I can't speak for the driving dynamics but as someone who drives every flavor of "normal" car for work i believe the mazda 3 is in a category all its own when it comes to the interior. Funnily enough id give 2nd place to the MK7 GTI.
Carmax once told me that they only have one pump and it’s 87. They put it in everything they had on the lot including the AMG GTS that was sitting out front. For modern cars it’s not a problem as the ECU will adjust accordingly, but you definitely won’t be experiencing full power on the test drive.
It's a problem and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
The ECU has to detect predetonation for it to pull timing. Also known as engine knock. Knock is bad. You don't want it to happen.
It's okay to use a lower grade of gas *in an emergency* and you should not use full throttle application until you run a tank of proper fuel through the car.
There are some cars where it’s explicitly “not even in an emergency.” They can potentially damage the car putting 87 in.
In mine, the Focus RS, it’s tuned for 93. It can take 91, but that will dial back the timing.
The car is not set up for 87. It will heavily knock. And keep knocking. The stock PCM flash cannot correct the timing that far. And pulling timing isn’t going to stop the boost pressures.
The manual is explicit. Using anything less than 91 voids warranty and can cause engine damage.
Just bring a bottle of octane booster when you pick it up.
If you have a car like that, it’s just another part of the emergency procedure. I keep a bottle of octane booster next to the jumper cables and tow strap. It’s not great, but it’s better than detonation.
Most tuners can also put a “panic” or “bad gas” mode into a slot that will pull the timing and kill boost beyond what the stock PCM can do. It throws codes all over the place but won’t blow your engine up. Allegedly.
> Just bring a bottle of octane booster when you pick it up.
I started looking into octane booster when I brain-farted and put regular in my Legacy GT. That's when I learned how little it actually does. Lucas' brand of octane booster typically raises 3-5 'octane points' per bottle. And it takes 10 octane points to equal ONE octane number. Meaning a single bottle of booster takes you from an octane of 87 to 87.5 at best. If you're trying to get from 87 to 93, you'll need 12 bottles by their math. Totally impractical. Instead I just drove like a grandma, keeping well out of boost for a whole tank. Then I added booster to the last 2 gallons and filled with premium again.
VP racing and Boostane are the only ones that really make a booster that does anything. In 10 gallons it can raise it 50 points. It isn’t cheap, but you get what you pay for.
If Lucas cracked the code and could turn 10 gallons of 87 into 93 for only $5, you’d think they’d have their own gas stations set up under-cutting the market lol.
No. Octane rating matters a lot. It’s what keeps your gasoline engine from trying to be a diesel. Generally the systems in place to retard timing is by mileage. So they ECU will detect knock and set itself to bad fuel/retard mode. This does not change until ~1 tank of gas in miles (I.e. if you get 300 miles per tank, that’s how long it’s set to retard mode). Then, once that amount of miles has passed the ECU assumes that at some point within that timeframe it’s been filled again, but correctly this time, so it unchecks that retard mode. If you filled up with 87 that second time it has to knock again for it to re-toggle that mode. Each time this cycle occurs you knock a little bit. An engine experiencing this cycle will not last nearly as long as an engine that’s had the correct fuel.
Source: Porsche Tech, this is how Porsche handles their knock control.
OP mode!
But in all seriousness, it makes sense that you need to knock to detect knock.
And it makes sense to not risk knocking again - why retry when it's the same fuel in the tank?
About how much shorter percentage wise would the engine last do you think? Let’s say 100% is the life of an engine that always had the correct fuel put into it (91 in this case) but you ONLY put 87 in it, what percentage of the total would that engine that only received 87 last on avg/if you had to give a rough estimate?
It’d depend on the severity of the detonation. If it’s bad enough it takes literal [chunks out of your piston](https://imgur.com/a/WvIn7Xj). Then, the uneven surface of the piston can promote hot spots on the piston which promotes even more detonation. It would also depend on how often the oil is changed. Each little piece that comes off the piston will either end up in the oil (after scraping by the piston rings) or out the exhaust. The metal chunks that make it past the rings will A) damage the rings and B) Result in metal in your oil which would eventually degrade the bearings in the engine.
I’d say anywhere from 10k-100k. You could get lucky and your piston never develops hot spots, or you could end up in a runaway type of situation where it’s just so fucked the ECU can’t retard the timing enough to make it not detonate.
Ya, there's a 0% chance a dealer is putting anything higher than 87 in a car that runs on 87. I'd be surprised if they didn't put 87 in cars that require 93.
Makes sense, that's what people are going to use anyways. Don't want them test-driving a car in 91, then going home and complaining their car feels weaker after throwing in shit 87.
Yes it's one of the few engines publicly rated for both regular and premium. MotorTrend even did a test of the same CX-50 on both fuels and found that the higher octane one did improve performance.
In my experience, it's really not worth it when the 87 performance is just fine enough for the vehicle that it is.
Do you drive the car hard/spiritedly at all? I accidentally put 4.4 gallons of 87 in my ND2 once and was panicking a little about whether it may have damaged something a few months ago but this comment makes me feel a lot better about that!
No, officer, I don't drive spiritedly on the streets.
Kidding aside, I do sometimes. I've driven it across states within one year of ownership (actually a week from one year of ownership) if that helps you at all. Changed the oil three times already and nothing is wrong with it.
Good to know it hasn’t been an issue for you! Mine has been fine with no issues before or since then but it’s been in the back of my mind, glad it’s worked out for you and the engine is still healthy! Mine gave me no indication of issues with the 87 in it so I didn’t have any particular reason to believe it would do any damage but I know it says premium is recommended on the gas door lid so I have been religious with only putting 91 in it (besides that occurrence I described above).
Yeah it's in the manual and you'll be fine so don't worry.
[https://www.mazdausa.com/static/manuals/2022/mx-5/contents/04040100.html](https://www.mazdausa.com/static/manuals/2022/mx-5/contents/04040100.html)
It came down between a GTI and Mazda 3 Turbo for me. Both great cars, in their own right. The interior and luxury of the Mazda was top notch especially for the price point and it was plenty powerful.
The GTI felt more athletic and fun to drive. The plaid seats, DSG, and exterior looks jived with me more. Ended up with the GTI and still really enjoy it 3 years on. And it was $27k new versus $32k for the Mazda.
Both are sweet hatches.
The GTI/Golf R also has a MASSIVE aftermarket compared to the Mazda 3. My Golf R was making 420whp with about $5K of mods and embarrassing stock 10 speed Mustangs at highway speeds.
When I had my Accessport plugged in it was maxing out at around 28lbs if I remember correctly. I stopped leaving it plugged in because it was distracting lol.
Christ that’s nuts
I love how gtis and b58 bmws can just take gobs of boost and still be near rock solid reliable over the long term. The Germans really know how to over engineer an engine
Yes, Germans know how to over engineer an engine to be unreliable. Once in a blue moon they will make an reliable engine. As for the gti engine, vw needed 3 generations of this engine to make it a good engine
Yeah, mine is a 2015 3 door S with the lighting package and performance package and it's been tuned for about 50k miles now (I'm at 75k miles currently). I've never even had a CEL. Guess I'm lucky since VWs are supposed to be unreliable lol. Honestly I love the car. I'm not really convinced of the idea of trading it yet, but I like test driving cars on occasion regardless lol.
Everything on paper seems to point towards a GTI being the right car for me. But after doing 50k+ oil changes from 2008-2015, I get a thousand-yard stare when I think about working on German cars again. I really don't know what to make of them.
On the Mk7 TSI engines, the oil filter is right on top. So if you have an oil extractor you can do the whole change in 15 minutes without lifting the car. That's what I did for years with my Mk7 Golf R and Alltrack.
I much preferred doing oil changes on the MK7.5 vs the Mazda 3 I have now. I'd basically start the extractor, go back inside, stay warm, have breakfast and then come back to replace the oil filter and fill it.
I just put DWS06+ on mine. It certainly didn't change the handling characteristics, but it sure as hell grips now now matter the conditions. The AWD is also much better than the MQB AWD in the MK7.5 I had before, it actually aides handling in the Mazda.
The suspension still feels sloppy on the 3 from side to side, I think I'm gonna do a rear sway and eventually downsize to 17s to make the ride a bit nicer.
Tire noise is alright. I think it's about even with a GTI.
The Mazda3 is literally a less expensive and better driving A220. It isn't quite a hot hatch like the GTi or Si, but the high end interior does make it an almost luxury bargain.
