quarters in the back would've been a deal killer for them.
Quote from: Laconian on April 19, 2019, 10:51:04 AM
Well, that's good news for my parents who bought a 2018. Tight quarters in the back would've been a deal killer for them.
Multi-link rear suspension as well :ohyeah:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 19, 2019, 10:58:59 AM
Multi-link rear suspension as well :ohyeah:.
If I hear this one more time I'm going to have a stroke
Quote from: 2o6 on April 19, 2019, 11:10:53 AM
If I hear this one more time I'm going to have a stroke
:lol:
Quote from: 2o6 on April 19, 2019, 11:10:53 AM
If I hear this one more time I'm going to have a stroke
MULTI-LINK SUSPENSION
Quote from: Laconian on April 19, 2019, 10:51:04 AM
Well, that's good news for my parents who bought a 2018. Tight quarters in the back would've been a deal killer for them.
2010:
(https://i.imgur.com/ppE9obR.jpg)
2015:
(https://i.imgur.com/2CQ5468.jpg)
2019:
(https://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2018/11/2019-Mazda3-hatch-rear-seat.jpg)
That's a pretty big regression. Wow, the third gen really had it going on! Heuge back seat!
I don't know what they were thinking when they made that compromise. Maybe someone along the line reeeeeeeeally liked the looks of the hatch at the mockup stage and let the far worse practicality of the thing slide. Maybe they figured someone wanting the hatch would want something 'sporty' more than the practicality aspect; if you want practicality maybe they figured you'd buy a CX-5 instead.
The sedan still has a pretty generous back seat. And it looks great from the outside. It's a compelling product if you're in the market for a compact sedan. Makes people buying Audi A3s, Mercedes-Benz A-classes and the like look pretty silly. Unfortunately I think the new Mazda 3 might end up in a bit of a no man's land in the market: "too expensive" for people in the market for a Corolla, Sentra or the like, but won't capture market share from the Audis and Mercedes-Benzes because those buyers care more about the badges in their grilles than any objective measure.
Quote from: 93JC on April 19, 2019, 02:15:00 PM
I don't know what they were thinking when they made that compromise. Maybe someone along the line reeeeeeeeally liked the looks of the hatch at the mockup stage and let the far worse practicality of the thing slide. Maybe they figured someone wanting the hatch would want something 'sporty' more than the practicality aspect; if you want practicality maybe they figured you'd buy a CX-5 instead.
It's probably the "we're in too deep" stage. Mazda's have really nice looking proportions, but that cab-rearward look isn't really good for packaging.
Shame.
Quote from: 93JC on April 19, 2019, 02:15:00 PM
The sedan still has a pretty generous back seat. And it looks great from the outside. It's a compelling product if you're in the market for a compact sedan. Makes people buying Audi A3s, Mercedes-Benz A-classes and the like look pretty silly. Unfortunately I think the new Mazda 3 might end up in a bit of a no man's land in the market: "too expensive" for people in the market for a Corolla, Sentra or the like, but won't capture market share from the Audis and Mercedes-Benzes because those buyers care more about the badges in their grilles than any objective measure.
Both the Audi and MB have like 40 more torque than the Mazda and at a low RPM, plus the A3 has an upgraded engine option. Especially after hearing some reviewers call the Mazda unpowered, I'm sure both of the Germans feel much faster in real world driving scenarios.
Mazda seems to be going more for VW's market - slotting in between the mainstreamers and luxury brands. And while I haven't seen the new 3 in person yet, they seem to be doing a much better job than veedub.
The Benz power train does not feel fast at all, and the A3's optional engine pushes the MSRP up almost 30% over a fully-loaded Mazda 3. And to get the Audi or Benz comparably equipped to the fully-loaded Mazda the price is about 50% more.
Mazda was already at VW's level. The level of fit and finish in the new car is every bit as good as Audi. (And embarrasses the Mercedes CLA.)
Quote from: 93JC on April 19, 2019, 03:13:26 PM
The Benz power train does not feel fast at all, and the A3's optional engine pushes the MSRP up almost 30% over a fully-loaded Mazda 3. And to get the Audi or Benz comparably equipped to the fully-loaded Mazda the price is about 50% more.
Mazda was already at VW's level. The level of fit and finish in the new car is every bit as good as Audi. (And embarrasses the Mercedes CLA.)
The old CLA sucked. I heard the new one is really nice.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27420382/mazda-rwd-platform-inline-six/?utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_medium=social-media&src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3NA3YSzKi8YtRCEbRn7ds_pvrAN2iHjI5lIxcWCN0lVIqVkSnIG9klgOk
Ok, so it's not the Mazda3 but I don't see a need to start a new post on just this. Inline 6 Mazda with RWD? I'm all in
Quote from: Onslaught on May 09, 2019, 10:12:51 AM
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27420382/mazda-rwd-platform-inline-six/?utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_medium=social-media&src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3NA3YSzKi8YtRCEbRn7ds_pvrAN2iHjI5lIxcWCN0lVIqVkSnIG9klgOk
Ok, so it's not the Mazda3 but I don't see a need to start a new post on just this. Inline Mazda with RWD? I'm all in
:hesaid:
They gotta do something about that front end, it's the only part of Mazdas that I don't like.
Quote from: Onslaught on May 09, 2019, 10:12:51 AM
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27420382/mazda-rwd-platform-inline-six/?utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_medium=social-media&src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3NA3YSzKi8YtRCEbRn7ds_pvrAN2iHjI5lIxcWCN0lVIqVkSnIG9klgOk
Ok, so it's not the Mazda3 but I don't see a need to start a new post on just this. Inline Mazda with RWD? I'm all in
Sign me up... I'll take 2 if it's a sedan and SUV... Maybe even a third if there is a sports coupe
I just see this all going left
AWD 6 turbo with torque vectoring would be adequate
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 09, 2019, 07:41:03 PM
I just see this all going left
AWD 6 turbo with torque vectoring would be adequate
They tried an AWD turbo mazda 6... The fwd based awd let it down
I see this as a big yuge win. And if they actually offer them in a manual. Better Weight distribution. Better handling. As good as my 6 turbo is I'd trade it right now for a RWD 6 with 6 pistons vs my 4. Not a 4 banger fan.
