In reply to z31maniac :
I honestly didn't really start noticing it until people in reviews started complaining about the road noise. Tires definitely make a difference. Again, I think the car is actually quieter than other cars I have driven, it's just the road noise is relatively loud compared to how quiet the rest of the car is. That's my theory anyway. It could also all be in my head. I'm baffled too honestly.
I too am a huge Mazda fan. I get the sense they really care about the little things that other companies don't, take the auto shifter for example, it actually shifts the right way in the autos in manual mode as I mentioned above. There is a feeling of quality there, at least for the price point.
They aren't the fastest cars, but they just all seem to drive really nice in a way that other brands don't. My parents have a hybrid Toyota RAV4 and it's just a terrible driving experience compared to the Mazda (yeah not apples to apples I know). My dad wanted the CX-5, but they didn't offer the hybrid when he bought it.
That is funny because another car on my shortlist is the RAV4 Hybrid. If I could lower one about 10"....
Ideal car is a Mazda 3 manual with a hatch big enough to fit a mtb upright in the back of, but I don't think that car exists. I think the closest thing is likely a Toyota Matrix but they haven't made those for a while and the later ones have oil burning issues.
I recently bought a 2018 Mazda 3 with 2.0 for my youngest daughter. This is the base model with a full featured entertainment center with two USB ports. I do need to see if it will take satellite radio.
Its a nice car and feels solid. Engine isn't buzzy or make strange sounds. Could use 30 more hp (LOL) but has enough acceleration to not feel scared merging onto Houston traffic.
I took a recent trip of about 360 miles. I got around 34mpg. Not a world beater but reasonable. I've cruised at 75-80 for long distances and it doesn't feel squirrely or like an 18 wheeler or cross wind will blow it off the road.
My research said there were more problems reported with the 2.5 engine than the 2.0.
In reply to TravisTheHuman :
You described the Mazda 5 which were getting harder to find in anything close to decent shape vehicle 5 years ago, when they had only been out of production 5 years.. and now? a decade out of production.. forgettaboutit
TravisTheHuman said:
Ideal car is a Mazda 3 manual with a hatch big enough to fit a mtb upright in the back of
I do wish the Mazda3 hatch was slightly bigger or at least had a bigger opening . It is a pretty practical car for us, but we mostly pack it full of surfboards and clothing from our suppliers. To me the opening needs to be bigger. I'm just spoiled by my cherokee where the entire rear end opens up, rather than the Mazda3 where the hatch is smaller than the full size of the rear end. I have put my MTB in it, but it's not super easy.
Exactly why I liked the Mazda 5 so much. I still see them for sale. I wish Mazda hadn't nixed them.
fidelity101 said:
common mazda compliants.
needs 30 more hp
the infotainment is pretty dated
road noise
why so many sunroof options and less hard top options?
I've been eyeing a new or new to me one myself lately, this is hard to argue for the money but I need to give up the manual trans...
this is basically a cheap GR, with probably better around town mannerisms.
If you look at the specs on the turbo engine, it may be "only" 250hp but that's only because peak power is at a low RPM. It's like an STI/Evo engine with the top 1500rpm that you never use truncated. I'm good with that on the street. I probably never see over 4500 with a similar engine.
As for transmissions... I don't shave with a straight razor, I don't ride a fixed gear bike, I'm okay with not having a clutch pedal 
BTW - Turbo AWD trunk 3s also do exist. I've worked on one. I was shocked enough to take photographic proof.
Edit: Here's one. And it's white, too. My cars seem to go on a white-silver-black-red rotation for Mazda and VW, and my last Mazda was red... hmm...
Actually if you count the FC and the RX-3, which I don't because they never ran, I go blue-white-silver-black-red, and the last Mazda was blue. Either way I need to buy this car.
In reply to jharry3 :
Interesting, I don't think I've read anything about the 2.5 having common problems. That's the engine that was in our 2018 Mazda 3 and is in our 2023 CX-5.
Although I'd really like to get the fiance a new CX-70 with the 3.3 turbo I-6. But we have no justification for a $55-60k vehicle that we aren't going to at least tow a small travel trailer or something.
TravisTheHuman said:
That is funny because another car on my shortlist is the RAV4 Hybrid. If I could lower one about 10"....
Ideal car is a Mazda 3 manual with a hatch big enough to fit a mtb upright in the back of, but I don't think that car exists. I think the closest thing is likely a Toyota Matrix but they haven't made those for a while and the later ones have oil burning issues.