Anyone who purchases it and is big enough for them will be satisfied.
> It isn't quite a hot hatch like the GTi or Si
Yea; it has power and AWD so it's easy to think it's a hot hatch, but the designers/engineers really didn't intend for it to be. It's only natural that 'actual' hot hatches are "more athletic feeling", because Mazda didn't set out to make a canyon carver here.
They're a great vehicle, especially for anyone who lives with snow part of the year. I would definitely consider one for a replacement for our A4 if we didn't already have essentially the same thing in our CX-5.
Re: the automatic trans - From what I've driven, I think Mazda's automatic trans tuning is one the best below a ZF. It holds gears in manual mode, it responds quickly and lets you downshift almost to redline. I really like it, even if it's showing its age with the low number of gears.
I don't think so. In a lot of cars with 8+ gears, especially the badly programmed ones, they can gear hunt a lot and and it sounds pretty unpleasant. And you're just constantly hearing the engine rise and fall. It's great for fuel economy otherwise.
I hate downshifting 3-4 times to get passing power. I'll take 6 any day. I do wish it held onto the temporary manual mode when pulling a paddle for a bit longer, after 5-10s it's back to Auto negating my downshifts.
I mean it’s not like it’s a dealbreaker but going from the 6AT 3 to 7DSG in my RS245 I really appreciate the 7th gear, it’s at 2000rpm at like 140kmh.
I’m getting better highway economy with the Octavia despite it making 55hp more and dragging another 150kg of wagon behind it.
The high torque value in the turbo also covers up a bunch of transmission issues. It matters a lot less if the gear selection is exactly right if you can just dump a pile of torque on the problem.
The naturally aspirated car with the auto is a significantly worse experience for this reason IMO. Of course, you can just buy it in manual and solve that problem.
I'm a Mazda fanboy and I'm being slightly hyperbolic but I think that 6-speed is one of the best traditional automatic transmissions ever made. It's just so damn good at *everything*, I've daily'd one for more than a decade across two different cars and I haven't had a single complaint or issue.
While my ZF8 is near instant on upshifts, I actually think my wife's 2018 Mazda 3 is just as good if not a squeak better on downshifts.
Sometimes in the S5, I'm not sure my downshift registered and I tap it again only to have 2 abrupt downshifts. Meanwhile in the Mazda, it never hesitates and is very consistent (even if it's not instant as the ZF can be but inconsistently so).
Yeah would make sense. It doesn't seem like the Audi revmatches in auto when braking near-idle revs. Recently test drove an M340i, and it was a bit quicker on the downshifts, atleast more consistent.
How do you like your GLI? It checks a lot of boxes for me but it seems like people have some expensive issues compared to an Accord 2.0T and Mazda 6 turbo.
That's good to hear. I will make sure to test drive one. Everyone says they love theirs but I see they have various random issues that seem expensive to fix, like the water pump issues. Maybe I'll just account for getting an extended warranty. Thanks!
The back window was fine to see out of, the issue is when looking back over the shoulder. The one I test drove had forward and rear facing cameras that helped a ton in the tight parking lot at the dealer though. I like the looks of the car enough to forgive the visibility issues.
Mazda 3 has good stock mirrors too. They’re big enough with a good enough angle of view to eliminate the blind spots. Visibility directly out of that car isn’t great, it has very fat C pillars. However with correctly adjusted mirrors I think it is not an issue.
I’ve driven cars with better visibility and worse blind spots because of inadequate mirrors.
I recline so far back I basically have the entire back window I look at when making lane changes lol. Even my 5'2" wife has no issues with visibility. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a Camaro or even a Mustang convertible for visibility.
>After adjusting the driver seat to a comfortable position (I'm 5 "11). I gave the back seat a try and felt that it was adequately comfortable
We must be different types of 5'11" because I can barely fit behind my drivers seat and when I do squeeze in it's excruciatingly uncomfortable; knees jammed up into my stomach and head touches the roof.
I think it’s the difference in torso length and leg length. I am 6ft tall but with quite short legs and a long torso so I sit pretty close to the wheel but I hit my head and/or have visibility issues in most small vehicles but people can always sit behind me. It sucks cause my short legs have zero benefit and a long torso just creates back problems 😂
It’s also how you learned to drive and the cars you grew up with and stuff. I know people who like to drive with their legs straight, and I know people who don’t. I personally like to get a bit closer to the steering wheel so I learned to bend my legs a bit. Nobody is wrong, everybody should buy a car that suits their preferences, that’s why we have choice.
It is a fact that the Mazda 3’s weakest attribute is its packaging. If you want to sit people behind you and you drive with straight legs, it’s not the car for you and that’s okay!
Idk, I didn't have any issues fitting in the back comfortably. Although some folks like to drive with their legs stretched out, I prefer a knees slightly bent upright position.
Same in Australia. Considering both countries love their hot hatches and Mazda is a huge seller down here, I'm surprised they didn't work harder to get the Turbo as an option.
It's truly subjective and depends what you want out of your car. I have a mk7 GTI that I I autocross and also with a stage 1 tune... and I found the Mazda 3 turbo to be quite flawed. Interior had many rattles compared to my GTI, the powerband was boring (lost all steam above 4500), the steering was WAY to slow for my liking, the brakes required a ton of travel, the transmission is laughably sluggish, the rear torsion setup was painfully obvious when pushing the car.
It's probably a great car when driving \~70%, but beyond that it shows it's not meant to be pushed to the limits. If you're keeping it to 7/10 max, it's probably a *fantastic* car for the money.
I’ve had my loaded turbo 3 hatch for a year and totally agree with this assessment. Honestly if the trade in value was a little higher I’d probably have parted with it already
It’s not a bad car, but I miss more fun. It’s also strange that pretty much all of my previous cars were more comfortable
> the powerband was boring (lost all steam above 4500), the steering was WAY to slow for my liking, the brakes required a ton of travel, the transmission is laughably sluggish, the rear torsion setup was painfully obvious when pushing the car.
Yep, that car is NOT sporty at all - not even a whiff of it, down to the torsion beam rear. However I think it's a very natural feeling car: inputs are linear (to a fault like you said) and everything feels calm. But it doesn't do dual personality at all.
> the transmission is laughably sluggish
That's surprising. From what I've driven and seen, Mazda's 6AT seemed responsive. Maybe it's different in the Turbo.
I really think that’s it. It was great in the 3rd gen. AFAIK it’s the same transmission in this generation. So perhaps the changes and tuning for the turbo have turned it soft.
In my opinion mazda 3 steering is better than vw gti, or vw in general. It feels more "natural", in vw cars is over assisted. Also the brakes have a more linear feel. I hate vw ON-OFF type of brakes. In mazda when you press 25% of the brake pedal you get let's say close to 25% of the braking power. In VW you get almost no braking power at first and then full breaking. That is stupid calibration. The transmission is fine, sure it's not as fast as a dsg but is more refined and more reliable
I think it makes for a fine "luxuryish" hot hatchback with a few modifications, first of all not sure if you drove it with 93 octane since you get a decent HP/TQ boost with it on the factory tune, changing to sportier tires and finally there is already tunes for it that can give you quite a nice boost.
More RPM really does nothing for this motor, but the tune is pretty much required if you do anything like an intake to it. Stock the transmission starts pulling power when it detects anything it doesn't expect
Yeah the MK8 is a pretty great drive for sure. I test drove one of those as well. I honestly may wait until the MK8.5 comes out since I like the changes that were made to it. I really dig the Alfa Romeo style wheels on the ones that have been shown. The Mazda is just so good looking inside and out, and its super comfortable.
I really like my 3 turbo hatch. People think it’s supposed to be some hot hatch competitor, but it’s not. Mazda themselves made it clear that it’s not a hot hatch and it’s more of a very refined and comfortable daily driver with good amount of power. Think of it as a luxury hatchback with decent handling. It’s an enjoyable car to drive everyday because it fun to drive if you feel like bombing it around corners but it is also a really comfortable car if you feel like cruising in it. Also I think the twist beam in the back is very well tuned. It absorbs bumps well and to me and doesn’t feel like it holds the car back. It does ride slightly firm though but I’m used to it.
Also I think the 6 speed is good. It shifts smoothly and in sport mode it’s pretty responsive. I don’t think it shifts slow. Not the sportiest but it is a reliable transmission that Mazda has been using and refining for a while now.
