Mazda 3 petrol
Discussion
Anyone have any experience of the current or most recent Mazda 3 with the 2.0 petrol engine? On paper, it looks a pretty attractive proposition - a small family car that has a little bit of go and isnt a Focus (horrific turbo engines) or Golf (just not for me).
Any comments on the new Mazda NA engines more generally? I think I should go and test drive a few. I like the idea of a mid-sized NA petrol engine that gets 45mpg and so saves the World/polar bears, etc.
Any comments on the new Mazda NA engines more generally? I think I should go and test drive a few. I like the idea of a mid-sized NA petrol engine that gets 45mpg and so saves the World/polar bears, etc.
I had a 06 Mazda 6 with the 2.0 in, probably the same engine.
From memory it was OK, quite smooth and quiet, never gave me any issue, but preferred the 1.8Ts they used in VW group cars
Engine was fine, but its always going to be a 2,0 so not very special. Mine was chain cam which saved a bit in servicing.
The 6 speed box stretched the engine out a bit, in that three wasn't much go in each gear, but did give OK economy on the motorway.
Engine suited the car and was MUCH better than the Mazda diesels of the period
.
From memory it was OK, quite smooth and quiet, never gave me any issue, but preferred the 1.8Ts they used in VW group cars
Engine was fine, but its always going to be a 2,0 so not very special. Mine was chain cam which saved a bit in servicing.
The 6 speed box stretched the engine out a bit, in that three wasn't much go in each gear, but did give OK economy on the motorway.
Engine suited the car and was MUCH better than the Mazda diesels of the period
.
TwistingMyMelon said:
I had a 06 Mazda 6 with the 2.0 in, probably the same engine.
From memory it was OK, quite smooth and quiet, never gave me any issue, but preferred the 1.8Ts they used in VW group cars
Engine was fine, but its always going to be a 2,0 so not very special. Mine was chain cam which saved a bit in servicing.
The 6 speed box stretched the engine out a bit, in that three wasn't much go in each gear, but did give OK economy on the motorway.
Engine suited the car and was MUCH better than the Mazda diesels of the period
.
Very different engine in the new ones. The new Skyactiv petrol engones do get a very good review from what I have readFrom memory it was OK, quite smooth and quiet, never gave me any issue, but preferred the 1.8Ts they used in VW group cars
Engine was fine, but its always going to be a 2,0 so not very special. Mine was chain cam which saved a bit in servicing.
The 6 speed box stretched the engine out a bit, in that three wasn't much go in each gear, but did give OK economy on the motorway.
Engine suited the car and was MUCH better than the Mazda diesels of the period
.
ORD,I'm also very interested in getting the new 3 with the 120 PS engine. Unfortunately the local dealer doesn't have one available for test drives. I'm a bit concerned about engine noise since it probably needs to be revved hard to perform. If you test drive it please do let me know your views. Have to make up my mind in the next couple of weeks. Its either the Mazda or a Golf 1.4 TSi 122 PS.
lambada said:
ORD,I'm also very interested in getting the new 3 with the 120 PS engine. Unfortunately the local dealer doesn't have one available for test drives. I'm a bit concerned about engine noise since it probably needs to be revved hard to perform. If you test drive it please do let me know your views. Have to make up my mind in the next couple of weeks. Its either the Mazda or a Golf 1.4 TSi 122 PS.
Will do. I'll probably test drive the more powerful version, but I am told that the two engines are pretty much the same (not that I trust journos anymore!).Test drove the 165bhp version today. Absolutely top draw in its class. It blows me away that it is so much cheaper than a Golf equipped to the same standard (but with a worse engine than the Mazda).
Lovely NA throttle response, sharp (if overly light) steering, nicely judged suspension - smooth ride but reasonably firm in the corners and under braking, decent brakes, fairly decent acceleration.
Interior at the high spec is very pleasant. The cabin is very unfussy and driver-focused. Seating position is good. Seats are good
Overall, a very impressive car and ridiculously well-priced as against thr Golf and Focus offerings.
Lovely NA throttle response, sharp (if overly light) steering, nicely judged suspension - smooth ride but reasonably firm in the corners and under braking, decent brakes, fairly decent acceleration.
Interior at the high spec is very pleasant. The cabin is very unfussy and driver-focused. Seating position is good. Seats are good
Overall, a very impressive car and ridiculously well-priced as against thr Golf and Focus offerings.
My 54 plate Mazda 3 TS2 is surely gonna come to end eventually. Currently at 345,000 miles. Only started to feel a bit tired this year at around 320k. I'm currently looking around deciding what I can replace it with when the time comes. Another Mazda 3 or perhaps a 5 or something is definitely on the cards. I've had the car since new and really can't fault it. Only bought it when I changed jobs and lost my company car, after a day of looking around cars went for it because I liked it inside.
