Which Year? Buying a used Mazda 3 Sport - BM (3rd Gen)

[J.R.]

Tried posting this in the 3 section and got but one, lonely response... There seems to be a lot of current/ex 3 owners in here, so hopefully I can get more input.

This Christmas/New Year, my wife and I plan on trading in our 2011 SX4 and 2003, Civic for a 2018 CX5 Diesel and a 3rd generation Mazda 3 Sport (making some lucky dealer/salesman very happy I'm sure). We're likely looking at the mid level 3 with the smaller motor (better FE) but decent equipment (including optional sunroof) and importantly, the 6 speed manual.

Now I'm aware they've added G-vectoring to the 2017's but short of a SMOKING deal on a end of year clear out, that's likely out of budget.

I'm hoping you fine folks can tell me anything and everything about the 2014-2016 models. Were there any hiccups in the early models to watch out for? Was there any key features added in one of those years you'd find invaluable?

Appreciate any and all input

I should add that my wife largely does around town driving (and will be coming from a gutless 1.6L Civic) and the CX5 will see the vast majority of highway/long distance travel which is why we're leaning towards the smaller motor. But we'd love input on that as well.

 

[CX-5um]

Pretty sure you can still get very good FE on the 2.5 manual version as well. That said is G-vectoring available on manuals too?

 

[banjos-n-beer]

I had a 2014 3 Hatchback before I bought my 2016 CX5. In fact I broke my 36 month lease after 16 months because I was so unhappy with my 3. My biggest gripe was the road/tire noise. Holy crap was it bad. By far the worst I have ever experienced in my lifetime (well, maybe our old 1994 Wrangler with soft-top and windows that wouldn't zipper shut anymore was worse), but it certainly would have been close. Not sure if it was because of the tires, SkyActiv weight reduction, or a combination of the two. I had other minor gripes as well, such as the backseat appeared to be nothing other than a big chuck of foam because after having had the rear seats down for a full year to accommodate my dogs the edges appeared to be lifting, and had kind reshaped themselves due to that. Other than that, lots of creaking plastic during the cold months.

Having said that, it was pretty fun to drive, even with the 2.0L engine. I had the auto, and could stretch MPGs to 44 on the highway when keeping speeds moderate. But I did feel at times there just wasn't enough punch, particularly at the highway speeds. I definitely would have preferred the 2.5L, and as stated fuel economy doesn't really suffer to much to make it a deterrent (at least in my eyes).

So yeah, take a few out for a spin, and let your senses to the talking. Definitely a fun little car to drive, but it has its shortcomings.

YMMV

 

[J.R.]

Pretty sure you can still get very good FE on the 2.5 manual version as well. That said is G-vectoring available on manuals too?

Both cars get good-respectable MPG's, the smaller motor just gets better I assume.

Primarily it will be used for my wife's 10 minute commute (80KPH the highest speed limit along the way), shuttling kids to/from school and generally puttering around the burbs like 80% or more of the time. Just don't see much need for the added power (or fuel). And as I said, she'll be coming from an anemic 1.6L Civic.

I'm all for any input on why the 2.5 is vastly superior, particularly under those conditions but on paper the more efficient and cheaper to buy 2.0 seems the more logical purchase.

As far as I know, GVC comes standard on all 2017 3's.

 

[J.R.]

I had a 2014 3 Hatchback before I bought my 2016 CX5. In fact I broke my 36 month lease after 16 months because I was so unhappy with my 3. My biggest gripe was the road/tire noise. Holy crap was it bad. By far the worst I have ever experienced in my lifetime (well, maybe our old 1994 Wrangler with soft-top and windows that wouldn't zipper shut anymore was worse), but it certainly would have been close. Not sure if it was because of the tires, SkyActiv weight reduction, or a combination of the two. I had other minor gripes as well, such as the backseat appeared to be nothing other than a big chuck of foam because after having had the rear seats down for a full year to accommodate my dogs the edges appeared to be lifting, and had kind reshaped themselves due to that. Other than that, lots of creaking plastic during the cold months.

Having said that, it was pretty fun to drive, even with the 2.0L engine. I had the auto, and could stretch MPGs to 44 on the highway when keeping speeds moderate. But I did feel at times there just wasn't enough punch, particularly at the highway speeds. I definitely would have preferred the 2.5L, and as stated fuel economy doesn't really suffer to much to make it a deterrent (at least in my eyes).

So yeah, take a few out for a spin, and let your senses to the talking. Definitely a fun little car to drive, but it has its shortcomings.

YMMV

Yeah, Mazda has that noisy reputation. Have there been any improvements on that front over the 14's for the 15-17 MY's? Similar to the improvement of the 16 to 17 MY CX5's?

Again, the 2003 Civic is no quiet Lexus-tomb either, I can't imagine it will be any worse than it but we will certainly be giving any cars a test drive.