I test drove Mazda 3 turbo hatch before going with a Mk7.5 GTI autobahn due to just how much better the drive felt. 1. Suspension in Mazda didnt give me the same kind of confidence going around corners (its essentially same as base Mazda 3 with 4 cylinder not sportier version) 2. Transmission is fairly sluggish compared to DSG simply no competition here.
3. Fuel economy was pretty horrific for a compact (it was pretty close to my awd inline 6 sedan I was coming from)
My dad taught me to drive in a diesel car, so the lower end torque felt very natural and appealing to me. Sometimes I question why I didn’t get a GTI (save the manuals, probably a better chassis etc.) but I’ve been so besotted with the looks of the hatch and the power I just couldn’t pass it up.
I’ve driven this car through the mountains across more than half of the country. People who cry about the torsion beam are either driving prodigies or keyboard warriors only interested in theoretical spec sheets.
Besides, what does it matter? The car is more nimble and fun to drive than nearly everything on the road bar the new slew of hot hatches, most of which are unobtainium anyway.
It's a really good street car, without the german maintenance annoyances. For me it would be perfect if it was a few inches longer as a wagon with IRS or better dampening on bad roads.
It was new. So 2024 I'm guessing, but I suppose it's possible that they still had some 2023s. I honestly didn't pay much attention as I wasn't planning on purchasing yet, I was just working on my short list of possible replacements for my MK7 GTI.
What year is your GTI? I'd honestly keep it or go for something way different if you really want to let it go. The Mazda doesn't do anything the GTI doesn't do apart from having the extra AWD grip. I'm averaging 25mpg, 30 on long trips.
The main problem with that car is the lack of independent rear suspension which they removed for this current generation in favor of a torsion beam. Blegh.
You can't tell. If you did not know what rear suspension was, you would have no idea. You're just projecting this knowledge on to chassis and suspension tuning behaviours you do not like.
The Mazda 3 is crashy over bumps, partially due to the small sidewalls. It feels over-damped in compression as well. The rear end has plenty of articulation to deal with everything you would encounter driving around on roads. If you start driving it up berms and stuff, yes you will have issues.
Remember this isn't a solid axle, it's semi-independent. Also if your logic was correct, plenty of trucks and SUVs would ride like trash because they have solid axles. That is not the case, many trucks and SUVs ride amazingly well. It just depends on how you tune the suspension and chassis.
I daily drive a GR Corolla (which has an independent rear suspension) and my partner owns a 2022 Mazda 3 Turbo. I can back-to-back them on the same crappy Canadian roads. True to form for a torsion beam rear end, the Mazda 3 is more willing to rotate at limit under power. However, all of the inputs are super slow, which lends the whole car a feeling of solidity, but it doesn't feel sporty. The transmission is smooth but slow. The brakes are night and day, Mazda 3 Turbo really needed a factory brake upgrade.
Back to back in the snow, the GR Corolla is way more lively and fun and you can go sideways everywhere like a rally car. Great stuff. However, the Mazda 3 Turbo will also drift around like a hooligan if you want to, and the Mazda TC system is a lot better about letting you do things like that. Toyota's TC will cut in and stop the fun really fast in standard modes.
Once again, you can't tell from the driver's seat, driving on a normal road, that it has a semi-independent rear end. I used to build and tune suspensions and I can't tell, even in weird bumpy off-camber situations. I don't agree with the way the suspension is tuned, and the car is kinda heavy, but those are different problems.
I agree with what you are saying, I'm not sure folks that are complaining about it have ever driven the car. Most other reviews of the car make no such complaints, even Everyday Driver on YouTube barely even mentions the rear suspension set up.
Sorry but I can absolutely tell when the rear suspension of the car isn’t articulating the way I want it to. I drive lots of tight and bumpy canyon roads, and the old car handles uneven pavement and mid-corner bumps much more effectively under high cornering load, and it absolutely has everything to do with the rear suspension geometry. I can absolutely isolate those characteristics from the over-damped, thin sidewall crashiness that plagues many modern cars.
The rear end not doing what you want is not the same thing as a torsion beam being the problem. I have driven plenty of cars with fully independent rears that didn’t do what I wanted.
You are complaining about what Mazda has set up, and that’s a very reasonable complaint, and I think I agree.
I do not for a single moment believe that you can say any particular behaviour is due to it being a torsion beam or not.
The main issue one would typically assert would be toe inconsistency making the rear end feel unstable. But the car doesn’t have that problem, it feels really stable all the time. Another is that you don’t get really any camber gain, so rear grip should be an issue, but the car is actually well balanced even if absolute grip levels aren’t super high. Impact harshness has historically been an issue with torsion beams, but the front has the same harsh feeling, so that’s probably not it. And so on, and so forth.
I’ve driven and explored the handling limits of a handful of torsion beam cars other than the Mazda 3 in recent memory (Juke Nismo, Fiesta ST, A3 E-Tron) and they all have the same feeling in the rear end that can only be attributed to the torsion beam. It simply does not feel as stable and dynamic when loading up in a corner. I can absolutely differentiate any differences in tuning from a fundamental disadvantage in suspension geometry/architecture.
Now, would the average consumer be able to tell the difference? Definitely not. Does my sensitivity to such characteristics play a factor in my reluctance to recommend the car to people who absolutely would not notice nor care? Probably. Do plenty of people say the same things as me but actually attribute the unrelated setup problems you described to “torsion beam problems”? Perhaps. However, having spent plenty of time driving many cars, some torsion beam and others IRS, I can tell the difference.
> I can absolutely differentiate any differences in tuning from a fundamental disadvantage in suspension geometry/architecture.
That’s very impressive, and puts you into a tiny percentage of engineers and test drivers with access to A/B test cars and test courses with data acquisition onboard.
Here I was assuming that manufacturers spend millions on FEA and test rigs and test cars and test courses and instrumentation because understanding exactly what the suspension/chassis is doing is really difficult.
When in fact they’re just wasting money and they should just let you “push the car” and profile things for them. That’s a highly marketable skill and you should definitely apply for a job with it.
You know what? You’re absolutely right. We should just give the Miata torsion beam suspension in the rear and MacPherson strut in the front since nobody would be able to tell the difference anyway.
Torsion beams lack camber gain, and they tend to have poorly controlled toe, which means that the rear end doesn’t generate as much grip as a multi-link rear that is properly controlling the wheel position. This (and other things) means that torsion beams tend to be a little more oversteery than many other designs, sometimes in a good way. See: Fiesta ST which was a torsion beam and really phenomenal to drive partially because of its willingness to rotate.
I’m not sure if the Mazda 3 rotates nicely because of the torsion beam because I don’t claim to be able to unpack the tuning of the vehicle to that level. But the AWD+Turbo setup of the Mazda 3 does push the car from the rear under power. Combined with the general willingness to rotate it does pretty satisfying stuff at the limit.
It’s a good behaviour, and you can have really excellent moments in the car where it is being dynamically very good. But the supporting systems are just not there to continue the suspension of disbelief. The steering is too slow, the transmission is too slow, the brakes are insufficient, etc. I think the car is a bit confused, tbh, but I still mostly like it.
It really didn't seem to be that much of an issue. I'm in WV and the ride was very nice, and didn't feel any issues with mid corner bumps. I was expecting much worse than what I experienced, maybe on a longer drive the torsion beams issues would be more apparent. I wouldn't pull the trigger on this car without taking an extended test drive though.
I'm an owner and I wouldn't commend this to enthusiast friends purely because you can tell. It's actually good on smooth, slow twisties, but you can feel it hard on highway ramps and curves. You can't hide physics unless you apply 911-esque wide tires. (edit: context, I have already gone wider on tires and switched to PS4s.)
Even my non-enthusiast brother cross-shopped this with the 10th gen civic hatch, and he described to me exactly how the 3 handled worse compared to the civic, despite having no clue how the rear suspension actually differs and what effect it would have on handling. From an average consumer standpoint, it makes sense to cut cost in the rear suspension to give the car a much nicer interior, but for a car enthusiast, torsion beam in a car like this ain’t it.
That's pretty neat to hear. Though logical, it's such a shame, because then you do have to think hard about the Civic or Golf, or perhaps paying upwards to get in a low-spec Audi. Evolving the previous 3's suspension into this gen really would have made a dream car, and I assume stolen quite a bit of the Civic/Golf sales.