My fiance will not allow me to do the supercharger kit for the CX-5. It is her car, so that's understandable.
I told her I think it would look awesome slammed to the ground with flares, wide tires, and the SC kit that adds 100+ HP.
Alas, she likes it just how it is. But I do still have a weird desire to get a CUV and do what I just described. The 10 speaker BOSE in the car sounds REALLY good as well. Way better than the OEM Audio+ I put in the BRZ.
z31maniac said:
TravisTheHuman said:
That is funny because another car on my shortlist is the RAV4 Hybrid. If I could lower one about 10"....
Ideal car is a Mazda 3 manual with a hatch big enough to fit a mtb upright in the back of, but I don't think that car exists. I think the closest thing is likely a Toyota Matrix but they haven't made those for a while and the later ones have oil burning issues.
My fiance will not allow me to do the supercharger kit for the CX-5. It is her car, so that's understandable.
I told her I think it would look awesome slammed to the ground with flares, wide tires, and the SC kit that adds 100+ HP.
Alas, she likes it just how it is. But I do still have a weird desire to get a CUV and do what I just described. The 10 speaker BOSE in the car sounds REALLY good as well. Way better than the OEM Audio+ I put in the BRZ.
It would look awesome, and probably drive like E36 M3, unless when you slam it you relocate the strut mounts, control arms, etc.
In reply to TravisTheHuman :
I don't know about the CX-5, but I'd been eying doing this to an Escape. The front subframe can be raised in the chassis and motor mounts, I think, from a Focus can be used. I forget if the rack input or the steering shaft would have to get cut down.
In the rear, some fiddling would need to be done to correct camber and toe, but I've been known to buy a threaded swage tube and threaded adjuster, cut the swage tube in half, and splice it in to a factory suspension link to alter its length and make it adjustable.
The hard part would be correcting the bodywork so it didn't look silly with uneven fender gaps, 3 inches' clearance at the ends and tucked 2 inches up in the middle.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to TravisTheHuman :
I don't know about the CX-5, but I'd been eying doing this to an Escape. The front subframe can be raised in the chassis and motor mounts, I think, from a Focus can be used. I forget if the rack input or the steering shaft would have to get cut down.
In the rear, some fiddling would need to be done to correct camber and toe, but I've been known to buy a threaded swage tube and threaded adjuster, cut the swage tube in half, and splice it in to a factory suspension link to alter its length and make it adjustable...
The nightmare van is a Transit Connect which is mostly the same chassis. I think I'm done with those for a while. To use your analogy earlier... I may not shave with a straight razor, but an electric razor will last almost forever, and if it does die it doesn't cost me $8000.
*I use a Gillette Fusion, I'm bald
That said, earlier gen Escapes can be found with a manual. I would totally rock one dumped in the weeds. Cool part is there is a host of 2.5MZR goodies out there if you ever need power.
On the original topic, I'm currently just looking at grabbing a cheap 2.0 3rd gen. The jump from 2.0 to 2.5 is significant when you consider than the 2.5 is only at higher trims, and only offered in the later years. A 2.0 with ~120k on it for like 7k seems like a good vehicle to meet my needs while I deal with this van bullE36 M3 and find my way into a living arrangement with a garage or way to charge an EV (in which case, Ioniq5)
In reply to TravisTheHuman :
I should have specified first gen, my bad. The Focus based second gen (third gen?) has the engine right up against the cowl with no room to go further. The early ones had MUCH more vertical space to work with!
In reply to TravisTheHuman :
I think that's sound thinking. If they are down around 7k now, that's a lot of car for the price. Someone on here has a 2.0 hatch (maybe barefootskater? I can't remember) and was getting low 40s MPGs IIRC. Again, on paper it's not much different in terms of mileage, but I think if you drive it a certain way with the manual trans you can get great mileage.
CyberEric said:
In reply to fidelity101 :
Correct, turbo AWD is 4th gen only, and even was not offered until maybe 2021 or so.
Regarding the rear end style, last decade (when the 3rd gen came out) most of the models (3, 6, CX-5) were all very similar except the CX-3 which was torsion beam.
Now my understanding is that the 3 and CX-50 and CX-30 are all similar with a torsion beam in the rear.
those are all on the small segment platform (as mazda calls it, IE FWD based transverse setup) so that makes sense
TravisTheHuman said:
That is funny because another car on my shortlist is the RAV4 Hybrid. If I could lower one about 10"....