 

[CX-5um]

I think you'd be happy to match the 18 CX-5 Diesel with a current gen used Civic 1.5 Turbo. That would be my suggestion. Arguably the best cars in their respective classes.

 

[CX-5um]

^^ Acutally....A used Mazda6 is crazy cheap used. Get a 2016+ model though.

CX-5 + Mazda6 is also a good combo to have. That's our combo btw.

 

[J.R.]

I think you'd be happy to match the 18 CX-5 Diesel with a current gen used Civic 1.5 Turbo. That would be my suggestion. Arguably the best cars in their respective classes.

^^ Acutally....A used Mazda6 is crazy cheap used. Get a 2016+ model though.

CX-5 + Mazda6 is also a good combo to have. That's our combo btw.

Wife (and I) can't stand the new Civics. Non starter.

No hatch/wagon on the 6. If I could get one of those, I wouldn't be getting the CX5 lol

6 sedan would be an 'ok' option for the wife I suppose. Why do you say to get the 16?

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Yeah, Mazda has that noisy reputation. Have there been any improvements on that front over the 14's for the 15-17 MY's? Similar to the improvement of the 16 to 17 MY CX5's?

Again, the 2003 Civic is no quiet Lexus-tomb either, I can't imagine it will be any worse than it but we will certainly be giving any cars a test drive.

If there have been improvements for the 3, they have been minimal at best (according to all the articles and reviews I've read).

My 2016 CX5 is certainly quieter than the 2014 3, as Mazda did add a bit more insulation to the 2016/2016.5 CX5s.

I don't have any experience with the 2017 CX5, so I can't comment personally. But from what I've read and seen the improvement was certainly noticeable and appreciated.

 

[dougal]

Honestly, the current "3" is heading towards the finish line. I expect the next generation "3" in 2018-2019 to have the new Skyactive 2.0 engine and the cabin enhancements of the CX-5. If you can live with the current version, go for it, but if you can wait, I think the new versions will address the main issue with the 3.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-3-20l-automatic-sedan-test-review

 

[J.R.]

Wife (and I) can't stand the new Civics. Non starter.

No hatch/wagon on the 6. If I could get one of those, I wouldn't be getting the CX5 lol

6 sedan would be an 'ok' option for the wife I suppose. Why do you say to get the 16?

Just checking specs on the Canadian 6 models/equipment. Wife needs a moonroof, only comes in the luxury pack, luxury pack requires auto trans...non starter again lol

Honestly, the current "3" is heading towards the finish line. I expect the next generation "3" in 2018-2019 to have the new Skyactive 2.0 engine and the cabin enhancements of the CX-5. If you can live with the current version, go for it, but if you can wait, I think the new versions will address the main issue with the 3.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-3-20l-automatic-sedan-test-review

Not really an option. Looking at a used model to upgrade my wife's 2003 Civic. We may consider trading up in a ~5 years though at which point we can look at used 18/19. Hopefully this means we can find some good deals on an outgoing generation though

 

[PSUENGR]

Skip the smaller motor. Unless you drive it like an epa test driver you probably won't get better mileage. Most people accelerate harder than the tests and end up using more gas to get the acceleration they desire. The larger torquier engine will probably do just as well or better under real driving scenarios.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

If you get a g vector 3, you will have limited ecu tuning options. There are also cams and mods available for later. A good bet is a 2.5 BM pre g vector. 2015+. Here is the third gen mazda 3 cl7b if you have facebook, you can get a lot of feedback here. https://www.facebook.com/groups/709841162431141/?ref=nf_target&fref=nf

 

[Studum]

The 2.0 will be fine for an around town runabout. The manual will make better use of the available power than the auto will with the smaller motor.

The 2.5 has more torque and it's more accessible, overall making driving it more pleasurable but the 2.0 will work just fine and will certainly be cheaper. You'll just have to wring it out a bit more if you need to get it moving.

I believe there were minor improvements in the infotainment hardware the newer the car is to speed it up / make it more user friendly but overall it should function the same. Other than that the 14-16 are largely the same from what I know. Once I decided to go new vs used when I picked mine up I stopped looking into the pre-facelift models.

What I can tell you is I'm a week away from exactly 6 months in my '17 and I'm currently at 18,000 kms. The car took a little while to grow on me to be honest - mainly because I was still happy with my '10 and I wasn't ready to get rid of it yet, and I was adapting to it through the winter - but I am now right at home in it and absolutely adore it.

 

[CX-5um]

Just checking specs on the Canadian 6 models/equipment. Wife needs a moonroof, only comes in the luxury pack, luxury pack requires auto trans...non starter again lol

I think the Canadian Accord manual models may have a sunroof.

 

[J.R.]