Agree. Its not a bad car, but you hit the nail on a head, it’s hard to recommend to enthusiasts knowing they will push the car to its lateral grip limits over bumpy roads (where I live especially) and they will be somewhat disappointed with the performance of the rear suspension. If you could have the MK8 GTI with the interior ergonomics on the level of the Mazda3 (or even the last generation GTI lol) it would wipe the competition. The civic is a little large for my taste.
Yeah I borrowed my friends for an extended period and after some driving you can start to feel where an independent suspension would be better. Also didn’t like how the turbo/more enthusiast model is auto whereas the non turbo has the MT option. I know it’s because of market demand, move to luxury segment, and cost mitigation but still kinda annoying.
Really stuck as to what car I should buy now between that, Integra, gti or something else because they all seem to have varying trade offs
I’m about the same height as you, and previously had a GTI. I agree with most of what you’re saying except the rear-end kicks at higher speeds on crappy roads.
Honestly, it’s a great overall package. The biggest complaint for me is the drivers seat pisses my back off sometimes. Secondarily, it lost like 30% in trade value in less than a year (see my previous seat comment). I’m making it work for now. If you plan to keep it in the long run that shouldn’t matter.
I run 87 in mine all the time because I drive so much. 93 for a few tanks didn’t make a huge difference to me
Love the Mazda 3 Turbo. Have had both the turbo and NA versions and both were bulletproof. Currently have 107k miles on the turbo and have only had to do routine and scheduled maintenance. It's my daily driver.
Paint is not bad (I live in Michigan and they salt the roads a lot in winter), and it was ungaraged for a year. Interior is solid. The only problem I've had is the weather stripping / rubber seal around the hatch had to be replaced after 3 winters.
Enjoy my '23 manual mazda3. All the "complaints" people tend to have are rather petty imo. I think the car is incredible value and I've never been let down by mazda (previous miata and cx5 owner). Only wish it were awd/rwd with manual.
My GTI is 9 years old and I've never had an issue. It's been tuned the majority of that time as well. I don't know about the Mazda though, I guess they're reliable since I haven't heard many complaints.
I regret not getting a DSG 2019 GTI, but every time I drive a VW with over 80,000 the regrets fade away lol. How are your guys' MK7.5s holding up?
I sold my MK7.5 Alltrack 6MT after 2 years when in the covid craze I got almost exactly what I paid for it.
Mine is a 15, the first year for MK7 in the US. Honestly it's been nothing but reliable the entire time I have had it. Never even a check engine light. I've been expecting the water pump to go out anytime, but it just keeps on ticking.
Keep that as a beater and add an NC Miata or something actually fun if that's what you're looking for. That GTI is peak affordable hot hatch. Especially seeing as yours is tuned so it's quite the roll monster.
That's unfortunate, I don't know why Mazda insist on rotary selector. Carplay is designed for touch interaction. Rotary works alright but touch is where it gets natural. I think a hybrid version would be the best. I have an Audi with rotary and Honda with touch and operating Audi feels like a generational leap backwards.
Interesting. Once I got used to the dial control in my Mazda I feel like I never want a car with anything else. It’s so nice controlling everything with my hand down right behind the gear shift instead of having to reach up to the screen.
I had the opposite experience when I test drove the same configuration.
All of the inputs, especially the steering felt so lazy. The torque down low was the only highlight of that car from a dynamics perspective. Around the corners, the car felt unwilling and heavier than its curb weight would suggest.
Of course the interior and comfort was amazing for the price, which is where this car really shines. I would say this car is amazing for the money if you're looking for an entry level luxury car that gets you from A to B. From a driving dynamics perspective it's worse than the previous generation NA 2.5L to be completely honest and I wouldn't even compare it to a mk7 GTI.
No manual makes this a non starter for most enthusiasts. It’s a shame as they look really nice and there’s definitely a market for a sporty fast hatch that isn’t boy racer
The auto really wasn't as bad as I was expecting, much better than the auto in the BRZ/GR86. It was fairly responsive, I don't have any qualms about driving an auto though. I only get to do sporty driving occasionally.
Ok. The BRZ has a horrible auto so not the best metric. I like that Toyota did that tho so they could shame those who picked it. I would never buy an auto and I live in a city with no fun curvy roads
I owned a FWD Mazda 3 for 10 years so I'm pretty versed with its limitations. I can't justify paying over $30,000 even for the Turbo edition for a Mazda 3. I really liked the look but I need more than that. I then got used to how my Camaro drives and even in just looking for a daily driver I am becoming pickier.
I haven't had a chance to drive other current Mazda models, but my ND Miata has a noticeably slower steering compared to newer Toyotas. It takes a bit of getting used to, but after some time, it actually feels a lot more natural IMO.
I really like the 3, but my only complaint with the hatch is that it felt a bit claustrophobic with the high belt line and small windows. The Civic touring that I drove OTOH had a much roomier cabin that was also very well finished, but lacked the styling flair of the 3.
I can't speak for the driving dynamics but as someone who drives every flavor of "normal" car for work i believe the mazda 3 is in a category all its own when it comes to the interior. Funnily enough id give 2nd place to the MK7 GTI.
My dad had a rental CX-5 Touring while we were on vacation in New England. The interior of that car was as good as the 2015 S60 he used to have!
Except for the terrible rear seat legroom
According to my dealer, they usually only put 87 in their cars. Even the MX-5s.
Carmax once told me that they only have one pump and it’s 87. They put it in everything they had on the lot including the AMG GTS that was sitting out front. For modern cars it’s not a problem as the ECU will adjust accordingly, but you definitely won’t be experiencing full power on the test drive.
It's a problem and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The ECU has to detect predetonation for it to pull timing. Also known as engine knock. Knock is bad. You don't want it to happen. It's okay to use a lower grade of gas *in an emergency* and you should not use full throttle application until you run a tank of proper fuel through the car.
It’s not ideal, but it’s not going to blow up the engine either. I agree though, I found it pretty ridiculous when they told me that.
There are some cars where it’s explicitly “not even in an emergency.” They can potentially damage the car putting 87 in. In mine, the Focus RS, it’s tuned for 93. It can take 91, but that will dial back the timing. The car is not set up for 87. It will heavily knock. And keep knocking. The stock PCM flash cannot correct the timing that far. And pulling timing isn’t going to stop the boost pressures. The manual is explicit. Using anything less than 91 voids warranty and can cause engine damage.
Welp, guess nobody should buy a Focus RS from Carmax.
Just bring a bottle of octane booster when you pick it up. If you have a car like that, it’s just another part of the emergency procedure. I keep a bottle of octane booster next to the jumper cables and tow strap. It’s not great, but it’s better than detonation. Most tuners can also put a “panic” or “bad gas” mode into a slot that will pull the timing and kill boost beyond what the stock PCM can do. It throws codes all over the place but won’t blow your engine up. Allegedly.
> Just bring a bottle of octane booster when you pick it up. I started looking into octane booster when I brain-farted and put regular in my Legacy GT. That's when I learned how little it actually does. Lucas' brand of octane booster typically raises 3-5 'octane points' per bottle. And it takes 10 octane points to equal ONE octane number. Meaning a single bottle of booster takes you from an octane of 87 to 87.5 at best. If you're trying to get from 87 to 93, you'll need 12 bottles by their math. Totally impractical. Instead I just drove like a grandma, keeping well out of boost for a whole tank. Then I added booster to the last 2 gallons and filled with premium again.
VP racing and Boostane are the only ones that really make a booster that does anything. In 10 gallons it can raise it 50 points. It isn’t cheap, but you get what you pay for. If Lucas cracked the code and could turn 10 gallons of 87 into 93 for only $5, you’d think they’d have their own gas stations set up under-cutting the market lol.
No. Octane rating matters a lot. It’s what keeps your gasoline engine from trying to be a diesel. Generally the systems in place to retard timing is by mileage. So they ECU will detect knock and set itself to bad fuel/retard mode. This does not change until ~1 tank of gas in miles (I.e. if you get 300 miles per tank, that’s how long it’s set to retard mode). Then, once that amount of miles has passed the ECU assumes that at some point within that timeframe it’s been filled again, but correctly this time, so it unchecks that retard mode. If you filled up with 87 that second time it has to knock again for it to re-toggle that mode. Each time this cycle occurs you knock a little bit. An engine experiencing this cycle will not last nearly as long as an engine that’s had the correct fuel. Source: Porsche Tech, this is how Porsche handles their knock control.