ORD said:
Test drove the 165bhp version today. Absolutely top draw in its class. It blows me away that it is so much cheaper than a Golf equipped to the same standard (but with a worse engine than the Mazda).
Lovely NA throttle response, sharp (if overly light) steering, nicely judged suspension - smooth ride but reasonably firm in the corners and under braking, decent brakes, fairly decent acceleration.
Interior at the high spec is very pleasant. The cabin is very unfussy and driver-focused. Seating position is good. Seats are good
Overall, a very impressive car and ridiculously well-priced as against thr Golf and Focus offerings.
Were road and engine noise levels acceptable? Did you try a manual or automatic?Lovely NA throttle response, sharp (if overly light) steering, nicely judged suspension - smooth ride but reasonably firm in the corners and under braking, decent brakes, fairly decent acceleration.
Interior at the high spec is very pleasant. The cabin is very unfussy and driver-focused. Seating position is good. Seats are good
Overall, a very impressive car and ridiculously well-priced as against thr Golf and Focus offerings.
Edited by lambada on Monday 28th April 00:16
Tiny engines? 2.0 in a small car isnt tiny, is it? I think it is pretty much the biggest engine in a standard car of its class (same as the Mini Cooper S, although that is tc). You would have to go to a (real) BMW for a bigger engine.
Engine noise is pretty much non-existent under about 2500 rpm and never unpleasant above that. The engine note isnt too bad at all for a 4-cyl.
Road noise and general refinement are good for the class (i.e the same as a Focus or Golf). I found it quiet coming from my 987.2 S.
The cabin is really pleasant - not fussy and no "christmas tree" lights all over the place (contrast the Focus).
I have played around with Golf and BMW 1 series configurators, and both come out at about £28k for the same spec (with a better engine in the BMW and a worse engine in the Golf, bizarrely).
Engine noise is pretty much non-existent under about 2500 rpm and never unpleasant above that. The engine note isnt too bad at all for a 4-cyl.
Road noise and general refinement are good for the class (i.e the same as a Focus or Golf). I found it quiet coming from my 987.2 S.
The cabin is really pleasant - not fussy and no "christmas tree" lights all over the place (contrast the Focus).
I have played around with Golf and BMW 1 series configurators, and both come out at about £28k for the same spec (with a better engine in the BMW and a worse engine in the Golf, bizarrely).
ORD said:
Tiny engines? 2.0 in a small car isnt tiny, is it? I think it is pretty much the biggest engine in a standard car of its class (same as the Mini Cooper S, although that is tc). You would have to go to a (real) BMW for a bigger engine.
For me, yes. But as I said, I wouldn't want a car in this class (or any BWM either).So my opinion is : good spec, but very white goods.
Bibbs said:
ORD said:
Tiny engines? 2.0 in a small car isnt tiny, is it? I think it is pretty much the biggest engine in a standard car of its class (same as the Mini Cooper S, although that is tc). You would have to go to a (real) BMW for a bigger engine.
For me, yes. But as I said, I wouldn't want a car in this class (or any BWM either).So my opinion is : good spec, but very white goods.
Idiot at the Mazda garage said 'It won't be an impressive drive after coming here in your Cayman'. Yes, it might, for what it is! Nobody moans about how bad a 2-seater sports car is for giving people lifts of carrying Christmas trees. It's just as silly, in my view, to criticise a hatchback for being a hatchback.
Apples and pears. In its class, the Mazda is a long way from being a white good.
Why no BMW? Not even the M235i? I think that's a pretty good car (by your criteria).
LukeDM said:
If its anything like the older version you will forget the engine is running at idle 
I have a 57 plate 3 2.0 Sport. Not crazy fast, but likes the revs and has a bit of a kick over 4000 rpm.
No great on the petrol (which could be related to the nature of my commute), but not mega thirsty.
As has been mentioned above, it's got a nice noise, is quite smooth, has quite a pointy chassis (it's a Ford Focus underneath with fettling by Mazda), has a chain cam and is quite fun to drive.
The problems I have had have included a dead battery a few years ago (caused by my fiancee leaving a reading light on before we went on holiday), on ongoing random issue with the alarm going off (which seems to have resided of late), a few rusty bits (surface stuff from chips) and a random issue with the stereo not loading CD's.
Edited to add - older models do have high VED cost though. Mine is £260 odd for the year.
Yeah. Weird. A couple of times I thought it must have deactivated (under the start/stop) but then saw that it was still at tickover. Absurdly quiet at idle (which it is not once you get going - quite a well judged amount of engine noise).
I'll post up my thoughts on another competitor (1 series 170bhp version) once I have given that a drive. I expect that I will enjoy the fact of it being RWD but will be less impressed by it's handling and ride compared to the Mazda (going by all the reviews that I have read).
