Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I'm curious how you evaluated the handling? I haven't been in a 2010 but the large amounts of rear camber suggest that it must tend to be fairly neutral otherwise they wouldn't bother.
Maybe at stock tire pressures the front tires rolls over abit giving a vague steering feel? I imagine with the fronts at 38 and the backs at 30 it would feel pretty sharp on turn in.
Handling is subjective, of course, and you are correct that the 3 does have significant negative rear camber. However, large amounts of negative camber alone will not result in phenomenal handling; a 2G Prius (04-08) typically has -1.6 degrees of negative camber for the rear tires and that vehicle usually exhibits lackluster handling.
The recommended tire pressure for this vehicle is 35psi for front and rear, which is very high for any car. Turn-in is on the sharper side, but the ride is still very firm for an economy car. The 3s actually handles better than the 3i by a long margin; take a look at these tests here:
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/01/il-track-tested-2010-mazda-3-i-touring.html
http://www.insideline.com/mazda/mazda3/2...agination_top_1
I think the difference in handling and braking is largely due to the larger and stickier tires on the 3s, and also due to the slightly larger rotors. Once the OE tires are replaced with something stickier, I am certain that handling will improve. When the car was purchased, I tried to convince my friend to go with a "stripped" 3s model without the sunroof, but she preferred the loaded 3i Touring as she did not need the added power of the 3s for her first car.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
My thoughts? The fuel economy is just plain sad. It does not even allow the car to be worthy of the "econo" part of econobox.
Dont want to know how much those econobox tires will cost.
A mid-20s average is typical for many NA four-cylinder cars. With the growing weight of many subcompacts, you are correct that it calls to question the value of a subcompact or a smaller four-cylinder engine. As an example, my Saturn averaged between 27-29 under my mom's driving. Her new Nissan Altima V6 has been averaging a very consistent 22mpg (+/- 0.5mpg) at every fill-up on 87 over 3,000 miles. That is only about a 20% fuel economy loss for a more comfortable, more powerful and better handling vehicle. With some of the premium subcompacts (e.g. Mazda 3s, VW Golf) averaging in the lower 20s, you are correct that it is difficult to justify an economy class "subcompact" when larger, more powerful cars such as the Altima V6 deliver similar fuel economy.
As for the tires, this car requires a H-rated 205/55-16. This is a very common size and tires are very reasonably price at around $125/tire. Unfortunately, a set of quality tires for most vehicles on the road today will cost at least $450, be it a new Mazda 3 or late-90s Camry.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Regarding handling, Mazda set a benchmark in the sub 20k category which only Golf can match (not exactly at the same price point though), so really what do you expect, a BMW type handling?
See the two links I tested which compared the 3i to the 3s. Subjectively, the 3i handles fairly well with little body lean and fairly sharp turn-in. On paper though, it really isn't great. Either way, the handling isn't good enough for a daily driver to justify the sometimes jarring ride. Perhaps a set of more comfort oriented replacement tires will improve the ride quality, but the OE tire pressure requirements are 35 psi Front/Rear.
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
We looked at the threes two years ago (same basic design). Other than the fact that it was a little small for our purposes, we also thought the ride was a little stiff, and the AC was widely reported on forums to be not quite cold enough. In South Texas, we saw that as a deal breaker. So yes, I agree with Michael.
After some thought, the A/C is weaker on the 2010 Mazda 3 than some other cars, but it is possible that I have been spoiled by my Saturn's A/C. I will have the dealer look at the A/C at the next oil change, which will be soon, as it is nearing 3,000 miles.
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
oh JHZR2 has a 135i? LOL! I wonder if he has checked Bimmerfest forums - there are several people who have had their fuel pumps (well documented with N54 engines) replaced 3-4 times under 60k miles...
I think his is a N55 as he has the 2011.
Originally Posted By: ClarkB
I would agree with your sentiments. Overall the vehicle doesn't seem like a
bad choice but it certainly falls short of being best.
Clark
I am not sure if there's a clear winner in the economy car segment. The Civic and the 3 are at the top of the class and are fairly competitive with each other in different ways. Both cars also have some notable pros and cons. A Civic coupe was actually another car my friend was considering, but I convinced her to go with the Mazda 3 since it was the one that had stability control in her price range, and I felt that stability control was an important feature for a new driver.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
a mid size sedan will struggle to get 20mpg in those conditions.
I have actually been quite impressed with the fuel economy in my mom's Altima V6. Her driving is about 70% in-town city driving and 30% short highway trips (- 0.5mpg) on EVERY fill-up in her car. The VQ35DE is definitely not a fuel-efficient engine by design, but the V6/CVT combo has so far, delivered excellent low-end torque with impressive fuel economy. A/C use also seems to have no noticeable effect on acceleration or fuel economy.