Quote from: r0tor on May 09, 2019, 07:48:52 PM
They tried an AWD turbo mazda 6... The fwd based awd let it down
Works fine for the Focus ST, Golf R, WRX, EVO (RIP) and pretty much every Audi :huh:
Old MS6 failed because the 2.3T was a turd and was expensive.... $42K in today's dollars fully loaded. A decently equipped AWD 6 2.5T would prob start around $35K which is much more reasonable and about the most Mazda can charge for a sedan. You and Onslaught might be 2 of like 10 people who would pay the $50K this thing will cost. It's a bad idea
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2019, 05:34:13 AM
Works fine for the Focus ST, Golf R, WRX, EVO (RIP) and pretty much every Audi :huh:
"In a FWD platform" does not necessarily equal "FWD based AWD."
ST is FWD only, though the RS is FWD based.
WRX, Evo, and most Quattro Audis aren't FWD based - they have a center diff that distributes power to both axles.
I meant the RS :facepalm:
Point there was Mazda doesn't need a whole new platform + engine to improve its dynamics. More important point is that dynamics <> sales growth. Every "dynamics focused" RWD sedan launched over the last decade has been a sales failure. What makes anyone think this would be any different???
I hate to dump on this because I also think it would be cool. But the industry is in survival mode right now. I would hate to see Mazda go under due to this pointless moonshot
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2019, 08:20:31 AM
I meant the RS :facepalm:
Point there was Mazda doesn't need a whole new platform + engine to improve its dynamics. More important point is that dynamics <> sales growth. Every "dynamics focused" RWD sedan launched over the last decade has been a sales failure. What makes anyone think this would be any different???
I hate to dump on this because I also think it would be cool. But the industry is in survival mode right now. I would hate to see Mazda go under due to this pointless moonshot
True. I was actually about to edit my post to say "Of course, that doesn't mean that FWD based systems can't be good" but you beat me to it. :lol:
I'm not sure how well reviewed Mazda's newer AWD systems are.
An I6 is a much better moonshot than a rotary. But don't they intend to make both engines? :facepalm:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2019, 05:34:13 AM
Works fine for the Focus ST, Golf R, WRX, EVO (RIP) and pretty much every Audi :huh:
So you just proved the awd cars that didn't suck don't have a fwd based awd system (Golf R has always been dogged as not being better then the GTi) ... Thanks
Should I lease a 2019 Mazda 3 sedan?
I'm thinking yes.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 10, 2019, 10:27:15 AM
Should I lease a 2019 Mazda 3 sedan?
I'm thinking yes.
Maybe. But I'd also consider a Civic Si, if it were me.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 10, 2019, 10:30:53 AM
Maybe. But I'd also consider a Civic Si, if it were me.
With the 1.5 turbo?
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 10, 2019, 10:41:52 AM
With the 1.5 turbo?
TBH I haven't looked into the gas-in-oil issue very closely, but I've seen some reports that it's not as common of an issue in the Civics as the CR-Vs for some reason. I don't recall the source of that info though, so it could be wrong.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 10, 2019, 10:45:46 AM
TBH I haven't looked into the gas-in-oil issue very closely, but I've seen some reports that it's not as common of an issue in the Civics as the CR-Vs for some reason. I don't recall the source of that info though, so it could be wrong.
I'd be wary.
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 10, 2019, 10:58:07 AM
I'd be wary.
Meh, maybe if he were talking about purchasing. I wouldn't be too concerned over a lease though.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 10, 2019, 10:27:15 AM
Should I lease a 2019 Mazda 3 sedan?
I'm thinking yes.
I think you should buy my (Fiesta, Dakota, Ranger, GMC), or a W123 240D.
Quote from: r0tor on May 10, 2019, 10:19:53 AM
So you just proved the awd cars that didn't suck don't have a fwd based awd system (Golf R has always been dogged as not being better then the GTi) ... Thanks
EVO, Focus
RS and Golf R don't suck. People who actually bought the R preferred it to the GTI (obviously).
More importantly the idea that the typical luxury buyer gives a shit about AWD power bias is hilarity. And you yourself demonstrate that the right engine (i.e. the B58 in a 3 pedal 340i) is not enough to sway even the most hardcore cloverleaf carvers when it's time to sign on the dotted line. So what makes you think it would sway cloverleaf civilians? You're projecting your fantasy desires as some kind of demonstrated market preference. Show me all these people clamoring for RWD based AWD please.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 10, 2019, 10:27:15 AM
Should I lease a 2019 Mazda 3 sedan?
I'm thinking yes.
I'd def check out some of its competitors before making any decisions. Civic Si, Elantra Sport, cheapo GTI.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2019, 11:20:41 AM
I'd def check out some of its competitors before making any decisions. Civic Si, Elantra Sport, cheapo GTI.
Base Kia Stinger :mask:
Quote from: Laconian on May 10, 2019, 10:05:09 AM
An I6 is a much better moonshot than a rotary. But don't they intend to make both engines? :facepalm:
Rotary is dead. They're working on them for range extenders for electric cars. But I'm calling it now, there will never be another RX-7 or 8.
Now if they want to make an I6 sports car I'd be all over that more then a 4 banger.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on May 10, 2019, 11:25:34 AM
Base Kia Stinger :mask:
That's not a bad idea; as long as it's on a pretty short lease. Personally, I'd go for the RS, why take half measures :huh:?
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 10, 2019, 11:41:16 AM
That's not a bad idea; as long as it's on a pretty short lease. Personally, I'd go for the RS, why take half measures :huh:?
Personally, I'd buy one. They are offering 0% APR
and $2000 cash back.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2019, 11:20:41 AM
I'd def check out some of its competitors before making any decisions. Civic Si, Elantra Sport, cheapo GTI.
Huh, Civic Si is much closer in price than I though. Higher dollar down amount, though.
I could be wrong but could it have something to do with how quickly the engine is brought up to operating temperature? I'm guessing that the average Civic Si driver will push their car harder than the average CR-V driver in the first 5-10 minutes.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 10, 2019, 10:45:46 AM
TBH I haven't looked into the gas-in-oil issue very closely, but I've seen some reports that it's not as common of an issue in the Civics as the CR-Vs for some reason. I don't recall the source of that info though, so it could be wrong.
There's still some equity in the RX line. Could they create an RX-9 (GT coupe) with a turbo I-6 ?
Quote from: Onslaught on May 10, 2019, 11:40:45 AM
Rotary is dead. They're working on them for range extenders for electric cars. But I'm calling it now, there will never be another RX-7 or 8.
Now if they want to make an I6 sports car I'd be all over that more then a 4 banger.
They couldn't call it an RX then
MX-9 would probably be it. I think there's room for a 9 sedan (or fastback) at the top of the range too.