I'll post up my thoughts on another competitor (1 series 170bhp version) once I have given that a drive. I expect that I will enjoy the fact of it being RWD but will be less impressed by it's handling and ride compared to the Mazda (going by all the reviews that I have read).
I test drove a 1 series and a Golf this weekend for comparison with the 3. In case this is helpful to anyone else looking for a hatchback, my thoughts are as follows:
BMW - only had a 116i available to test.
The lower power engine is far too weak for the car (which weighs around 1400kg). The 170bhp of the 118i would manage it, though, I think.
The steering had a nice weight to it and it handled very pleasantly at low speed. The ride was very good (but not as good as the Golf). The car in basic spec is very basic indeed - you would need leather and a few other options to make it pleasant, including specifying storage on the back of the front seats. It is ridiculous that any BMW does not have that kind of thing as standard, given the pricing.
Handling at slightly higher speeds was a bit iffy for me. The steering became a bit fidgety, and it would not really settle (despite its weight and being RWD). I had expected it to be a lot more settled at speed than the other two cars - RWD and more weight should see to that. But it certainly is not the most settled - in fact, it is the least confidence-inspiring above 50mph.
The pedals are far too close together. You can easily press the clutch accidentally while depressing the brake (or, worse, vice versa). I do not know what possible excuse there is for this! Absolutely basic design flaw.
Golf - again, they did not have the version that I wanted to test (140bhp petrol GT), so I tested the diesel GT (150bhp) on the basis that cabin, ride, etc would be pretty similar (although the petrol is quite a lot lighter).
In case anyone else is interested, the 2.0 d is a very nice engine - smooth and fairly responsive and rev-happy for a diesel.
The cabin was a nice place to be - not too cluttered. Electric handbrake is horrific. Steering is fine (no better or worse than the Mazda but less weight than the BMW). About the same room in the back as the Mazda, which felt a lot roomier than the 1 series - the BMW feels less spacious inside than the figures would suggest.
Ride is very good - probably the best of the three cars. Low speed handling is good, and it is relatively stable at speed (more so than the BMW and probably about the same as the Mazda).
The prices for equivalent specs are as follows (before discount):-
Mazda - £22k or so.
Golf - 28k or so.
BMW - 29k or so.
I think the BMW is the least impressive car of the three - iffy handling at speed and those damn pedals surprised me in a "premium" brand. At the same prices, I would take the Mazda or the Golf over the BMW.
I would find it hard to spend about 4k more (after discount)on the Golf than the Mazda, given that the M has the better engine (in my view) and is much better looking.
BMW - only had a 116i available to test.
The lower power engine is far too weak for the car (which weighs around 1400kg). The 170bhp of the 118i would manage it, though, I think.
The steering had a nice weight to it and it handled very pleasantly at low speed. The ride was very good (but not as good as the Golf). The car in basic spec is very basic indeed - you would need leather and a few other options to make it pleasant, including specifying storage on the back of the front seats. It is ridiculous that any BMW does not have that kind of thing as standard, given the pricing.
Handling at slightly higher speeds was a bit iffy for me. The steering became a bit fidgety, and it would not really settle (despite its weight and being RWD). I had expected it to be a lot more settled at speed than the other two cars - RWD and more weight should see to that. But it certainly is not the most settled - in fact, it is the least confidence-inspiring above 50mph.
The pedals are far too close together. You can easily press the clutch accidentally while depressing the brake (or, worse, vice versa). I do not know what possible excuse there is for this! Absolutely basic design flaw.
Golf - again, they did not have the version that I wanted to test (140bhp petrol GT), so I tested the diesel GT (150bhp) on the basis that cabin, ride, etc would be pretty similar (although the petrol is quite a lot lighter).
In case anyone else is interested, the 2.0 d is a very nice engine - smooth and fairly responsive and rev-happy for a diesel.
The cabin was a nice place to be - not too cluttered. Electric handbrake is horrific. Steering is fine (no better or worse than the Mazda but less weight than the BMW). About the same room in the back as the Mazda, which felt a lot roomier than the 1 series - the BMW feels less spacious inside than the figures would suggest.
Ride is very good - probably the best of the three cars. Low speed handling is good, and it is relatively stable at speed (more so than the BMW and probably about the same as the Mazda).
The prices for equivalent specs are as follows (before discount):-
Mazda - £22k or so.
Golf - 28k or so.
BMW - 29k or so.
I think the BMW is the least impressive car of the three - iffy handling at speed and those damn pedals surprised me in a "premium" brand. At the same prices, I would take the Mazda or the Golf over the BMW.
I would find it hard to spend about 4k more (after discount)on the Golf than the Mazda, given that the M has the better engine (in my view) and is much better looking.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff