2010 Mazda 3: One-Year Review

[Corvette Owner]

Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
IMO the Mazda 3 is a great small car. Probably the best available for performance and reliability (combination).
I'm pretty sure most electric power steering systems have no hydraulics, therefore no hydraulic fluid. That is the case with my RX-8.

My Mazda 3 (a 2005) does not have electric power steering.


The power steering pump is not connected to the belt. It is a little canister and there is a little motor in it that spins and creates pressure in the lines that allows for the power assisting.

2008 models had electric power steering.

 

[CharBaby]

Comming up on the 1 year(late Aug.) for my daughters 06 Mazda3. She has put on 16,000+ miles on the vehicle thus far. Running great. The noisy tires(DunlopSignature) are waring like iron and so are the noisy used car dealer installed brakes. But the car handles and brakes nicely. MPG is still in the mid 30's but she does alot of traveling for the job(newspaper reporter).

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: JeepZJ4.0

Cost of ownership has gone up and that applies to all vehicles. Where those vehicles rule are in fuel economy and maintenance intervals.

You're going to be in for a massive shock when that 135i needs it's run-flats changed in 10000 miles, especially since it has 300hp.


I am well aware of the associated costs of having that car. It is not going to hit me as a surprise, and 10k is not even average life.

Plus, one can go without RFTs for significantly lower costs... and given how I will be using the vehicle, I may do that anyway for lower costs and better performance.

As far as the costs comment, do they really excel in MPGs? My saab will do as well as the 3 in fuel economy (i get near 40 MPG doing all highway and just under 30 in mixed city driving). That is for a bigger car, more power, far more torque far lower down, etc. And I'd venture to say that most accords, altimas, camrys, fusions, etc can make similar arguments.

Plus their tires are the same price, etc. So what do the compact econoboxes get you? Reduced acquisition costs, but then maintenance and lifecycle costs that are not commensurate with the savings in acquisition.

It's like saying that you can afford $15k, so you go out and buy a $15k used porsche. It is kind of silly in the big picture of the intent to buy a low priced, economical to buy and keep, vehicle.


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...

Not bashing that specific model; what I am trying to say with that is: No car is "perfect". They all have something that will mar their reliability at some point.

and I agree with Jeep - a "decent" tire in ANY size is gonna cost around $110-120 these days, if you want safety and reliability and some decent handling from it


And mine is a 2011 with an N55, which has an updated part and to date no known N55s have shown HPFP issues... I know you are trying to make me out to be an idiot who just does things by the seat of my pants, but there truly is method to my madness I likely would not have pulled the trigger on a 135i is I did not have a good feeling that the HPFP issue was resolved. At the same time, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of x35i cars that have now gone 20k+ without any issues whatsoever on N54 engines...

And your comment about marring reliability at some point is fine. No matter what the make, we will expect parts to wear/degrade, and things will go wrong. That said, again, one should expect a new car, regardless of make, to be flawless for the first few years. I do not see that as setting the bar too high or anything like that. I see that expectation as the basis for buying a new car versus something else.

 

[97tbird]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

And mine is a 2011 with an N55, which has an updated part and to date no known N55s have shown HPFP issues... I know you are trying to make me out to be an idiot who just does things by the seat of my pants,


I thought you already owned a 135i - (n54) i just saw that u only ordered a 2011 - truly hope n55 works better.
No i am not trying to make you look like an idiot. you misunderstood.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: The Critic

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
My thoughts? The fuel economy is just plain sad. It doesnt 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: 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.


I agree with your points on heavier/larger cars with little fuel economy improvements causing us to have to ask "what's the point?" And, just think how much better, say the altima would be in the 2.5L version, likely two MPG better at least. Then it is getting the same as the 3, for a lot more space and comfort.

The golf is a bit different story (I know because we have one). There is no way that one can ever compare the rear seat comfort of a 3, a civic, even a camry with that of the golf. I, as a 6 ft 5, 230# guy fit comfortably in the rear of the golf. I dont in the rear of the wife's mother's camry. The golf is a larger, heavier car that is more or less a chopped station wagon. FAR more utility than a sedan. In fact, when us and two friends went on a ski trip about a year ago, we went in the rabbit over my (arguably larger) saab, due to useful space of the hatch setup. The golf is like a dodge dakota... bigger than the small cars, and smaller than the big ones.