Quote from: Onslaught on May 10, 2019, 11:40:45 AM
Rotary is dead. They're working on them for range extenders for electric cars. But I'm calling it now, there will never be another RX-7 or 8.
Now if they want to make an I6 sports car I'd be all over that more then a 4 banger.
Rotary emissions and fuel efficiency are shit. They need to redesign it to centralize the intake mixture and combustion into more of a cylindrical shape. If only there was a way to do that without so much reciprocating mass.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 10, 2019, 08:07:36 AM
"In a FWD platform" does not necessarily equal "FWD based AWD."
ST is FWD only, though the RS is FWD based.
WRX, Evo, and most Quattro Audis aren't FWD based - they have a center diff that distributes power to both axles.
Uh, I'm pretty sure the EVO is FWD biased
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 10, 2019, 10:45:46 AM
TBH I haven't looked into the gas-in-oil issue very closely, but I've seen some reports that it's not as common of an issue in the Civics as the CR-Vs for some reason. I don't recall the source of that info though, so it could be wrong.
The engines in the Civic and CR-V aren't the same. And namely the cooling system between the cars is different.
The oil dillusion issues are pretty much a non issue. Only really happens in cars with drivers who drive short distances and conservatively.
https://www.wardsauto.com/engines/honda-15l-engine-suffers-cold-weather-oil-dilution-problem
Quote
Honda first identified the problem in '17-'18 model CR-Vs and last fall issued a product update service bulletin covering 25,000 vehicles in five cold-weather states: Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin. No recall has been ordered because the problem isn't considered a safety issue.
Last December, the bulletin was expanded to cover CR-Vs in an additional 16 states – Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
A second bulletin issued in December and updated in February adds '16-'18 model-year 1.5L turbo Civics in the same 21 states. Owners of affected vehicles are being notified by the manufacturer to bring vehicles to dealers for repairs.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 10, 2019, 02:53:50 PM
The engines in the Civic and CR-V aren't the same. And namely the cooling system between the cars is different.
The oil dillusion issues are pretty much a non issue. Only really happens in cars with drivers who drive short distances and conservatively.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on May 10, 2019, 02:11:18 PM
Rotary emissions and fuel efficiency are shit. They need to redesign it to centralize the intake mixture and combustion into more of a cylindrical shape. If only there was a way to do that without so much reciprocating mass.
I fucking love the rotary. Fucking love it. Almost as much as the buffalo trace I've been drinking for two hours now. But it's expensive and unreliable. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat. Most people however wouldn't. Mazda needs to admit they did the best they could and walk away. If they had Toyota or Honda money then they could say "fuck it, we're doing it anyway." But they're too small to take the risk.
The only rotary I've driven is the RX-8 and while this was back in 2006 I do remember it being quite good. I think at this point Mazda needs to continue building cars that are near or at the top of the reliability charts and unfortunately the rotary won't help them do that.
Quote from: Onslaught on May 10, 2019, 04:04:01 PM
I fucking love the rotary. Fucking love it. Almost as much as the buffalo trace I've been drinking for two hours now. But it's expensive and unreliable. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat. Most people however wouldn't. Mazda needs to admit they did the best they could and walk away. If they had Toyota or Honda money then they could say "fuck it, we're doing it anyway." But they're too small to take the risk.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 10, 2019, 02:53:50 PM
The engines in the Civic and CR-V aren't the same. And namely the cooling system between the cars is different.
The oil dillusion issues are pretty much a non issue. Only really happens in cars with drivers who drive short distances and conservatively.
Same engine with minor variations...Honda 1.5T L15B7/Si Turbo Engine Review. (http://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=136)
Quote from: 2o6 on May 10, 2019, 02:31:02 PM
Uh, I'm pretty sure the EVO is FWD biased
"Based" not "biased" - i.e. how it's constructed, not where the power/torque goes. But I was basing that off of a quick Google search so maybe I misread something.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 10, 2019, 02:53:50 PM
The engines in the Civic and CR-V aren't the same. And namely the cooling system between the cars is different.
Wikipedia says they're both "L15B7 VTC Turbo" - the Si's turbo just generates more boost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_L_engine
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 10, 2019, 11:17:42 AM
EVO, Focus RS and Golf R don't suck. People who actually bought the R preferred it to the GTI (obviously).
More importantly the idea that the typical luxury buyer gives a shit about AWD power bias is hilarity. And you yourself demonstrate that the right engine (i.e. the B58 in a 3 pedal 340i) is not enough to sway even the most hardcore cloverleaf carvers when it's time to sign on the dotted line. So what makes you think it would sway cloverleaf civilians? You're projecting your fantasy desires as some kind of demonstrated market preference. Show me all these people clamoring for RWD based AWD please.
Evo was not fwd biased. Ford RS bragged all over the place it sends more power to the rear. Yes, the Golf R has always been labeled as an understeering snoozer - you guess it because of the fwd biased haldex.
Stop projecting your fear of tossing another RWD car into a wall and trying to convince the world fwd is OK
Quote from: 2o6 on May 10, 2019, 02:31:02 PM
Uh, I'm pretty sure the EVO is FWD biased
Tell that to the center diff
Quote from: Onslaught on May 10, 2019, 04:04:01 PM
I fucking love the rotary. Fucking love it. Almost as much as the buffalo trace I've been drinking for two hours now. But it's expensive and unreliable. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat.
Yes
Quote from: r0tor on May 10, 2019, 04:30:33 PM
Yes
Nothing like it is there? Sooo fucking smooth
:mask:
Quote from: r0tor on May 10, 2019, 04:27:18 PM
Evo was not fwd biased. Ford RS bragged all over the place it sends more power to the rear. Yes, the Golf R has always been labeled as an understeering snoozer - you guess it because of the fwd biased haldex.
Stop projecting your fear of tossing another RWD car into a wall and trying to convince the world fwd is OK
Lol? :lol:
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 10, 2019, 04:17:07 PM
"Based" not "biased" - i.e. how it's constructed, not where the power/torque goes. But I was basing that off of a quick Google search so maybe I misread something.
Wikipedia says they're both "L15B7 VTC Turbo" - the Si's turbo just generates more boost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_L_engine
Honda tech friend said the head a few features between the two engines aren't quite the same; but I can't find the data that backs him up (I swear I saw that confirmed that)
Either way, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. If *that* much fuel is slipping past the rings and into the crank case I feel like we'd have some really bad compression issues.
Quote from: HurricaneSteve on May 10, 2019, 03:51:07 PM
https://www.wardsauto.com/engines/honda-15l-engine-suffers-cold-weather-oil-dilution-problem
I mean, it's a service bulletin. It may have a problem, but I haven't seen anything from anyone including my Honda tech friends that say this engine has real problems with oil dillusion.