If you get a g vector 3, you will have limited ecu tuning options. There are also cams and mods available for later. A good bet is a 2.5 BM pre g vector. 2015+. Here is the third gen mazda 3 cl7b if you have facebook, you can get a lot of feedback here. https://www.facebook.com/groups/709841162431141/?ref=nf_target&fref=nf

Wife's car. Tuning it is not of particular concern.

The 2.0 will be fine for an around town runabout. The manual will make better use of the available power than the auto will with the smaller motor.

The 2.5 has more torque and it's more accessible, overall making driving it more pleasurable but the 2.0 will work just fine and will certainly be cheaper. You'll just have to wring it out a bit more if you need to get it moving.

I believe there were minor improvements in the infotainment hardware the newer the car is to speed it up / make it more user friendly but overall it should function the same. Other than that the 14-16 are largely the same from what I know. Once I decided to go new vs used when I picked mine up I stopped looking into the pre-facelift models.

What I can tell you is I'm a week away from exactly 6 months in my '17 and I'm currently at 18,000 kms. The car took a little while to grow on me to be honest - mainly because I was still happy with my '10 and I wasn't ready to get rid of it yet, and I was adapting to it through the winter - but I am now right at home in it and absolutely adore it.

Thanks!

I think the Canadian Accord manual models may have a sunroof.

I'll look in to it as a backup plan but we've really fallen out of love with Honda in the last 10-15 years. Also not available in a hatch/wagon.

Then there's the hope that buying two cars (from Mazda) will ideally get us favourable pricing etc and a 3 being almost $10k cheaper...

 

[CX-5um]

Based on your responses I now understand and agree with the Mazda3 for your pick...at least the hatchback will suffice. I really think you should hold out until you can find a used Mazda3 hatchback with the 2.5 and manual. I have the a 2016 Mazda6 auto and drive spirited in mostly city commutes and still have good mpgs. The Mazda3 uses the same engine/tranny combo in a lighter car. In fact the only reason I went the Mazda6 route was it had more rear seat space for my baby/child's car seat. My wife also sits back there with the kid. So rear seat room was more of a premium. That said the hatchback would've been really nice to have.

Mazda3 2.5 manual...I really don't think the year matters much...probably go for a 2015? Lighter more nimble than the 6. Has the hatch. Faster than the 6. Better weight/power ratio which should translate to better real world mpgs.

Mazda 6 2.5 manual. I preferred the 2016 U.S. spec model due to the interior update plus commander knob. (not sure when that was available in Canada). More legroom front and rear than the 3 hatch. Quieter. More standard features.

 

[7eregrine]

There's no way I'd get my wife a 2 liter. Look around man. Dude broke his lease early to get away from that. Ok, your wife doesn't drive a lot. But she gets on a freeway sometimes, right? I don't want to be you the first time she comes home stressed out because she needed a little more merging power and it was not available.
Bottom line: better to have a little more power and rarely use it, then need it and not have it.
Conversly, the first time she needs that extra power...and gas it...and it made her drive that much more enjoyable...she's going to come and be all "I love this car!"
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[7eregrine]

Hmmm. You may have to get the 2.0. I just did a quick search. Within 100 miles of me are 15 2014-2015 Mazda3's. Not one....is 2.5.
Also didn't realize how good the MPG is on tht puppy. LOL

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[J.R.]

Based on your responses I now understand and agree with the Mazda3 for your pick...at least the hatchback will suffice. I really think you should hold out until you can find a used Mazda3 hatchback with the 2.5 and manual. I have the a 2016 Mazda6 auto and drive spirited in mostly city commutes and still have good mpgs. The Mazda3 uses the same engine/tranny combo in a lighter car. In fact the only reason I went the Mazda6 route was it had more rear seat space for my baby/child's car seat. My wife also sits back there with the kid. So rear seat room was more of a premium. That said the hatchback would've been really nice to have.

Mazda3 2.5 manual...I really don't think the year matters much...probably go for a 2015? Lighter more nimble than the 6. Has the hatch. Faster than the 6. Better weight/power ratio which should translate to better real world mpgs.

Mazda 6 2.5 manual. I preferred the 2016 U.S. spec model due to the interior update plus commander knob. (not sure when that was available in Canada). More legroom front and rear than the 3 hatch. Quieter. More standard features.

There's no way I'd get my wife a 2 liter. Look around man. Dude broke his lease early to get away from that. Ok, your wife doesn't drive a lot. But she gets on a freeway sometimes, right? I don't want to be you the first time she comes home stressed out because she needed a little more merging power and it was not available.
Bottom line: better to have a little more power and rarely use it, then need it and not have it.
Conversly, the first time she needs that extra power...and gas it...and it made her drive that much more enjoyable...she's going to come and be all "I love this car!"
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

She's coming from a 1.6L 2003 Civic with 115hp. Granted that car's about 400lbs lighter but it also has 40 less HP and torque. Not concerned but will certainly test drive.