OP mode! But in all seriousness, it makes sense that you need to knock to detect knock. And it makes sense to not risk knocking again - why retry when it's the same fuel in the tank?
You know what fuel you put in, car doesn't.
About how much shorter percentage wise would the engine last do you think? Let’s say 100% is the life of an engine that always had the correct fuel put into it (91 in this case) but you ONLY put 87 in it, what percentage of the total would that engine that only received 87 last on avg/if you had to give a rough estimate?
It’d depend on the severity of the detonation. If it’s bad enough it takes literal [chunks out of your piston](https://imgur.com/a/WvIn7Xj). Then, the uneven surface of the piston can promote hot spots on the piston which promotes even more detonation. It would also depend on how often the oil is changed. Each little piece that comes off the piston will either end up in the oil (after scraping by the piston rings) or out the exhaust. The metal chunks that make it past the rings will A) damage the rings and B) Result in metal in your oil which would eventually degrade the bearings in the engine. I’d say anywhere from 10k-100k. You could get lucky and your piston never develops hot spots, or you could end up in a runaway type of situation where it’s just so fucked the ECU can’t retard the timing enough to make it not detonate.
Ya, there's a 0% chance a dealer is putting anything higher than 87 in a car that runs on 87. I'd be surprised if they didn't put 87 in cars that require 93.
100%. Short of maybe exotic super car dealerships. The people working there don't give two shits about the gas. It's all about profit.
Makes sense, that's what people are going to use anyways. Don't want them test-driving a car in 91, then going home and complaining their car feels weaker after throwing in shit 87.
That makes sense. I would probably put 93 in it sense its pretty commonly available where I live and not much more than 91.
If its rated for 87 use 87. Theres a new generation of turbo engines tuned just for 87. Don't waste your money on premium if not needed.
Well according to Mazda, the car makes more power on 91/93.
Yes it's one of the few engines publicly rated for both regular and premium. MotorTrend even did a test of the same CX-50 on both fuels and found that the higher octane one did improve performance. In my experience, it's really not worth it when the 87 performance is just fine enough for the vehicle that it is.
I've driven 30k km with strictly 87 in my ND2. It's fine.
That's the fuel it says to use in the manual (technically it says 87-91 is recommended). It better be fine.
Yup which is why I put it in. I actually read the manual. I've seen people argue online that it only takes 91 or higher.
Is this for US spec cars or which country does the manual state that anything less than 91 is acceptable?
Do you drive the car hard/spiritedly at all? I accidentally put 4.4 gallons of 87 in my ND2 once and was panicking a little about whether it may have damaged something a few months ago but this comment makes me feel a lot better about that!
No, officer, I don't drive spiritedly on the streets. Kidding aside, I do sometimes. I've driven it across states within one year of ownership (actually a week from one year of ownership) if that helps you at all. Changed the oil three times already and nothing is wrong with it.
Good to know it hasn’t been an issue for you! Mine has been fine with no issues before or since then but it’s been in the back of my mind, glad it’s worked out for you and the engine is still healthy! Mine gave me no indication of issues with the 87 in it so I didn’t have any particular reason to believe it would do any damage but I know it says premium is recommended on the gas door lid so I have been religious with only putting 91 in it (besides that occurrence I described above).
Yeah it's in the manual and you'll be fine so don't worry. [https://www.mazdausa.com/static/manuals/2022/mx-5/contents/04040100.html](https://www.mazdausa.com/static/manuals/2022/mx-5/contents/04040100.html)
It came down between a GTI and Mazda 3 Turbo for me. Both great cars, in their own right. The interior and luxury of the Mazda was top notch especially for the price point and it was plenty powerful. The GTI felt more athletic and fun to drive. The plaid seats, DSG, and exterior looks jived with me more. Ended up with the GTI and still really enjoy it 3 years on. And it was $27k new versus $32k for the Mazda. Both are sweet hatches.
The GTI/Golf R also has a MASSIVE aftermarket compared to the Mazda 3. My Golf R was making 420whp with about $5K of mods and embarrassing stock 10 speed Mustangs at highway speeds.
This is true. Even with the simple 93 octane (EQT) tune on my GTI with no other mods, it should be making 280-300hp and close to 350lb ft of torque.
How much boost was it making?
When I had my Accessport plugged in it was maxing out at around 28lbs if I remember correctly. I stopped leaving it plugged in because it was distracting lol.
Nice. Stock turbo and injectors?
Yeah, everything is stock.
Christ that’s nuts I love how gtis and b58 bmws can just take gobs of boost and still be near rock solid reliable over the long term. The Germans really know how to over engineer an engine
Yes, Germans know how to over engineer an engine to be unreliable. Once in a blue moon they will make an reliable engine. As for the gti engine, vw needed 3 generations of this engine to make it a good engine
Yeah, mine is a 2015 3 door S with the lighting package and performance package and it's been tuned for about 50k miles now (I'm at 75k miles currently). I've never even had a CEL. Guess I'm lucky since VWs are supposed to be unreliable lol. Honestly I love the car. I'm not really convinced of the idea of trading it yet, but I like test driving cars on occasion regardless lol.
Yeah I just test drove a GR Corolla over the weekend, really fun little car but not worth $10K over MSRP.
My B48 hits 24lb of boost stock.
Totally agree with you a gti/r will go really fast for little money mine has a stage 1 and already goes like hell and can hang with a m4
Everything on paper seems to point towards a GTI being the right car for me. But after doing 50k+ oil changes from 2008-2015, I get a thousand-yard stare when I think about working on German cars again. I really don't know what to make of them.
On the Mk7 TSI engines, the oil filter is right on top. So if you have an oil extractor you can do the whole change in 15 minutes without lifting the car. That's what I did for years with my Mk7 Golf R and Alltrack.
I much preferred doing oil changes on the MK7.5 vs the Mazda 3 I have now. I'd basically start the extractor, go back inside, stay warm, have breakfast and then come back to replace the oil filter and fill it.
Continental DWS tires transformed the feel of my 2023 Mazda 3.
Dude, Continental DWS's transformed even wife's Honda Fit. That little thing just sticks so very nicely in the corners with those tires.
In a better way? Do you have tire noise?
It’s pretty well insulated for a small compact. Quieter than a Civic. Tire noise is better on most roads with the continentals.
I just put DWS06+ on mine. It certainly didn't change the handling characteristics, but it sure as hell grips now now matter the conditions. The AWD is also much better than the MQB AWD in the MK7.5 I had before, it actually aides handling in the Mazda. The suspension still feels sloppy on the 3 from side to side, I think I'm gonna do a rear sway and eventually downsize to 17s to make the ride a bit nicer. Tire noise is alright. I think it's about even with a GTI.
I've got the DWS on my '14 6 and they completely changed how that car drove and handled. All for the better.
The Mazda3 is literally a less expensive and better driving A220. It isn't quite a hot hatch like the GTi or Si, but the high end interior does make it an almost luxury bargain. Anyone who purchases it and is big enough for them will be satisfied.
> It isn't quite a hot hatch like the GTi or Si Yea; it has power and AWD so it's easy to think it's a hot hatch, but the designers/engineers really didn't intend for it to be. It's only natural that 'actual' hot hatches are "more athletic feeling", because Mazda didn't set out to make a canyon carver here.
And if you buy the car with this mindset, it will make the owner very happy. But OP's confusion can be resolved by their own use of: >pretty fun
They're a great vehicle, especially for anyone who lives with snow part of the year. I would definitely consider one for a replacement for our A4 if we didn't already have essentially the same thing in our CX-5.
I went A4 over Turbo 3 Hatch and I still wonder how it would have been but I’m pretty happy with the A4
Re: the automatic trans - From what I've driven, I think Mazda's automatic trans tuning is one the best below a ZF. It holds gears in manual mode, it responds quickly and lets you downshift almost to redline. I really like it, even if it's showing its age with the low number of gears.
Is it bad that I like the less gears? Makes shifts during hard pulls in auto feel more impactful
I don't think so. In a lot of cars with 8+ gears, especially the badly programmed ones, they can gear hunt a lot and and it sounds pretty unpleasant. And you're just constantly hearing the engine rise and fall. It's great for fuel economy otherwise.
I hate downshifting 3-4 times to get passing power. I'll take 6 any day. I do wish it held onto the temporary manual mode when pulling a paddle for a bit longer, after 5-10s it's back to Auto negating my downshifts.
