x2lacrosse

1. Obviously the type S is going to feel quicker than a grand touring, its a much lighter car, has a a six speed tranny, and has over 40 more horses than the MAzda 3s Grand Touring, Honda made it clear long ago that displacement means nothing, so don't try to make the .3 liters more seem like that big of a deal, the higher torque rating is necessary and offset by the weight difference between the two cars but keep in mind the Type S RSX runs closer in the price range of the Mazdaspeed3, not the grand touring, so those are the two you should be comparing, and you didn't say if the GT you purchasesd was a sedan or hatch . . .

2. the mazda 3 definitely is not slow, I don't know what car you were driving, this is the first of heard of someone complaining about the 3's drivetrain . . . are you sure you're not confusing it with a Mazda 6 2.3L or was your car full of people?

3. if you want an unbiased comparison of the 3 and civic SI, Honda fanboy here isn't the one to listen to, check out some auto publications heres a short list of articles

I think reading owns you. I never said that I expected the 3s to be QUICKER than my type S. Hell no, a stock Type S will roast a stock 3s to 60, the 1/4 and to 100 and it certainly will beat it in the twisties. I said that I expected to FEEL a stonger engine from the Mazda due to bigger displacement, but for some reason, I did not.
I understand how the gearing and the top end would make the Type S faster, but I'm not talking about pure speed. Displacement has everything to do with torque ratings and how strong the car feels. I know Honda has made a living out of squeezing HP out of small engines, but all that power comes from high RPM's, which has NOTHING to do with how strong an engine feels in the low and mid ranges.

A stock 3s is not slow? You consider a 16 second car to be fast? You're either insane or you've never been in a fast car. In today's world, being in the 14's is not even considered a fast car; so by that standard, the 3s is slow. Hell, I consider a stock Type S to be a mediocre car in terms of shear speed.

You need to learn the definition of a fanboi. That is one who bashes other cars or thinks theirs is superior with NO evidence to support their beliefs. I've clearly stated that Mazda's are good cars and most are superior than Honda's in terms of initial value, but if you go beyond comparison tests of brand new vehicles and speed, you'll find that Honda and Toyota's are tops in terms of long-term value and in most cases reliability. See, I'm not a fanboi b/c I give Toyota's props, yet I've never owned one (never will). In fact, any Honda/Acura would be my first choice, but Mazda products would be my second. So, not sure where the fanboi analogy comes from.

Here's a tell-tale sign of who the best in the auto industry are. Watch any Ford, Chevy, Mazda, Hyundai, Dodge, etc commercial and you will most often hear or see some sort of comparison to a Honda or Toyota. They don't do that b/c they want to, they do it b/c they have to do market their products. You don't see any comparisons in Honda or Toyota commercials, they simply pitch their own product and that's it.

I know you may be a Mazda fan and I'm not saying Mazda's are bad cars b/c they're not. You can let your personal preferences and opinions sway your purchasing decisions, but don't let them clout the facts.

Link for resale value, notice Honda took 4 out of 10 categories while Mazda took none:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/11/27/..._resale_value/

KrayzieFox

C'mon now guys, focus a bit and keep it on topic will ya? Who gives a **** about marketing and resale categories .. the guy came here to get advice on a Mazda3. If you can't help the guy then don't jack his thread. Rant over.

JoshP5

Looking through this thread, it seems people get 25-30 mpg depending on driving. I have heard that it generally doesn't make the EPA estimated figures.

I considered getting a 3 during my recent search. In my test drive I found forward visability excellent, but the rear c-pillars (d-pillars for the hatch) a bit thick for rearward vision. No worse than my Protege5, though.

As far as things to know about, the automotive press indicates the shifter is a bit vague, but that can surely be remedied with a short shift kit if it bugs you. Mazdas motor mounts tend to be a bit flimsy, so there's a bit more drivetrain slop than you'd find in a comparable Honda or VW. Aftermarket motor mounts are also available, however.

I agree with Matty, it would be better just to get an MS3 if you really want an LSD.

My next car will likely be the cheaper Mazda3 s Sport version. I'd slap on some lightweight 17" rims and nice tires, a full Koni/Racing Beat suspension, an AWR rear motor mount, and an RB exhaust, strip off the side moldings, tint the windows 35%, and call it a day.

Roddimus Prime

Hey guys, since both of you are fairly new I'm only going to say this once.


We're a forum of nice guys here. We don't fight. It's cool to respectfully disagree but if you take it further you'll find yourself promoted to just lurking real quick. We like to keep things drama-free and overloaded with info.

To surmise:

Honda makes good cars (for people who are interested in hondas)
Mazda makes good cars for people interested in going fast in turns.

Want to go fast in turns and you're looking at a compact? No better car on the road than a MS3.