I mean, my Sonic has loads of service bulletins out for it
Also, I'm not sure why Honda just doesn't do what Toyota has been doing for years to get the car up to operating temp; don't engage any overdrive gears.
Any Toyota til like 2010 will scream it's head off in 3rd until it gets warm.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 10, 2019, 05:29:25 PM
Also, I'm not sure why Honda just doesn't do what Toyota has been doing for years to get the car up to operating temp; don't engage any overdrive gears.
Any Toyota til like 2010 will scream it's head off in 3rd until it gets warm.
Hey, now that you mention it, my '90 Camry did that!
Quote from: 2o6 on May 10, 2019, 05:27:38 PM
Honda tech friend said the head a few features between the two engines aren't quite the same; but I can't find the data that backs him up (I swear I saw that confirmed that)
Either way, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. If *that* much fuel is slipping past the rings and into the crank case I feel like we'd have some really bad compression issues.
I mean, it's a service bulletin. It may have a problem, but I haven't seen anything from anyone including my Honda tech friends that say this engine has real problems with oil dillusion.
I mean, my Sonic has loads of service bulletins out for it
Have you been reading what Morris Minor has been saying about his CR-V?
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 10, 2019, 05:30:20 PM
Have you been reading what Morris Minor has been saying about his CR-V?
I have four friends with Civics. No issues.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 10, 2019, 05:27:38 PM
Honda tech friend said the head a few features between the two engines aren't quite the same; but I can't find the data that backs him up (I swear I saw that confirmed that)
Well, apparently Honda marketing has gotten several things wrong about their current lineup, so I guess anything's possible.
QuoteThey said the Civic Si had a single mass flywheel. It has a dual mass flywheel.
They said the Civic Si would have rain-sensing wipers. It doesn't.
They said the Civic Si would have remote start. It doesn't.
They said the Civic Si would have a CD player. It doesn't.
They say the Civic Si develops up to 20.3 PSI of boost pressure. Nobody has seen that.
They say the Civic Si has a TD03 turbocharger. It has a TD025 turbocharger.
They say a spare tire kit is available for the Civic Si. The part number still says "not for sale".
They said the new Accord would use an Isuzu turbocharger. It uses a Mitsubishi turbocharger.
They said lower 2017 Ridgeline trims had walk-away auto locking on the window sticker. They didn't. Honda compensated owners with gift cards.
They said the 2016 CR-V EX-L without navigation had HD Radio on the window sticker. It didn't. Honda compensated owners with gift cards.
They show the HR-V's climate control panel on the Ridgeline's webpage. It remains uncorrected over a year and a half later.
https://www.civicx.com/threads/this-isnt-a-td03.19923/page-2#post-335320
I feel like Honda has always had shitty piston rings since the beginning of time tho. My friend worked at Honda North America (it's 45 mins from me) and he was testing the current gen Fit and Vezel (JDM HR-V with the L15 instead of the R18) and he told me the higher mileage test cars had issues with oil consumption and oil burning.
I mean, the K-series engines are known for burning oil. And the B18/B20 from the old integra and CR-V.....
Anyone find it funny that Toyota said it had to use BMW's inline 6 because it cost too much to develop one and build it. But little old Mazda is doing it?
To be fair, Toyota has V-6's and V-8's in their portfolio so there probably wouldn't have been any other vehicles that would have used the I-6 and as a result making it unprofitable whereas Mazda currently has no 6 cylinders so developing one to put into multiple (larger) vehicle applications made more sense. I could see the CX-9 switching to a RWD platform as well as a future CX-7.
Quote from: Onslaught on May 10, 2019, 06:07:19 PM
Anyone find it funny that Toyota said it had to use BMW's inline 6 because it cost too much to develop one and build it. But little old Mazda is doing it?
They should use existing inline-sixes, like the one in the Suzuki (Daewoo) Verona. :thumbsup:
Quote from: r0tor on May 10, 2019, 04:27:18 PM
Evo was not fwd biased. Ford RS bragged all over the place it sends more power to the rear. Yes, the Golf R has always been labeled as an understeering snoozer - you guess it because of the fwd biased haldex.
Stop projecting your fear of tossing another RWD car into a wall and trying to convince the world fwd is OK
No need to get in your feelings, though I know you can't help yourself. Point remains, 99% of luxury buyers don't give a shit about AWD power bias, near-limit dynamics or cylinder count. It's all about the badges (often including the performance models). So Mazda bringing the fight to the Germans in 1995 would be a huge waste of money and time.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 10, 2019, 05:29:25 PM
Also, I'm not sure why Honda just doesn't do what Toyota has been doing for years to get the car up to operating temp; don't engage any overdrive gears.
Any Toyota til like 2010 will scream it's head off in 3rd until it gets warm.
Taco does like to hold gears a bit longer when it's cold. I always kind of assumed most cars did that, whether through programming or natural instincts.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on May 10, 2019, 06:22:28 PM
They should use existing inline-sixes, like the one in the Suzuki (Daewoo) Verona. :thumbsup:
Which made an amazing 155hp. Didn't they say it was Porsche-developed or something ridiculous like that?
Quote from: Laconian on May 10, 2019, 09:44:33 PM
Which made an amazing 155hp. Didn't they say it was Porsche-developed or something ridiculous like that?
Yup, it was Porsche developed. A real piece of work.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on May 10, 2019, 09:47:31 PM
Yup, it was Porsche developed. A real piece of work.
If it works for Porsche, it will certainly work for Mazda. :mrcool:
But seriously, how cool would a SkyActive-X I6 be? If they could manage to combine high specific output and high 20's combined fuel economy... that would be amazing.
Quote from: Laconian on May 10, 2019, 09:50:43 PM
But seriously, how cool would a SkyActive-X I6 be? If they could manage to combine high specific output and high 20's combined fuel economy... that would be amazing.
It would be 1.5X as good as the 4 cylinder, but with a bonus +100 buttery smoothness
Stick shift
6MT
I6 HCCI
Sporty will say there's no market, but I'd hit that :mrcool:
Quote from: Laconian on May 10, 2019, 10:00:08 PM
Stick shift
6MT
I6 HCCI
Sporty will say there's no market, but I'd hit that :mrcool:
+ transverse mount FWD biased AWD. :muffin:
Quote from: Laconian on May 10, 2019, 10:00:08 PM
Stick shift
6MT
I6 HCCI
Sporty will say there's no market, but I'd hit that :mrcool:
Just don't let sporty drive it... Cause he will hit something
Quote from: Laconian on May 10, 2019, 09:50:43 PM
But seriously, how cool would a SkyActive-X I6 be? If they could manage to combine high specific output and high 20's combined fuel economy... that would be amazing.
We don't even know what the X 4 popper does. Their hesitance gives me pause.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 11, 2019, 09:50:40 AM
We don't even know what the X 4 popper does. Their hesitance gives me pause.
It is combustion magic :huh:
Quote from: Laconian on May 10, 2019, 09:50:43 PM
But seriously, how cool would a SkyActive-X I6 be? If they could manage to combine high specific output and high 20's combined fuel economy... that would be amazing.
There's still no planned release date for SkyAtiv-X in America. Baby steps.
Someone at work has a new Mazda3, in white. Looks friggin fantastic. :wub:
Quote from: Rockraven on June 25, 2019, 05:42:57 PM
Someone at work has a new Mazda3, in white. Looks friggin fantastic. :wub:
Definitely the right Mazda colour. Needs black mirrors though.
Tell them to get some IronX, stat. They'll need it after next winter.
The Mazda3 pics really don't do it justice. I wish the Miata had that front end. Really sleek looking.
Quote from: Rockraven on June 25, 2019, 05:42:57 PM
Someone at work has a new Mazda3, in white. Looks friggin fantastic. :wub:
That whole rear quarter panel/C pillar thing still looks absolutely awful to me.
C&D just compared the Mazda3 hatch with the Golf, both in manuals, and the Mazda won:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a28254044/2019-mazda-3-vs-2019-volkswagen-golf/
The obvious omission of the Civic hatch seems like stacking the deck in favor of the Mazda because it didn't sound like they were too amazed by it and lamented the lack of sportiness and how cramped it is. They even added the comparison to the GTI at the end for the same amount of money. After initial positive first drive reviews, maybe my criticism was more right than wrong.
VW really neutered the Golf in the swap from the 1.8T to the 1.4T. I've driven VWs with both engines and it's a very noticeable difference. The 1.8T is a turbine, the 1.4T is a food processor.
Civic would be my pick in this class as well. I've seen 0-60s from teh 1.5T as low as 6.4s with the CVT. Inside it's a class bigger than these cars and I'm pretty sure it's cheaper similarly equipped. I think all the Civics besides the Si/R come with Honda Sense too.
So from what I can remember, in the past few years they picked the 3 over the Golf, Civic over the Golf and 3, and the GTI over the Si. They have also stated many times that the Golf is perhaps the perfect hatchback and is 90% of the GTI. The biggest detriment to the 3 in the past was its lack of refinement, something they rectified this go around (exceeding the class leading Golf according to this comparo) while toning down the sportiness.
What I'd like to know is where do these cars rank in terms of sport and also where they rank in refinement/comfort? The Golf was considered the class leader before because of its balance but according to C&D doesn't the 3 beat it now? From what I can tell, reviews for the 3 seem to indicate while it's lost a bit of its edge, it's still a very good drive (American, Canadian and European reviewers all seem to state this) while upping the NVH reduction and comfort considerably. I do think though that the Si is a tremendous value and would select it if I was looking for a performance daily under 30K.
Quote from: Xer0 on July 02, 2019, 10:17:54 AM
C&D just compared the Mazda3 hatch with the Golf, both in manuals, and the Mazda won:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a28254044/2019-mazda-3-vs-2019-volkswagen-golf/
The obvious omission of the Civic hatch seems like stacking the deck in favor of the Mazda because it didn't sound like they were too amazed by it and lamented the lack of sportiness and how cramped it is. They even added the comparison to the GTI at the end for the same amount of money. After initial positive first drive reviews, maybe my criticism was more right than wrong.
It's really a shame the 3 hatch gave up so much rear legroom.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 02, 2019, 10:31:33 AM
Civic would be my pick in this class as well. I've seen 0-60s from teh 1.5T as low as 6.4s with the CVT. Inside it's a class bigger than these cars and I'm pretty sure it's cheaper similarly equipped. I think all the Civics besides the Si/R come with Honda Sense too.
Quote from: 93JC on January 24, 2019, 07:50:32 PM
...
Civic Touring sedan as an example:
174 hp, CVT, Bluetooth, CarPlay/Android Auto, all the Honda lane-keeping/blindspot monitoring safety stuff, 10-speaker stereo w/ SiriusXM, 7" touchcreen, satnav, LED automatic headlights, moonroof, remote start, heated mirrors, heated leather seats, power front seats (8-way driver's, 4-way passenger's), rain-sensing wipers, for $27,300 (https://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan).
A "Premium" package 3 sedan, by comparison: 186 hp, 6-speed automatic, Bluetooth, CarPlay/Android Auto, all the Mazda lane-keeping/blindspot monitoring safety stuff, 12-speaker stereo w/ SiriusXM, 8.8" touchscreen, satnav, LED auto headlights (and LED taillights), sunroof, heated mirrors, heated leather seats, 10-way power driver's seat, rain-sensing wipers, heads-up display, blah blah blah, for $26,500.
...
I feel like real world transaction prices for the Honda will be lower. My local Honda dealer is offering specials etc on the Civic.
More importantly, you can get lower trimmed Civics in the US, but you can't in the Mazda 3. I see a lot of Civic LX's and Sports
Didn't know they now have a new base trim that's about ~ $1000 more than the Honda. Yet and still, my first point still stands.
What kind of specials? In my experience, when I inquire about a Mazda, they generally give me a price that's at least 3 grand off of sticker and sometimes more (last one I was quoted was 32.5K on a CX-5 GTR). I thought it was Honda that was usually stingy with incentives?
Quote from: 2o6 on July 02, 2019, 01:30:55 PM
I feel like real world transaction prices for the Honda will be lower. My local Honda dealer is offering specials etc on the Civic.
More importantly, you can get lower trimmed Civics in the US, but you can't in the Mazda 3. I see a lot of Civic LX's and Sports
Didn't know they now have a new base trim that's about ~ $1000 more than the Honda. Yet and still, my first point still stands.
YEa Civics still move fast so no dice on discounts there. Mazda sales by comparison are in freefall so they will play ball.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 02, 2019, 01:30:55 PM
Didn't know they now have a new base trim that's about ~ $1000 more than the Honda. Yet and still, my first point still stands.
