Golf or Mazda 3?

NIMAN

To be fair though, if you check those car sites I listed, most also say the Seat Leon is a great car.

NIMAN

colm_mcm wrote: »

I don't think anyone here seriously thinks Fords are any good.

I quite like them;)

I love Alfa's too, just never had the balls to buy one.

bazz26

Yet lots of people don't put the Leon on their "aspire to have" list but do the Golf. The power of marketing and branding at work me thinks.

colm_mcm

The Leon is deliberately styled to be less obviously well proportioned than the Golf. Its a more challenging design to take in. I don't think Seat would be allowed to build a direct Golf rival in the real sense of the word.

noelf

In the real mpg section of honestjohn the golf 1.2 tsi does best at 55 mpg the civic 1.4 is 46.7 the focus 1.0 litre only does 40.9 for 100 bhp engine the 125 is 42.3 .. www.anusedcar.com tuv car testing reports 2013 of 2 to 3 year old cars yes the mazda 3 is ranked in 2nd place fault rate of 2.7 % golf ranked 16 fault rate of 4% the civic is only ranked in 75 position fault rate 6.2% !! The Hyundai i30 is in the same position as the civic ..

NIMAN

So a fault rate of 4%, I'm guessing a 1 in 25 chance of having a major issue with a Golf. Decent odds.

Good odds on all the cars to be fair.

Re: Mpg. Really surprised to hear you can get 55mpg off a 1.2TSi engine. If thats true I'd nearly consider one.

braddun

mazda will last longer and gets great reviews

noelf

NIMAN wrote: »

So a fault rate of 4%, I'm guessing a 1 in 25 chance of having a major issue with a Golf. Decent odds.

Good odds on all the cars to be fair.

Re: Mpg. Really surprised to hear you can get 55mpg off a 1.2TSi engine. If thats true I'd nearly consider one.

And they are quiet lively too .. yea 55mpg does sound a bit high I get about 58 with my 1.6 tdi golf mark 7 highline

Noccy_Mondy

colm_mcm wrote: »

I don't think anyone here seriously thinks Fords are any good.

Jaysus don't get me riled up :P

bazz26

Going back to the original choice, the Mazda 3 is a fine car but unfortunately in 1.5 petrol form you get the entry level model with a pretty mundane engine with mediocre performance by today's standards. The plus side to the Golf is that at least you have more choice in spec when it comes to petrol engine options if your willing to pay for it.

Fiskar

Yeah, thinking the Golf and the 1,000 euro free pack they are offering as the Golf is 40 years old will be the deal breaker.
Not too keen on a 1.2 but the Golf is 100 kg lighter than the mark 6 so the 110 bhp 1.2 tsi should be lively enough.

Subotai

I have owned a 2002 golf previously, and i currently own a 2005 mazda 3, which i've had since 2007. I'll be changing it next year for a different make of car, but only because i want to drive something different.

Of the two, the mazda is far surperior. The golf gave me awful trouble. The electric window on the passanger side broke, all the lights on the dashboard failed, the starter mortor broke at only 60,000 km, and it leaked water in through the seals on the front doors. The only fault i got with the mazda in 7 years was the abs sensor went. So if you want reliability go with the mazda, and avoid the golf. Personally I'd only buy a japanese car now.

Oafley Jones

NIMAN wrote: »

Golf all day long.

There will be the usual haters on here saying they aren't in the same class as a Ceed or i30, but they don't get 5 star reviews off most of the motoring press for nothing.

They are good, solid well built and reliable cars that are desirable and which will be easy to sell.

VAG's absolutely massive advertising spend has of course nothing to do with that. Only the gaming press are more rotten as a whole.

Definitely better residuals on the golf and I'd bet the Mazda is more reliable. Really like the look of the new 3, the new Golf is one of the blandest designs on the road - it's okay from the front, but that arse is shocking. Coma inducing stuff. Would love the whole group to have a clear out of their designers.

George Dalton

Subotai wrote: »

I have owned a 2002 golf previously, and i currently own a 2005 mazda 3, which i've had since 2007. I'll be changing it next year for a different make of car, but only because i want to drive something different.

Of the two, the mazda is far surperior. The golf gave me awful trouble. The electric window on the passanger side broke, all the lights on the dashboard failed, the starter mortor broke at only 60,000 km, and it leaked water in through the seals on the front doors. The only fault i got with the mazda in 7 years was the abs sensor went. So if you want reliability go with the mazda, and avoid the golf. Personally I'd only buy a japanese car now.

And yet the Golf is worth far more than the Mazda secondhand. Personally I would rather spend a couple of hundred quid on a window regulator and then save a 4 figure sum come trade in time.

