Mazda 3 has to be the most poorly thought out Mazda in the entire lineup including all cars we never get CX4 and CX8. Its lightweight but the 2.5 seems better in my CX5 the way its tuned. MPG is barely better or same than a Mazda6 (which is bad with the 2.5). Rear seat is practically useless unless you are small. Its sad that even Europeans with their twisties are not liking the 3. It has the worst quality interior now that CX3 trumps it as well. I really wanted to like it - but my CX5 is more rev happy and eager to drop the hammer than the 3 I drove.
Of all Mazda's I would say Gen 1 CX5 with 2.5 has the best setup wrt to driving and low end torque.
Mazda 3 has to be the most poorly thought out Mazda in the entire lineup including all cars we never get CX4 and CX8. Its lightweight but the 2.5 seems better in my CX5 the way its tuned. MPG is barely better or same than a Mazda6 (which is bad with the 2.5). Rear seat is practically useless unless you are small. Its sad that even Europeans with their twisties are not liking the 3. It has the worst quality interior now that CX3 trumps it as well. I really wanted to like it - but my CX5 is more rev happy and eager to drop the hammer than the 3 I drove.
Of all Mazda's I would say Gen 1 CX5 with 2.5 has the best setup wrt to driving and low end torque.
Mazda 3 has to be the most poorly thought out Mazda in the entire lineup including all cars we never get CX4 and CX8. Its lightweight but the 2.5 seems better in my CX5 the way its tuned. MPG is barely better or same than a Mazda6 (which is bad with the 2.5). Rear seat is practically useless unless you are small. Its sad that even Europeans with their twisties are not liking the 3. It has the worst quality interior now that CX3 trumps it as well. I really wanted to like it - but my CX5 is more rev happy and eager to drop the hammer than the 3 I drove.
Of all Mazda's I would say Gen 1 CX5 with 2.5 has the best setup wrt to driving and low end torque.
Mazda 3 has to be the most poorly thought out Mazda in the entire lineup including all cars we never get CX4 and CX8. Its lightweight but the 2.5 seems better in my CX5 the way its tuned. MPG is barely better or same than a Mazda6 (which is bad with the 2.5). Rear seat is practically useless unless you are small. Its sad that even Europeans with their twisties are not liking the 3. It has the worst quality interior now that CX3 trumps it as well. I really wanted to like it - but my CX5 is more rev happy and eager to drop the hammer than the 3 I drove.
Of all Mazda's I would say Gen 1 CX5 with 2.5 has the best setup wrt to driving and low end torque.
The Mazda 3 is faster than the Mazda 6 (non turbo), can be had in a manual, comes in a hatch version, has more rear room than the CX-3, corners better than the 6 and has the same basic interior as the CX-5 and CX-3. And the top of the line version can be had for 23K. And it has more safety features than the competition.
Honestly, sale are down a ton in the USA as it needs a refresh but sales are holding pretty steady in Europe and are OK in China (China sales are basically double the USA!). The rear seats are small but are similar to others in the class - Honda Civic Hatch. This is the perfect 16-20 something car.
MPG in automatic is good - 35 around town and 40 on highway - but we have the 2.0. I personally really like the 2.0 and find it to be much better than the 2.5L. The 2.0 is happy to rev and generates some pull at 4-6K. The 2.5 does not. I can't believe people wanted that engine in the Miata. Goes to show people are pretty damn stupid and just look at numbers. Thank god Mazda does not pay attention to those people.
Our 3 makes our CX-5 feel like a Nissan Rouge. Going to buy another one in 2019.
Mazda CX-5 Diesel: Is This Fuel Economy Enough to Get Buyers In Line?
Apparently an up to torque figure has been released:
"Fuel economy isn't the diesel engine's only attribute; indeed, many would-be buyers could be waiting to get their hands on a shapely crossover with up to 310 lb-ft of torque (there's still no official U.S.-market power specs)"
If correct, it's lower than our current version's 332 lb-ft
Kindof useless prattle considering that in the same line it says "no figures available". I mean...why even comment, then?
This thread is addicted
With the mpg announced for the diesel, I thought it's already dead
There's no splash here!
No splash - it*s a belly flop...!
^^Tell me more!