The sedan-only trim for $21k? That was announced with the rest of the pricing.
https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/press-release/2019-mazda3-leading-mazda-into-a-bold-new-era/
Still, a base Civic sedan is $19.5k. $1500 is not entirely trivial at that price point. Plus, I don't think the base 3 comes with the automation stuff, while the base Civic does.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on July 02, 2019, 01:57:29 PM
The sedan-only trim for $21k? That was announced with the rest of the pricing.
https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/press-release/2019-mazda3-leading-mazda-into-a-bold-new-era/
Still, a base Civic sedan is $19.5k. $1500 is not entirely trivial at that price point. Plus, I don't think the base 3 comes with the automation stuff, while the base Civic does.
Not to mention, a lot of people lease. Honda is offering a $179 lease special in my area.
That's with the manual. With an automatic it goes up another $800 (still cheaper by about $700-$800). The 2.5L is more comparable to the 1.5T which begins at $23,400. The hatch on the other hand is significantly cheaper versus the 3 which begins at $23,600.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on July 02, 2019, 01:57:29 PM
The sedan-only trim for $21k? That was announced with the rest of the pricing.
https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/press-release/2019-mazda3-leading-mazda-into-a-bold-new-era/
Still, a base Civic sedan is $19.5k. $1500 is not entirely trivial at that price point. Plus, I don't think the base 3 comes with the automation stuff, while the base Civic does.
I really like the looks of the 3. Interior especially.
If they put the 2.5T in it, I'm buying one as a daily driver. If they put the 2.5T with AWD and a 6-speed manual, I'm putting down a deposit day 1 :lol:
Mazda will make another moon shot engine before making an AWD manual transmission. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they got rid of the manual in the 3 altogether in a few years.
I'd be ok with the auto, awd, and 2.5T.
I'm not a fan of the current turd in there. I've been spoiled by the Accord's 2.0T.
I don't even know that the 2.5T would match. At least not until they get a new auto box
But yes, ample low/midrange is great. The older I get the less I like having to rev engines out. It's nice if it's just an option vs a necessity, at least on the street
Quote from: MrH on July 03, 2019, 07:47:37 AM
I'd be ok with the auto, awd, and 2.5T.
I'm not a fan of the current turd in there. I've been spoiled by the Accord's 2.0T.
The 2.0T in the Accord is way way different than the Mazda 2.5T though. The Accord's engine still kinda revs and pulls to redline. The Mazda engine just gives you power, doesn't really rev, and falls on its face after like 4K RPM. That 2.0 Honda mill is pretty sweet, it just doesn't sound the best :lol:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 03, 2019, 08:05:04 AM
I don't even know that the 2.5T would match. At least not until they get a new auto box
But yes, ample low/midrange is great. The older I get the less I like having to rev engines out. It's nice if it's just an option vs a necessity, at least on the street
Not match as in not fit the current transmission? Yeah, I don't know. They have it working in the CX-5 and CX-9. Is the auto in the Mazda3 based off the autos in those two cars?
Quote from: Xer0 on July 03, 2019, 08:19:49 AM
The 2.0T in the Accord is way way different than the Mazda 2.5T though. The Accord's engine still kinda revs and pulls to redline. The Mazda engine just gives you power, doesn't really rev, and falls on its face after like 4K RPM. That 2.0 Honda mill is pretty sweet, it just doesn't sound the best :lol:
Meh, it doesn't rev much and you don't get a lot extra out of it by revving. Horsepower is relatively flat from mid range to the top end. It does a great job of giving you a punch from down low when you floor it and putting the power down.
Quote from: MrH on July 03, 2019, 09:08:57 AM
Not match as in not fit the current transmission? Yeah, I don't know. They have it working in the CX-5 and CX-9. Is the auto in the Mazda3 based off the autos in those two cars?
I mean not match the Accord's 10AT, which is possibly the best FWD auto in the business. The Mazda 6AT has brilliant programming but it can't match the Accord's gear ratio spread (5.9 vs 10.1 :pullover: ). That even beats the ZF9 and it shifts way way better too. Just needs a Quaife...
Oh, yeah. Honda's 10 speed is the truth.
Quote from: MrH on July 03, 2019, 11:34:22 AM
Oh, yeah. Honda's 10 speed is the truth.
It doesn't hunt for gears too much? That's my concern with the newer transmissions, but admittedly, I don't think I've driven anything with more than 7 gears. Maybe 8.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on July 03, 2019, 11:35:39 AM
It doesn't hunt for gears too much? That's my concern with the newer transmissions, but admittedly, I don't think I've driven anything with more than 7 gears. Maybe 8.
It's really solid overall. Upshifts are really fast. Casual cruising is pretty funny when you listen for it. It upshifts every few hundred RPMs :lol: But it's quiet enough you don't even notice.
1st gear is really short, and 10th gear can cruise at 80 mph around 2k RPM.
Quote from: MrH on July 03, 2019, 11:37:13 AM
It's really solid overall. Upshifts are really fast. Casual cruising is pretty funny when you listen for it. It upshifts every few hundred RPMs :lol: But it's quiet enough you don't even notice.
1st gear is really short, and 10th gear can cruise at 80 mph around 2k RPM.
Damn, that'd be nice. I wish 6th in the S2000 were longer. It's not like people use 6th for performance anyway, and 4k RPM @ 75mph (indicated, so probably really 71 or 72) is kinda ridiculous.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on July 03, 2019, 11:39:22 AM
Damn, that'd be nice. I wish 6th in the S2000 were longer. It's not like people use 6th for performance anyway, and 4k RPM @ 75mph (indicated, so probably really 71 or 72) is kinda ridiculous.
80 mph in the Accord = 2,000 RPM
80 mph in the S2000 = 4,200 RPM :lol:
I got 36.5 mpg last weekend going to Cleveland and back averaging 77 mph :mask:. Slight inclines will actually kick it down to 9th gear. It's pretty amazing a giant sedan that can run low 14s in the 1/4 mile and get that kind of gas mileage.
Quote from: MrH on July 03, 2019, 09:08:57 AM
Meh, it doesn't rev much and you don't get a lot extra out of it by revving. Horsepower is relatively flat from mid range to the top end. It does a great job of giving you a punch from down low when you floor it and putting the power down.
In comparison to your average 2.0T in the class it def is noticeably more revy with more top end, and especially versus the Mazda engine. In comparison to the 2.0 in the S2K, well....
Quote from: BimmerM3 on July 03, 2019, 11:39:22 AM
Damn, that'd be nice. I wish 6th in the S2000 were longer. It's not like people use 6th for performance anyway, and 4k RPM @ 75mph (indicated, so probably really 71 or 72) is kinda ridiculous.