For someone spending their own money (rather than a company car situation) and looking at things from a purely rational standpoint the Golf is the only sensible choice. They look good, they drive well, they are about average in terms of reliability but the main thing is they beat everything else in terms of resale value.

That is the objective view.

Now for the subjective view :pac:

In my opinion they are also the nicest car in their class. If I was in the market for a brand new Golf segment car the only other car I would even bother looking at would be the Leon. People like to put the Ceed and I30 up on a pedestal but the reality is that if VW had released the I30 and put a Golf badge on it then it would have been slated, and rightly so.

Casati

colm_mcm wrote: »

Safe to say the 3 will be more reliable yet worth less second hand.

I would have thought so, but I had a quick look at dealer asking prices on Carzone and was shocked at how expensive the Mazda's are - the cheapest one is post 2011 is 12950 and is a bog standard old model 1.6 Diesel - imported too

http://www.carzone.ie/used-cars/mazda/mazda3/used-2011-mazda-mazda3-1-6d-115ps-galway-fpa-55214027527921820

With Mazda generally a couple of grand cheaper spec on spec versus a Golf they might be a wise buy new

colm_mcm

Carzone isn't really that representative of anything.

road_high

George Dalton wrote: »

And yet the Golf is worth far more than the Mazda secondhand. Personally I would rather spend a couple of hundred quid on a window regulator and then save a 4 figure sum come trade in time.

For someone spending their own money (rather than a company car situation) and looking at things from a purely rational standpoint the Golf is the only sensible choice. They look good, they drive well, they are about average in terms of reliability but the main thing is they beat everything else in terms of resale value.

That is the objective view.

Now for the subjective view :pac:

In my opinion they are also the nicest car in their class. If I was in the market for a brand new Golf segment car the only other car I would even bother looking at would be the Leon. People like to put the Ceed and I30 up on a pedestal but the reality is that if VW had released the I30 and put a Golf badge on it then it would have been slated, and rightly so.

Sat in the I30 and the new Golf last year test driving and there is just no comparison. Much much better seats in the Golf as well as feeling a far more substantial and robust place to be. Lovely soft touch plastics and materials, a total contrast to the Korean flimsiness of the I30.
Only one the I30 has up on the Golf is the comparable diesel so-called "Deluxe" has a 6 speed box vs the Golf's 5 speed.
Unless an I30 was 5k cheaper it would be Golf all day long.

Casati

colm_mcm wrote: »

Carzone isn't really that representative of anything.

Where should I look to get an idea of pricing? Donegal is showing the same - cheapest 2011 Mazda 3 is 13k private, with Golfs at cheaper or similar money

Maybe all the VW UK imports are bringing down the prices on the second-hand market here?

Fiskar

Having decided on the Golf 1.2 Tsi 110Bhp 5 dr I now have to make a choice between Trendline and Comfortline. The Car we are trading in is a Comfortline with cruise control and rear electric windows.

If we go for the Trendline we get rear window winders (haven't seen those in years), no cruise control and an OTR price of €22,760 or Comfortline €24,485. With the Comfortline we get those rear electric windows, alloys, front fogs, cruise control and a few other bits and pieces. However I see nowhere which spec would have rain sensing wipers or auto dimming rear mirror?

Basically want the car to have the best spec for trade in purposes as was told by one garage that our trade in was not a comfort line (as it has no alloys!), service handbook indicates it is with cruise and electrics.

Could also look at an A1 Sportback 1.4 TSI with 125 BHP but you are up in €26k range.

MuppetCheck

road_high wrote: »

Sat in the I30 and the new Golf last year test driving and there is just no comparison. Much much better seats in the Golf as well as feeling a far more substantial and robust place to be. Lovely soft touch plastics and materials, a total contrast to the Korean flimsiness of the I30.
Only one the I30 has up on the Golf is the comparable diesel so-called "Deluxe" has a 6 speed box vs the Golf's 5 speed.
Unless an I30 was 5k cheaper it would be Golf all day long.

You should take a spin in my father's Ceed. 30k km and EVERYTHING rattles and squeaks. The Golf with a lower peg interior Leon I have with more mileage is silent. But people will swear there's no difference in quality.

I had one minor issue, he's contemplating selling his it's let him down so often with issues that have made it immobile and no one seems to have a clue how to sort it either, even Kia themselves who have sent people down a few times.

I thought it was grand when he was buying it I'll admit - have some of my hat stuck in my tooth.

MuppetCheck

Fiskar wrote: »

Having decided on the Golf 1.2 Tsi 110Bhp 5 dr I now have to make a choice between Trendline and Comfortline. The Car we are trading in is a Comfortline with cruise control and rear electric windows.