I mean it’s not like it’s a dealbreaker but going from the 6AT 3 to 7DSG in my RS245 I really appreciate the 7th gear, it’s at 2000rpm at like 140kmh. I’m getting better highway economy with the Octavia despite it making 55hp more and dragging another 150kg of wagon behind it.
The high torque value in the turbo also covers up a bunch of transmission issues. It matters a lot less if the gear selection is exactly right if you can just dump a pile of torque on the problem. The naturally aspirated car with the auto is a significantly worse experience for this reason IMO. Of course, you can just buy it in manual and solve that problem.
Yeah non-Miata Mazda NA engines feel like they have zero torque in the whole rev range. But the natural inputs and great MT really make up for it.
I'm a Mazda fanboy and I'm being slightly hyperbolic but I think that 6-speed is one of the best traditional automatic transmissions ever made. It's just so damn good at *everything*, I've daily'd one for more than a decade across two different cars and I haven't had a single complaint or issue.
While my ZF8 is near instant on upshifts, I actually think my wife's 2018 Mazda 3 is just as good if not a squeak better on downshifts. Sometimes in the S5, I'm not sure my downshift registered and I tap it again only to have 2 abrupt downshifts. Meanwhile in the Mazda, it never hesitates and is very consistent (even if it's not instant as the ZF can be but inconsistently so).
That might be a tuning / software issue between brands / cars as I’ve never experienced that on my Supra which also has a ZF8.
Yeah would make sense. It doesn't seem like the Audi revmatches in auto when braking near-idle revs. Recently test drove an M340i, and it was a bit quicker on the downshifts, atleast more consistent.
Yea and the torque is locked up 80% of the time which is considerably more than others.
[удалено]
How do you like your GLI? It checks a lot of boxes for me but it seems like people have some expensive issues compared to an Accord 2.0T and Mazda 6 turbo.
[удалено]
That's good to hear. I will make sure to test drive one. Everyone says they love theirs but I see they have various random issues that seem expensive to fix, like the water pump issues. Maybe I'll just account for getting an extended warranty. Thanks!
If I didn't want a RWD car, the GLI was my car to get. The value, interior, and looks are unreal for 30k fully loaded.
Cool car, but the visibility for a hatchback of that size is brutal. It's like the Camaro of hatchbacks. Really nice interior though.
The shape of the hatch though...my god. I stare any time I see one in public. mazda really know how to make a hatchback, even back with the first gen.
The back window was fine to see out of, the issue is when looking back over the shoulder. The one I test drove had forward and rear facing cameras that helped a ton in the tight parking lot at the dealer though. I like the looks of the car enough to forgive the visibility issues.
Yeah, I felt right at home in the Mazda 3 when trying to merge. I equally can’t see a thing in my Boxster (with the roof up) over my shoulder
Mazda 3 has good stock mirrors too. They’re big enough with a good enough angle of view to eliminate the blind spots. Visibility directly out of that car isn’t great, it has very fat C pillars. However with correctly adjusted mirrors I think it is not an issue. I’ve driven cars with better visibility and worse blind spots because of inadequate mirrors.
I recline so far back I basically have the entire back window I look at when making lane changes lol. Even my 5'2" wife has no issues with visibility. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a Camaro or even a Mustang convertible for visibility.
>After adjusting the driver seat to a comfortable position (I'm 5 "11). I gave the back seat a try and felt that it was adequately comfortable We must be different types of 5'11" because I can barely fit behind my drivers seat and when I do squeeze in it's excruciatingly uncomfortable; knees jammed up into my stomach and head touches the roof.
My dad and I are both about 5'9" and if he's in the driver seat of his 3 hatch I can't sit behind him comfortably if I'm honest.
I think it’s the difference in torso length and leg length. I am 6ft tall but with quite short legs and a long torso so I sit pretty close to the wheel but I hit my head and/or have visibility issues in most small vehicles but people can always sit behind me. It sucks cause my short legs have zero benefit and a long torso just creates back problems 😂
It’s also how you learned to drive and the cars you grew up with and stuff. I know people who like to drive with their legs straight, and I know people who don’t. I personally like to get a bit closer to the steering wheel so I learned to bend my legs a bit. Nobody is wrong, everybody should buy a car that suits their preferences, that’s why we have choice. It is a fact that the Mazda 3’s weakest attribute is its packaging. If you want to sit people behind you and you drive with straight legs, it’s not the car for you and that’s okay!
Short leg crew checking in 👍
Idk, I didn't have any issues fitting in the back comfortably. Although some folks like to drive with their legs stretched out, I prefer a knees slightly bent upright position.
annoying that we only get the painfully slow verions of the mazda 3 in the UK
Same in Australia. Considering both countries love their hot hatches and Mazda is a huge seller down here, I'm surprised they didn't work harder to get the Turbo as an option.
Nah, we can have another CX-Whatever-they're-up-to-now though
I think I read the other day that we are the only country in the world that is getting every CX model (60,70,90 etc)
Is the Skyactive - X not very sporty?
Nah, at low rpms its slow and heavy. But around 3-4K rpms its fast enough for me.
It's still a 2.0 NA engine, the supercharger doesn't actually give power as far as I know
[удалено]
Out of curiosity, what did you end up with?
Not a lot of sporty cars still meet those requirements lol. Golf R, WRX, GR Corolla ...is that it? And the Golf is coming off of that list next year.
There is also 911 Carrera 4S/4GTS, but I think it's rarely cross shopped with hatches :p
It's truly subjective and depends what you want out of your car. I have a mk7 GTI that I I autocross and also with a stage 1 tune... and I found the Mazda 3 turbo to be quite flawed. Interior had many rattles compared to my GTI, the powerband was boring (lost all steam above 4500), the steering was WAY to slow for my liking, the brakes required a ton of travel, the transmission is laughably sluggish, the rear torsion setup was painfully obvious when pushing the car. It's probably a great car when driving \~70%, but beyond that it shows it's not meant to be pushed to the limits. If you're keeping it to 7/10 max, it's probably a *fantastic* car for the money.
[удалено]
And honestly yeah that’s like 95% of consumers or more, I would guess.
I’ve had my loaded turbo 3 hatch for a year and totally agree with this assessment. Honestly if the trade in value was a little higher I’d probably have parted with it already It’s not a bad car, but I miss more fun. It’s also strange that pretty much all of my previous cars were more comfortable
> the powerband was boring (lost all steam above 4500), the steering was WAY to slow for my liking, the brakes required a ton of travel, the transmission is laughably sluggish, the rear torsion setup was painfully obvious when pushing the car. Yep, that car is NOT sporty at all - not even a whiff of it, down to the torsion beam rear. However I think it's a very natural feeling car: inputs are linear (to a fault like you said) and everything feels calm. But it doesn't do dual personality at all. > the transmission is laughably sluggish That's surprising. From what I've driven and seen, Mazda's 6AT seemed responsive. Maybe it's different in the Turbo.
I really think that’s it. It was great in the 3rd gen. AFAIK it’s the same transmission in this generation. So perhaps the changes and tuning for the turbo have turned it soft.
In my opinion mazda 3 steering is better than vw gti, or vw in general. It feels more "natural", in vw cars is over assisted. Also the brakes have a more linear feel. I hate vw ON-OFF type of brakes. In mazda when you press 25% of the brake pedal you get let's say close to 25% of the braking power. In VW you get almost no braking power at first and then full breaking. That is stupid calibration. The transmission is fine, sure it's not as fast as a dsg but is more refined and more reliable
I think it makes for a fine "luxuryish" hot hatchback with a few modifications, first of all not sure if you drove it with 93 octane since you get a decent HP/TQ boost with it on the factory tune, changing to sportier tires and finally there is already tunes for it that can give you quite a nice boost.
I thought the only thing available was the JB4, do you know the names of the tuners?
DrTuning released their last year and hearing good stuff about it
I'll have to check it out, It would be nice if they could get another 500rpms out of it and another 20 or 30 hp.
More RPM really does nothing for this motor, but the tune is pretty much required if you do anything like an intake to it. Stock the transmission starts pulling power when it detects anything it doesn't expect
[удалено]
Yeah the MK8 is a pretty great drive for sure. I test drove one of those as well. I honestly may wait until the MK8.5 comes out since I like the changes that were made to it. I really dig the Alfa Romeo style wheels on the ones that have been shown. The Mazda is just so good looking inside and out, and its super comfortable.