Ideal car is a Mazda 3 manual with a hatch big enough to fit a mtb upright in the back of, but I don't think that car exists. I think the closest thing is likely a Toyota Matrix but they haven't made those for a while and the later ones have oil burning issues.
so its funny you mention that because the CX-50 hybrid is a rav4, all of the mazda you like (nice styling/interior comfort modern) but its built in albama at the JV plant w toyota and the motor/powertrain is rav4 which they really havent ever made a bad generation of those. they're all good but some generations are more suited for particular individuals over others.
I think what you're describing is a honda fit
I have a 2018 with 2.5L/6MT. It drives nice, and looks good in soul red.
I only have three complaints: low fuel economy compared to competition, low power compared to competition, and all 6MT cars should have had the grand touring gauge cluster.
Well, drove a 2.0 with 133k on it. Mechanically, it drives pretty well. Noisier than the 50k mile candidate, but not bad on the highway (remember, my previous car was a utility van) Judging by the exterior, this car was certainly not babied. That's a good sign. The price was high given the state of the exterior, I threw out and offer, dealer didnt bite. Onto the next candidate.
It was a good exercise. I think I've made my peace with the power (or lack of) with the 2.0. Its not quick, but still plenty (again, remember my previous car was a utility van). Definitely gives me Saturn SW2 vibes (in a good way)
keep us posted so we can live vicarously through you. mazdas 3s have been on my mind lately too...
In reply to pushrod36 :
Yeah the Grand Touring gives you a big tach right in the middle, without that trim the tach is tiny and to the left.
I'm curious about what competition gets better MPGs? EPA rates the Civic sport at basically the same in combined mileage.
CyberEric said:
In reply to pushrod36 :
Yeah the Grand Touring gives you a big tach right in the middle, without that trim the tach is tiny and to the left.
I'm curious about what competition gets better MPGs? EPA rates the Civic sport at basically the same in combined mileage.
I always wonder about EPA ratings. I think my '15 BRZ was rated 29/30 on the highway. But it lowered with big sticky tires would knock down like 34/35 at 85 mph when going to see my fiance at her old place. That was calucalted from the mileage on the dash on gas put in.
TravisTheHuman said:
z31maniac said:
TravisTheHuman said:
That is funny because another car on my shortlist is the RAV4 Hybrid. If I could lower one about 10"....
Ideal car is a Mazda 3 manual with a hatch big enough to fit a mtb upright in the back of, but I don't think that car exists. I think the closest thing is likely a Toyota Matrix but they haven't made those for a while and the later ones have oil burning issues.
My fiance will not allow me to do the supercharger kit for the CX-5. It is her car, so that's understandable.
I told her I think it would look awesome slammed to the ground with flares, wide tires, and the SC kit that adds 100+ HP.
Alas, she likes it just how it is. But I do still have a weird desire to get a CUV and do what I just described. The 10 speaker BOSE in the car sounds REALLY good as well. Way better than the OEM Audio+ I put in the BRZ.
It would look awesome, and probably drive like E36 M3, unless when you slam it you relocate the strut mounts, control arms, etc.
I suspect you are 100% correct. Damn it would look cool. I've also looked at first gen CRV's to do something similar. But we only have a 2 car garage, and I don't want even a project just parked in the driveway.
CyberEric said:
In reply to pushrod36 :
Yeah the Grand Touring gives you a big tach right in the middle, without that trim the tach is tiny and to the left.
I'm curious about what competition gets better MPGs? EPA rates the Civic sport at basically the same in combined mileage.
This is a decent example.
And my car's rated for 24mpg highway and in the real world it does 29-32mpg.
Mazda probably calibrates their engines and transmissions for the driving experience, not to get a good score on a test, so I'd be curious to see real world figures.
Yes yes, we all get different mileage than the EPA suggestions, but the EPA ratings are the only good way to do apples to apples.
Hmmm, I got different results with Edmunds putting the sedan at 32 and the hatch at 31 combined. But it wasn't the EPA website, so maybe that's it.
My understanding is that turbo cars do well in the EPA tests, but that it doesn't always translate to real world mileage.
Im pretty sure my dad told me he gets better than 29mpg combined in his 2.5. I'll ask him.
I believe volvoclearinghouse who has the 3 on here (I remembered his name) was here talking about low 40s with his MT 2.0.