That's gotta be a Honda M/T thing. My Si is turning something like 3600RPM at 75MPH too and its annoying.
Quote from: MrH on July 03, 2019, 11:47:28 AM
80 mph in the Accord = 2,000 RPM
80 mph in the S2000 = 4,200 RPM :lol:
I got 36.5 mpg last weekend going to Cleveland and back averaging 77 mph :mask:. Slight inclines will actually kick it down to 9th gear. It's pretty amazing a giant sedan that can run low 14s in the 1/4 mile and get that kind of gas mileage.
Yeah, that's pretty crazy. I think Honda was recently named the most fuel efficient manufacturer (though I suppose Tesla was not included). The Si's similarly good numbers is one of the reasons I've been kinda sorta looking at those.
Quote from: Xer0 on July 03, 2019, 11:50:01 AM
In comparison to your average 2.0T in the class it def is noticeably more revy with more top end, and especially versus the Mazda engine. In comparison to the 2.0 in the S2K, well....
That's gotta be a Honda M/T thing. My Si is turning something like 3600RPM at 75MPH too and its annoying.
It's a high revving, low torque thing. You couldn't gear an S2000 much longer. It doesn't make enough power at low RPM to overcome the drag :lol: You would never be able to pass anybody or accelerate in 6th. It's also an efficiency thing. If you geared an S2000 to run at 2,000 RPM at 80 mph, you'd probably have to be at full throttle the entire time just to maintain speed. Not good from a durability or efficiency standpoint.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on July 03, 2019, 11:53:25 AM
Yeah, that's pretty crazy. I think Honda was recently named the most fuel efficient manufacturer (though I suppose Tesla was not included). The Si's similarly good numbers is one of the reasons I've been kinda sorta looking at those.
<debbie_downer>it's more eco-friendly to drive a less efficient car into the ground than it is to buy a new car</debbie_downer>
Quote from: Laconian on July 03, 2019, 11:56:57 AM
<debbie_downer>it's more eco-friendly to drive a less efficient car into the ground than it is to buy a new car</debbie_downer>
That's definitely something to consider, but this particular hypothetical scenario is where I'm getting a new car either way for other reasons, and I'm deciding between an Si and a WRX. :lol: Besides, if I were to do that, the new car would replace the S2000, so it's not like that would go straight to the junk yard. Someone else would get life out of it. Of course, the chain reaction might result in some other vehicle hitting the junk yard sooner.
I'm also mostly just rambling here. I don't think I'm going to get rid of the S2000 so it's pretty moot.
Old school Honda MT gearing drove me nuts. Kind of funny how they went from the manufacturer with the narrowest gearing to the widest
But honestly if I never have another manual daily I wouldn't be too bummed. Once you learn how to cajole an auto to do what you want it's good enough. And I feel like they learn what you want over time.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 03, 2019, 08:23:59 PM
Old school Honda MT gearing drove me nuts. Kind of funny how they went from the manufacturer with the narrowest gearing to the widest
They went from VTEC N/A to F/I blah.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 03, 2019, 08:23:59 PM
But honestly if I never have another manual daily I wouldn't be too bummed. Once you learn how to cajole an auto to do what you want it's good enough. And I feel like they learn what you want over time.
Well, autos have also gotten WAY better over the past 20 years. But yeah, a lot of it is just getting used to a particular car. I still get frustrated with the Explorer on mountain roads sometimes, but it's a 2006 and even it's a lot better than my anecdotal experience with cars just not too much older.
The NB would do 4500rpm at 80, the ND does about 3000. I'd be ok if it were geared to an even lower rpm. If I want to accelerate I'll pop a shift. I'd much rather have better mpg and enjoy the activity of driving more
Quote from: Laconian on July 03, 2019, 08:32:59 PM
They went from VTEC N/A to F/I blah.
Oil dilution issues aside, Honda has done F/I a lot better than most of its competitors.
And IMO there's no replacement for displacement (or weight reduction). Someone said VTEC is like a turbo with all the lag with none of the boost :lol:
With all of the sound. The DOHC VTEC cam change is orgasmic.
Quote from: Laconian on July 04, 2019, 11:18:20 AM
With all of the sound. The DOHC VTEC cam change is orgasmic.
It wasn't very noticeable in my old Accord, but I love the cam changeover in the S2000. It's been a long time since I've been in an AP1, but IIRC, it was even more aggressive in that version.
That said, the Explorer has taught me the value of low end torque.
Accord uses a very different VTEC implementation that's optimized for fuel economy, not output.
Yea, real VTEC is very distinct. People actually shift the changeover point down to get more total power through the rev range.
Every engine that revs to and makes power at ~8K will have some aural rip though. My beloved G didn't have a distinct changeover... but it sounded great at redline (7500 RPM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZDKnX7gWaY
I was picking up parts for my Mazda at the dealer, and I got some seat time with the new 3.
1. The interior is very impressive, everything feels good quality and looks great
2. The sight lines on the hatchback are bad
3. I can see why someone would pass on this car; it feels well made but claustrophobic. It's definitely much more snug than it's competitors. This was a Mazda/Nissan dealer, and although the Sentra isn't a very nice vehicle to drive, the Sentra has commodious interior room and is viable for the sole car of a smaller family. It legitimately felt like it had less room inside than my Chevrolet Sonic.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on July 04, 2019, 11:55:29 AM
It wasn't very noticeable in my old Accord, but I love the cam changeover in the S2000. It's been a long time since I've been in an AP1, but IIRC, it was even more aggressive in that version.
That said, the Explorer has taught me the value of low end torque.
It's like a different engine when you get on the hot cam. If you rev everything out to redline, you stay in the money rpm range the whole time. If you short shift at all, you fall below into slow range.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 11, 2019, 12:40:23 PM
I was picking up parts for my Mazda at the dealer, and I got some seat time with the new 3.
1. The interior is very impressive, everything feels good quality and looks great
2. The sight lines on the hatchback are bad
3. I can see why someone would pass on this car; it feels well made but claustrophobic. It's definitely much more snug than it's competitors. This was a Mazda/Nissan dealer, and although the Sentra isn't a very nice vehicle to drive, the Sentra has commodious interior room and is viable for the sole car of a smaller family. It legitimately felt like it had less room inside than my Chevrolet Sonic.
Did you sample just the hatchback, or also the sedan? To me the sedan is noticeably larger on the inside than the hatch, which really is far too small.