If we go for the Trendline we get rear window winders (haven't seen those in years), no cruise control and an OTR price of €22,760 or Comfortline €24,485. With the Comfortline we get those rear electric windows, alloys, front fogs, cruise control and a few other bits and pieces. However I see nowhere which spec would have rain sensing wipers or auto dimming rear mirror?

Basically want the car to have the best spec for trade in purposes as was told by one garage that our trade in was not a comfort line (as it has no alloys!), service handbook indicates it is with cruise and electrics.

Could also look at an A1 Sportback 1.4 TSI with 125 BHP but you are up in €26k range.

The technology pack that comes with the comfort line is slightly better with than the trend line. A trend line Golf has always been a little miserable. Newer ones aren't so bad but when you sit in a higher spec you really notice the difference.

A highline with the sport pack is probably expensive but it's a nice place to be.

moleyv

I wouldn't worry about rear windows unless you carry passengers/kids regularly.

As for trend line or comfort, I would go comfort line. it will keep its value when trading in.

moleyv

You need highline for rain sensors.

I can't post links but the full list of specs is online.

Go to VW website>models>golf>brochures and prices tab>golf product and price guide pdf

colm_mcm

moleyv wrote: »

As for trend line or comfort, I would go comfort line. it will keep its value when trading in.

I seriously doubt that it will be €1700 more valuable when trading in.

moleyv

colm_mcm wrote: »

I seriously doubt that it will be €1700 more valuable when trading in.

Value doesn't just mean price

colm_mcm

So when you say the Comfortline will keep its value when trading in, you're not talking about money?

moleyv

colm_mcm wrote: »

So when you say the Comfortline will keep its value when trading in, you're not talking about money?

The car will depreciate as a whole, not car and upgrades separate. A quick look at some comparable second hand 2013 models between TL and CL shows about 1000e difference ffor similar mileage and same engine.

Value for upgrades when trading in of course involves a monetary value, but it also includes other considerations.

Better spec may mean easier to sell on or trade in. A lot of people only buy 2nd hand because the first few years depreciation will always be the biggest.They therefore see higher spec cars as more bang for their buck. Saying Golfs are great for holding their value doesn't stand for a whole lot if you have limited buyers.

It would be more desirable for the majority.

Even metallic paint, I know many wouldn't touch non metallic.

There are some common myths about cars losing value, while the car loses value the second it is registered and on the road is true, people also believe that a car with upgrades will lose their monetary value too the second the car hits the road and that when trading it they will only be allowed the same price trade in as a lower spec. It simply isn't true. Yes the upgrades will depreciate in line with the car, but the other values of desirability will not

colm_mcm

If you look at the cars value when training in vs cost when new you get a percentage.

A Comfortline will always be more desirable and worth more than an otherwise equal Trendline, but you will not recoup the €1700 in a few years.

The reason higher spec cars are "more bang for your buck" is that they depreciate more.

I would get a Comfortline as well tbh, but I wouldn't be under any illusions that it was an investment. You might get an extra €500 in 3 years time, meaning having the extras cost €1200 over the 3 years.

I was a car salesman in a previous life, and base models always held their money the best.
You would have rare exceptions where some extras were essentials, (leather in a lexus GS for example) and would make the care nearly unsaleable without those extras in a few years.



The only reason I brought this up is that you made a very clear statement that the Comfortline made more sense financially.

moleyv

colm_mcm wrote: »

If you look at the cars value when training in vs cost when new you get a percentage.

A Comfortline will always be more desirable and worth more than an otherwise equal Trendline, but you will not recoup the €1700 in a few years.

The reason higher spec cars are "more bang for your buck" is that they depreciate more.

I would get a Comfortline as well tbh, but I wouldn't be under any illusions that it was an investment. You might get an extra €500 in 3 years time, meaning having the extras cost €1200 over the 3 years.

I was a car salesman in a previous life, and base models always held their money the best.
You would have rare exceptions where some extras were essentials, (leather in a lexus GS for example) and would make the care nearly unsaleable without those extras in a few years.



The only reason I brought this up is that you made a very clear statement that the Comfortline made more sense financially.

Well 'making sense financially' can be looked at from point of purchase, and point of resale.

If one was to buy the difference in 'parts' between TL and CL separate, I wonder how much it would cost, a fair bit more than 1700 I suspect. Also lets not forget 1700 is the list price, if the buyer isn't able to knock a few 100 off that they need some practice in negotiation.

At point of resale, yes higer spec will have a relatively bigger depreciation. But you discount the other added value benefits.

Also, the buyer is buying a new car, they are well aware that the first 2-3 years will have the highest depreciation.

There is a reason I used the word value and not hold its price. And i guess the most important value to the buyer is having the extra comforts. I guess that is why we both recommend the CL.

colm_mcm

I give up...