FWIW, my wife has averaged 26.1 MPG (logged every tank) over 25k miles of ownership on our 08 rabbit, doing 100% city driving and most commutes stop driving... Would a prius (or an RX450h even) been better for economy, sure, but she needs to save a lot of fuel to break even on acquisition cost there... In the future it might be a comparison, and we would absolutely have bought a TDI or a 2.0T if we had the option (without getting a GTI).

Anyway, point is again that these small cars don't really bring much to the table in the world of economy when you consider the upkeep costs and fuel usage relative to cars that offer greater size and utility.

My favorite small car? Toyota yaris 4dr. That is what Id buy if I was in that market. I did a pretty detailed review of driving across CA for two weeks, one with a yaris, the other with a civic. The Yaris won. Now, that is just my opinion, and of course lots of debt-laden consumers feel that they just absolutely deserve more/better (while not really affording it), but that is part of the reason why financially so many are beyond hope, isnt it?

Also, FYI, my saab is stickered at 41 front, 38 rear on the OE tires (215/55r16). I cant say that even hitting bad road gaps make it terribly bad ride-wise. I wouldnt doubt that a new 3s handles better than my 04 saab, maybe, maybe not, but I suppose the 41/38 helps with fuel economy. My car stickered at 34 MPG highway, and I easily beat that in highway use.

 

[sciphi]

Getting a "smaller" car isn't always about total cost of ownership. Sometimes it's about better driving dynamics, improved utility of a small box on wheels vs. a larger sedan, and available parking. My fiancee has an 09 Honda Fit. That little car holds just as much as many small SUV's, and everybody who's ridden in the back seat has remarked how much room there is back there. Plus living in a suburban environment where parking is dear, it's easy to whip into a tiny parking spot. And weighing 2700 lbs with lower-profile tires makes it a hoot to rail around corners.

The cost of ownership is the same as a larger car since the tires for it are $120 apiece, synthetic oil is highly recommended for the 10k+ mile factory oil change intervals, and most common parts are dealer-only so far. Fuel mileage is similar to my much larger Buick at 32-33 mpg highway (40+ if she drives sanely, hah!) and 26 around town.

The experience of driving it is different than a larger car. Costs are the same or higher. It was cheaper to buy than many bigger cars, so we're ahead so far.

It sounds like the OP's friend is happy with the purchase, hasn't had any big problems so far, and is enjoying the smaller MZ3. Just because people can buy a larger car isn't the same as needing/wanting to buy one.

 

[pidster]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: JHZR2


I would fully expect there to be absolutely NOTHING wrong with a vehicle with that age and miles. That is to be expected.


Really? one of my friends has a 2010 Accord with like 2000 miles on it, and has been to the dealer 2 times now for CEL on/car bucking/stalling/hesitating problems.

Another one had a VW Beetle that needed an engine replacement at 5k miles.

your comments are exaggerated.


I'm exaggerating? You write it as if after laying out $20k plus for a new car that some failures, dealer visits, etc. SHOULD be expected.

I buy a new car, I expect perfection, NOT having to go back because things are wrong. If I wanted that, Id just buy a used car.

One of the reasons to buy a new car is that it should be absolutely perfect without any need to have anything done but standard PM. Maybe I expect too much from my new vehicles. Ive never had to take my cars back for anything. OK, one time there was a recall to replace the key fob...

Now maybe my new car will come back to bite me, but I fully expect any new car to be flawless, especially in less than a year and less than 10k. How is that too much to ask?


You're absolutely right. Not a [censored] thing should go wrong with a car at that age. If it happened to mine, I'd be pretty angry. Even under warranty. But unfortunately it does happen. So the OP's report is saying something about the car.