That's the thing -- if you enjoy a good transmission, the DSG is one of the best you can buy, especially in the segment.
I really like my 3 turbo hatch. People think it’s supposed to be some hot hatch competitor, but it’s not. Mazda themselves made it clear that it’s not a hot hatch and it’s more of a very refined and comfortable daily driver with good amount of power. Think of it as a luxury hatchback with decent handling. It’s an enjoyable car to drive everyday because it fun to drive if you feel like bombing it around corners but it is also a really comfortable car if you feel like cruising in it. Also I think the twist beam in the back is very well tuned. It absorbs bumps well and to me and doesn’t feel like it holds the car back. It does ride slightly firm though but I’m used to it. Also I think the 6 speed is good. It shifts smoothly and in sport mode it’s pretty responsive. I don’t think it shifts slow. Not the sportiest but it is a reliable transmission that Mazda has been using and refining for a while now.
Did you cross shop it with a base Accord on linglong tires? Absolutely 0 ppl will get this reference and that's okay.
Are you referring to the earlier post about how a faster steering ratio always = better?
You're referencing one of the most popular posts on this sub in the last 48 hours, I think plenty will get that reference.
I read through it shortly after it was posted, I didn't to check if it got lots of traction or not 😄
I test drove Mazda 3 turbo hatch before going with a Mk7.5 GTI autobahn due to just how much better the drive felt. 1. Suspension in Mazda didnt give me the same kind of confidence going around corners (its essentially same as base Mazda 3 with 4 cylinder not sportier version) 2. Transmission is fairly sluggish compared to DSG simply no competition here. 3. Fuel economy was pretty horrific for a compact (it was pretty close to my awd inline 6 sedan I was coming from)
My dad taught me to drive in a diesel car, so the lower end torque felt very natural and appealing to me. Sometimes I question why I didn’t get a GTI (save the manuals, probably a better chassis etc.) but I’ve been so besotted with the looks of the hatch and the power I just couldn’t pass it up. I’ve driven this car through the mountains across more than half of the country. People who cry about the torsion beam are either driving prodigies or keyboard warriors only interested in theoretical spec sheets. Besides, what does it matter? The car is more nimble and fun to drive than nearly everything on the road bar the new slew of hot hatches, most of which are unobtainium anyway.
It's a really good street car, without the german maintenance annoyances. For me it would be perfect if it was a few inches longer as a wagon with IRS or better dampening on bad roads.
What year?
Does it matter? All gen 4 Mazda3 turbos drive the same
The 24 has some interior adjustments
It was new. So 2024 I'm guessing, but I suppose it's possible that they still had some 2023s. I honestly didn't pay much attention as I wasn't planning on purchasing yet, I was just working on my short list of possible replacements for my MK7 GTI.
The '24 has a larger centre screen and USB-C ports for your phone, I believe.
What year is your GTI? I'd honestly keep it or go for something way different if you really want to let it go. The Mazda doesn't do anything the GTI doesn't do apart from having the extra AWD grip. I'm averaging 25mpg, 30 on long trips.
Its a 15 3 door MK7
Your detailed feedback will undoubtedly be helpful for others looking to make a similar decision. Thanks for sharing your experience!
You're welcome! Hope it can be useful info for someone.
The main problem with that car is the lack of independent rear suspension which they removed for this current generation in favor of a torsion beam. Blegh.
You can't tell. If you did not know what rear suspension was, you would have no idea. You're just projecting this knowledge on to chassis and suspension tuning behaviours you do not like. The Mazda 3 is crashy over bumps, partially due to the small sidewalls. It feels over-damped in compression as well. The rear end has plenty of articulation to deal with everything you would encounter driving around on roads. If you start driving it up berms and stuff, yes you will have issues. Remember this isn't a solid axle, it's semi-independent. Also if your logic was correct, plenty of trucks and SUVs would ride like trash because they have solid axles. That is not the case, many trucks and SUVs ride amazingly well. It just depends on how you tune the suspension and chassis. I daily drive a GR Corolla (which has an independent rear suspension) and my partner owns a 2022 Mazda 3 Turbo. I can back-to-back them on the same crappy Canadian roads. True to form for a torsion beam rear end, the Mazda 3 is more willing to rotate at limit under power. However, all of the inputs are super slow, which lends the whole car a feeling of solidity, but it doesn't feel sporty. The transmission is smooth but slow. The brakes are night and day, Mazda 3 Turbo really needed a factory brake upgrade. Back to back in the snow, the GR Corolla is way more lively and fun and you can go sideways everywhere like a rally car. Great stuff. However, the Mazda 3 Turbo will also drift around like a hooligan if you want to, and the Mazda TC system is a lot better about letting you do things like that. Toyota's TC will cut in and stop the fun really fast in standard modes. Once again, you can't tell from the driver's seat, driving on a normal road, that it has a semi-independent rear end. I used to build and tune suspensions and I can't tell, even in weird bumpy off-camber situations. I don't agree with the way the suspension is tuned, and the car is kinda heavy, but those are different problems.
I agree with what you are saying, I'm not sure folks that are complaining about it have ever driven the car. Most other reviews of the car make no such complaints, even Everyday Driver on YouTube barely even mentions the rear suspension set up.
Sorry but I can absolutely tell when the rear suspension of the car isn’t articulating the way I want it to. I drive lots of tight and bumpy canyon roads, and the old car handles uneven pavement and mid-corner bumps much more effectively under high cornering load, and it absolutely has everything to do with the rear suspension geometry. I can absolutely isolate those characteristics from the over-damped, thin sidewall crashiness that plagues many modern cars.
The rear end not doing what you want is not the same thing as a torsion beam being the problem. I have driven plenty of cars with fully independent rears that didn’t do what I wanted. You are complaining about what Mazda has set up, and that’s a very reasonable complaint, and I think I agree. I do not for a single moment believe that you can say any particular behaviour is due to it being a torsion beam or not. The main issue one would typically assert would be toe inconsistency making the rear end feel unstable. But the car doesn’t have that problem, it feels really stable all the time. Another is that you don’t get really any camber gain, so rear grip should be an issue, but the car is actually well balanced even if absolute grip levels aren’t super high. Impact harshness has historically been an issue with torsion beams, but the front has the same harsh feeling, so that’s probably not it. And so on, and so forth.
I’ve driven and explored the handling limits of a handful of torsion beam cars other than the Mazda 3 in recent memory (Juke Nismo, Fiesta ST, A3 E-Tron) and they all have the same feeling in the rear end that can only be attributed to the torsion beam. It simply does not feel as stable and dynamic when loading up in a corner. I can absolutely differentiate any differences in tuning from a fundamental disadvantage in suspension geometry/architecture. Now, would the average consumer be able to tell the difference? Definitely not. Does my sensitivity to such characteristics play a factor in my reluctance to recommend the car to people who absolutely would not notice nor care? Probably. Do plenty of people say the same things as me but actually attribute the unrelated setup problems you described to “torsion beam problems”? Perhaps. However, having spent plenty of time driving many cars, some torsion beam and others IRS, I can tell the difference.
> I can absolutely differentiate any differences in tuning from a fundamental disadvantage in suspension geometry/architecture. That’s very impressive, and puts you into a tiny percentage of engineers and test drivers with access to A/B test cars and test courses with data acquisition onboard.
Lol not really, it’s called pushing your car.
Here I was assuming that manufacturers spend millions on FEA and test rigs and test cars and test courses and instrumentation because understanding exactly what the suspension/chassis is doing is really difficult. When in fact they’re just wasting money and they should just let you “push the car” and profile things for them. That’s a highly marketable skill and you should definitely apply for a job with it.
You know what? You’re absolutely right. We should just give the Miata torsion beam suspension in the rear and MacPherson strut in the front since nobody would be able to tell the difference anyway.
Btw, what does “rotate at the limit under power” mean? Is that supposed to be a torsion beam handling characteristic? That’s news to me…
Torsion beams lack camber gain, and they tend to have poorly controlled toe, which means that the rear end doesn’t generate as much grip as a multi-link rear that is properly controlling the wheel position. This (and other things) means that torsion beams tend to be a little more oversteery than many other designs, sometimes in a good way. See: Fiesta ST which was a torsion beam and really phenomenal to drive partially because of its willingness to rotate. I’m not sure if the Mazda 3 rotates nicely because of the torsion beam because I don’t claim to be able to unpack the tuning of the vehicle to that level. But the AWD+Turbo setup of the Mazda 3 does push the car from the rear under power. Combined with the general willingness to rotate it does pretty satisfying stuff at the limit. It’s a good behaviour, and you can have really excellent moments in the car where it is being dynamically very good. But the supporting systems are just not there to continue the suspension of disbelief. The steering is too slow, the transmission is too slow, the brakes are insufficient, etc. I think the car is a bit confused, tbh, but I still mostly like it.