The 3 got slammed in C&D for its driving dynamics in this months issue... Still finished 2nd though because ause of its sophistication despite nobody picking it as their favorite car to drive
Mazda has sadly gone all BMW
Quote from: r0tor on July 13, 2019, 06:41:12 PM
The 3 got slammed in C&D for its driving dynamics in this months issue... Still finished 2nd though because ause of its sophistication despite nobody picking it as their favorite car to drive
Mazda has sadly gone all BMW
Twist beam suspension? :huh:
Who won? Civic? And who were the other competitors?
Quote from: r0tor on July 13, 2019, 06:41:12 PM
The 3 got slammed in C&D for its driving dynamics in this months issue... Still finished 2nd though because ause of its sophistication despite nobody picking it as their favorite car to drive
Mazda has sadly gone all BMW
Civic won... I'm sure it will be on the web in a few days
Slammed for its driving dynamics?
Well, I'm looking forward to this review.
I read it online.
It wasn't "slammed". It just wasn't as sharp as they wanted.
Driving dynamics are no longer a feather in the 3's cap
Frankly, as I've said ad nauseum, the last gen didn't thrill me either. The current Civic was better than that too, but hardly a hair raising thriller.
I can't knock Mazda for focusing on what matters to customers. 3 just needs more power to be truly "premium"
I've driven literally all of them except the latest one, and they've always been pretty fun to drive, but I don't think it's ever been second coming of Jesus that people make it out to be.
This might be the wrong thread for it but I bought one of the last remaining 2018 models with a manual over the weekend. I didn't check out the 2019 but I've heard there have been some teething issues and I wasn't interested in paying 28K for the manual.
Pros:
- Steering was better than expected. I still have the previous generation with the hydraulic steering which still feels better but I liked it better than both the Civic and Golf I test drove. Not as good as the Fiesta ST but good enough.
- Ride and interior are quite nice. No rattles and seats feel good and of high quality.
- Refinement is improved over the previous gen. Engine noise is pretty subdued.
- Handling is still excellent for a mainstream car.
- Shifter and clutch combo makes for easy driving in the city.
- 2.5 liter has pretty decent pull.
- Hill assist is nice on SF hills.
Cons:
- Road noise. Better than my 2010 but still noticeable especially on rougher patches on the highway. Not unbearably so but does take away from the otherwise premium feel a bit.
- Clutch engagement point is different from what I'm used to (towards the end of travel) which makes the car feel a bit sluggish off the line in 1st gear. Will likely just take some getting used to but definitely different from the Miata and even the 2.
- Shifter feel isn't as good as my other/previous cars. Much lighter but does make for easier city driving.
- Feels way bigger than the 2 and will also take sone getting used to. Will miss the ease of parking.
The goal is to hold onto the car for 5-10 years so after doing my research I felt like this was the way to go. I liked the Civic hatchback but had concerns about the long term reliability of the turbo plus it was more expensive. Given my shorter legs I couldn't get comfortable in the Golf and also had questions about its reliability but felt pretty good otherwise. And my wife hated the lack of comfort and space in the 2 so that eliminated the Fiesta ST so here I am with another 3.
Given your wants and needs, I think you made the right call. Congrats! 2.5 probably addresses most of the complaints I had about the 2.0 6AT rental I had a few years ago. Plus with it being at the end of its life they should have it all sorted.
Sounds like going with a leftover 2018 was the right choice. Motortrend just ranked the new 3 last behind the new Corolla and old Civic. Considering space was at a premium the new 3 is just not a good choice:
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/civic/2019/2019-honda-civic-2020-toyota-corolla-2019-mazda3-comparison-test/
What I've been saying for years. With the Golf moving to the lumpy wheezy 1.4T, the Civic is the king of the roost... if you can look at it
11th gen is due soon; hopefully they transplant the (relatively) gorgeous Insight's design over and smooth it out.
Thanks! Yeah I could see how the 2.0L might not feel impressive for spirited driving. Day to day it's fine IMHO but if you want to wring it out not so much. I've seen the 2.5L AT tested as low as 6.9 for 0-60. Manual version is slower but I didn't buy it for stoplight racing. And the end of life did factor into it as well--any bugs that were present at the beginning should have been worked out by now.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 05, 2019, 01:11:16 PM
Given your wants and needs, I think you made the right call. Congrats! 2.5 probably addresses most of the complaints I had about the 2.0 6AT rental I had a few years ago. Plus with it being at the end of its life they should have it all sorted.
The article does seem a bit biased. They mentioned tire noise for both the Civic and Corolla but nothing for the 3's sound and ride which according to virtually every other publication, including CR, is very quiet and rides well. They also refer to the Corolla's suspension as "OK" and not as fun to drive as the Civic but don't definitively say if it's better than the 3's. The overall tone of the article made it seem like they wanted the Civic to win and Corolla to take second place (while downplaying their demerits) and give any praise towards the 3 as faintly as possible. When even European magazines like the new 3 and this by far is the most negative one I've seen of it, I have to question how fair of a comparison this was to begin with.
But to be fair I did not actually drive the new 3 so I'm just going off of what I've read.
Quote from: Xer0 on August 05, 2019, 01:16:55 PM
Sounds like going with a leftover 2018 was the right choice. Motortrend just ranked the new 3 last behind the new Corolla and old Civic. Considering space was at a premium the new 3 is just not a good choice:
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/civic/2019/2019-honda-civic-2020-toyota-corolla-2019-mazda3-comparison-test/
These aren't actually my car but it's from the same dealership and looks identical. Keeping the car garaged until I can get a clear bra put on. For a 2014 design it still looks pretty good IMHO.
(https://i.imgur.com/wtBwzMQ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Od7fI5r.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rpUsEe3.jpg)
Great looking car. I beginning to think that white is the best colour.
I agree. The more I see it the more I'm impressed with the design. When it first came out I was dead set on a darker color like the Deep Crystal Blue but it's close enough to black where leaving it outdoors most of the time would result in a lot of visible scratches. White looks pretty classy and under the radar.
Quote from: FoMoJo on August 06, 2019, 09:40:42 AM
Great looking car. I beginning to think that white is the best colour.
The C&D comparo is out: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a28659477/2019-mazda-3-vs-honda-civic-toyota-corolla-vw-golf-hyundai-elantra/
And the specs sheet: https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2019-mazda3-civic-elantra-corolla-golf-scoring-complete-specs-1565370963.pdf
The best performing car (Elantra GT) finishes third and the most luxurious (3) takes second. The only car that seemed to stink it up was the Corolla but by C&D's scoring the top 4 cars aren't that far apart. Similar to the MT test, it seems like they had their favorite(s) and determined the winner as such.