 

[Ursae_Majoris]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


That doesnt make it right. $120 (quality) tires on a $15k car still is silly to me. There is nothing economy about bringing my economy car in and having to spend $500 on tires. Where is the economy?

I paid $500 for GY TT for my $10k Elantra. That's 5.0% of the initial car cost. It was worth to me. I have just one set of tires and rims and do not have to fool with TPMS and dedicated winter tire and rims.

 

[Steve S]

Nice tires seem to be worth the expense. You don't have to go overboard but better quality.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


Also, FYI, my saab is stickered at 41 front, 38 rear on the OE tires (215/55r16). I cant say that even hitting bad road gaps make it terribly bad ride-wise. I wouldnt doubt that a new 3s handles better than my 04 saab, maybe, maybe not, but I suppose the 41/38 helps with fuel economy. My car stickered at 34 MPG highway, and I easily beat that in highway use.

Did you watch the second video? Half way through is the 3s going through a slalom, its looks mighty impressive to me as an autocrosser. Stock cars on stock tires don't usually look that easy to drive a slalom like that. Your saab seems to tire pressures set for maximum performance which helps its feel for sure, I guess if your is the aero version with upgraded suspension it might perform similarly to the 3s, I really doubt the regular turbo one would be as quick through the slalom.

Your point about mileage is very true for mazda 4 bangers in my experience. They don't get great mileage, sometimes due to gearing, and I think they go for more performance in exchange for economy. A Corolla or Civic will get alot better mileage but lack the sporty image and feel of the 3.

 

[CharlieJ]

Originally Posted By: Corvette Owner
Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
IMO the Mazda 3 is a great small car. Probably the best available for performance and reliability (combination).
I'm pretty sure most electric power steering systems have no hydraulics, therefore no hydraulic fluid. That is the case with my RX-8.

My Mazda 3 (a 2005) does not have electric power steering.


The power steering pump is not connected to the belt. It is a little canister and there is a little motor in it that spins and creates pressure in the lines that allows for the power assisting.

2008 models had electric power steering.


All U.S. 2.0l and 2.3l Mazda3s have electric power steering.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: CharlieJ
Originally Posted By: Corvette Owner
Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
IMO the Mazda 3 is a great small car. Probably the best available for performance and reliability (combination).
I'm pretty sure most electric power steering systems have no hydraulics, therefore no hydraulic fluid. That is the case with my RX-8.

My Mazda 3 (a 2005) does not have electric power steering.


The power steering pump is not connected to the belt. It is a little canister and there is a little motor in it that spins and creates pressure in the lines that allows for the power assisting.

2008 models had electric power steering.


All U.S. 2.0l and 2.3l Mazda3s have electric power steering.


No they don't, it's hydraulic, but the hydraulic pump is driven by the electric motor instead of accessory belt.

 

[CharlieJ]

Ok, I will be more specific and call it ELECTRO HYDRAULIC POWER ASSIST STEERING (EHPAS). Mazda 3 power steering pump failure TSB Thankfully, my car does not fall under the TSB.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

There is no better handling econo car than a Mazda 3s. Having read about them and driven nearly all its competitors and owned one I can feel pretty safe making this claim. It does ride stiffly and it is loud on the highway with wind and road noise. please don't compare it to a civic si or a vw GTI else we'll compare those to a mazdaspeed 3. Never realized that the hydraulic ps pump was driven electrically.

 

[MrCritical]

I've heard the a/c complaint going back to the 2007 model year...

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Anyway, point is again that these small cars don't really bring much to the table in the world of economy when you consider the upkeep costs and fuel usage relative to cars that offer greater size and utility.


If you were to survey Mazda3 owners, I think you'd find that very few - possibly even none - bought their car because it was the cheapest car to buy and own. I've test-driven many cars that are bigger and are rated for the same fuel economy or better than my 3. Tires likely would have been cheaper for them as well, though Michelin likely does not make Pilot Sports in their sizes. Regardless, I didn't enjoy driving them, and the initial cost was higher. The TSX is the only FWD car I've found that I enjoyed as much as my Mazda3, and it cost 50% more to buy and had lower fuel economy ratings.