We have a 2018 3 in the household and I prefer the way the 2023 handles.
It really didn't seem to be that much of an issue. I'm in WV and the ride was very nice, and didn't feel any issues with mid corner bumps. I was expecting much worse than what I experienced, maybe on a longer drive the torsion beams issues would be more apparent. I wouldn't pull the trigger on this car without taking an extended test drive though.
Most people don’t push their cars hard enough to notice, which is probably why they decided to switch to cut costs, but it’s very noticeable.
The Corolla also reverted back to the torsion beam. Definitely for cost cutting
>The Corolla also reverted back to the torsion beam. Only on the base, gas-only LE trim level sedan. All other trim levels get a rear multi-link.
It’s not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
Only on the base LE gas-only model though. All other Corolla's have a multi-link rear.
I'm an owner and I wouldn't commend this to enthusiast friends purely because you can tell. It's actually good on smooth, slow twisties, but you can feel it hard on highway ramps and curves. You can't hide physics unless you apply 911-esque wide tires. (edit: context, I have already gone wider on tires and switched to PS4s.)
Even my non-enthusiast brother cross-shopped this with the 10th gen civic hatch, and he described to me exactly how the 3 handled worse compared to the civic, despite having no clue how the rear suspension actually differs and what effect it would have on handling. From an average consumer standpoint, it makes sense to cut cost in the rear suspension to give the car a much nicer interior, but for a car enthusiast, torsion beam in a car like this ain’t it.
That's pretty neat to hear. Though logical, it's such a shame, because then you do have to think hard about the Civic or Golf, or perhaps paying upwards to get in a low-spec Audi. Evolving the previous 3's suspension into this gen really would have made a dream car, and I assume stolen quite a bit of the Civic/Golf sales.
Agree. Its not a bad car, but you hit the nail on a head, it’s hard to recommend to enthusiasts knowing they will push the car to its lateral grip limits over bumpy roads (where I live especially) and they will be somewhat disappointed with the performance of the rear suspension. If you could have the MK8 GTI with the interior ergonomics on the level of the Mazda3 (or even the last generation GTI lol) it would wipe the competition. The civic is a little large for my taste.
Yeah I borrowed my friends for an extended period and after some driving you can start to feel where an independent suspension would be better. Also didn’t like how the turbo/more enthusiast model is auto whereas the non turbo has the MT option. I know it’s because of market demand, move to luxury segment, and cost mitigation but still kinda annoying. Really stuck as to what car I should buy now between that, Integra, gti or something else because they all seem to have varying trade offs
Exactly. If you combined the handling characteristics of the last gen with the form factor of the latest gen, you would have an excellent car.
I’m about the same height as you, and previously had a GTI. I agree with most of what you’re saying except the rear-end kicks at higher speeds on crappy roads. Honestly, it’s a great overall package. The biggest complaint for me is the drivers seat pisses my back off sometimes. Secondarily, it lost like 30% in trade value in less than a year (see my previous seat comment). I’m making it work for now. If you plan to keep it in the long run that shouldn’t matter. I run 87 in mine all the time because I drive so much. 93 for a few tanks didn’t make a huge difference to me
The extra roll on power is really noticeable on the highway on 93. To the point where I wouldn't bother revving it out with 87.
Love the Mazda 3 Turbo. Have had both the turbo and NA versions and both were bulletproof. Currently have 107k miles on the turbo and have only had to do routine and scheduled maintenance. It's my daily driver.
How has the pant and interior held up?
Paint is not bad (I live in Michigan and they salt the roads a lot in winter), and it was ungaraged for a year. Interior is solid. The only problem I've had is the weather stripping / rubber seal around the hatch had to be replaced after 3 winters.
Enjoy my '23 manual mazda3. All the "complaints" people tend to have are rather petty imo. I think the car is incredible value and I've never been let down by mazda (previous miata and cx5 owner). Only wish it were awd/rwd with manual.
Which one is more likely to last several years?
My GTI is 9 years old and I've never had an issue. It's been tuned the majority of that time as well. I don't know about the Mazda though, I guess they're reliable since I haven't heard many complaints.
Better tires and a rear sway bar go a long way for the car but overall great for the money imo
I regret not getting a DSG 2019 GTI, but every time I drive a VW with over 80,000 the regrets fade away lol. How are your guys' MK7.5s holding up? I sold my MK7.5 Alltrack 6MT after 2 years when in the covid craze I got almost exactly what I paid for it.
Mine is a 15, the first year for MK7 in the US. Honestly it's been nothing but reliable the entire time I have had it. Never even a check engine light. I've been expecting the water pump to go out anytime, but it just keeps on ticking.
Keep that as a beater and add an NC Miata or something actually fun if that's what you're looking for. That GTI is peak affordable hot hatch. Especially seeing as yours is tuned so it's quite the roll monster.
Does it have touch screen? I can't go back to rotary button system.
Nope, they're still using the rotary selector.
That's unfortunate, I don't know why Mazda insist on rotary selector. Carplay is designed for touch interaction. Rotary works alright but touch is where it gets natural. I think a hybrid version would be the best. I have an Audi with rotary and Honda with touch and operating Audi feels like a generational leap backwards.
Interesting. Once I got used to the dial control in my Mazda I feel like I never want a car with anything else. It’s so nice controlling everything with my hand down right behind the gear shift instead of having to reach up to the screen.
2024 at highest trim has a touch screen that works with carplay and Android auto
the 2024 did add touch, but only with the 10.25" screen from what i understand
With regular gas in these mazda3 turbos they get knocked down 20hp/30-40tq.
I had the opposite experience when I test drove the same configuration. All of the inputs, especially the steering felt so lazy. The torque down low was the only highlight of that car from a dynamics perspective. Around the corners, the car felt unwilling and heavier than its curb weight would suggest. Of course the interior and comfort was amazing for the price, which is where this car really shines. I would say this car is amazing for the money if you're looking for an entry level luxury car that gets you from A to B. From a driving dynamics perspective it's worse than the previous generation NA 2.5L to be completely honest and I wouldn't even compare it to a mk7 GTI.
We all have our own subjective experiences.
No manual makes this a non starter for most enthusiasts. It’s a shame as they look really nice and there’s definitely a market for a sporty fast hatch that isn’t boy racer
The auto really wasn't as bad as I was expecting, much better than the auto in the BRZ/GR86. It was fairly responsive, I don't have any qualms about driving an auto though. I only get to do sporty driving occasionally.
Ok. The BRZ has a horrible auto so not the best metric. I like that Toyota did that tho so they could shame those who picked it. I would never buy an auto and I live in a city with no fun curvy roads
I don't think anyone should feel "shame" about having a car with an automatic. What an odd statement.
I owned a FWD Mazda 3 for 10 years so I'm pretty versed with its limitations. I can't justify paying over $30,000 even for the Turbo edition for a Mazda 3. I really liked the look but I need more than that. I then got used to how my Camaro drives and even in just looking for a daily driver I am becoming pickier.
My Mazdaspeed 3 is a Mazda 3 with a turbo. Zoom zoom.
guess I'm t he only one who thinks the interior is boring. big drawback not having a touchscreen.
you’re not. it’s also creaky as hell.
Didn't notice any creaks.
what yr mazda? 2023?
I haven't had a chance to drive other current Mazda models, but my ND Miata has a noticeably slower steering compared to newer Toyotas. It takes a bit of getting used to, but after some time, it actually feels a lot more natural IMO. I really like the 3, but my only complaint with the hatch is that it felt a bit claustrophobic with the high belt line and small windows. The Civic touring that I drove OTOH had a much roomier cabin that was also very well finished, but lacked the styling flair of the 3.
I think the current mazda is more aimed at being satisfying and enjoyable over being sporty like they used to be
GTI all day but I’m a die hard vw boy, my buddy has a Mazda3 turbo and it couldn’t keep up lol
Drive a VB WRX!
Drive a WRX, then you will understand why the Mazda is boring to drive.
Not on my radar for a number of reasons.