A question about Mazda

sblythe

Mazda have really got the new 6 just right. Not only are they attractive large family cars, they're well spec'd, fun to drive, great value and the motoring press can't praise them enough. Even with other models they are on a role now.
In the past I found them to be quite an anonymous marque, a few steps behind Toyota, but I think the tables have very much turned.

Anyway, basically I want to know, why did people buy Mazdas in the past? Why buy a 323 when you could have a Corolla, why buy a 626 when you could have an Avensis? I presume they were cheaper?

colm_mcm

323s were usually better specced and cheaper. Mazda never got promoted enough in Ireland though.

JFKIRELAND

256hp stock.:rolleyes:

sblythe

colm_mcm wrote: »

323s were usually better specced and cheaper. Mazda never got promoted enough in Ireland though.

So thats it then. Its been on my mind because really they are better than Toyota, aren't they?

colm_mcm

sblythe wrote: »

Its been on my mind because really they are better than Toyota, aren't they?

Yeah but no but yeah

clogher71

Mazda's are better than Toyota's, people perceive toyota's to be better car, a mazda 6 is less common than an A4 so which is the more exclusive?, price comes into it too, Mazda as a whole don't really care about Ireland, would not be surprised if they pulled out of the Irish market altogether....

Topper Harley

I had an 04 Mazda 6 for a few years. Couldn't fault it. I always preferred the look of it over the likes of the Avensis, Mondeo, Passat & Vectra and it's better value too.

I don't know why exactly but I always considered it to be slightly sportier (in a very subtle way) than all those mentioned above.

The latest model puts it miles ahead of its competitors in my head. If I was interested in a four door saloon it would be top of my list and I include the A4 and 3 series in that, regardless of price.

MetzgerMeister

JFKIRELAND wrote: »

256hp stock.:rolleyes:

Yours is actually at 300bhp since you bought it


Why buy Mazda? For me personally, 2 reasons - RX8, 6MPS.

coolisin

Had a corolla, it was a machine to get from a to b end of, not comfortable, not in anyway inspiring to drive, numb steering.
Only had one thing I liked which was i like the vvti engine.

Moved to a Mazda 3, wanted an rx8 or an Mps couldn't really afford them, insurance at the time was a killer for me at the time as my girlfriend was still on a Provisional License.

Straight from the Box it was a better driving experience, the comfort was miles better, better adjustment in the seats etc.

Only let down was the interior is very plastic, but lets not think the toyota interior was anything close to luxury either.

Old diesel

sblythe wrote: »

Mazda have really got the new 6 just right. Not only are they attractive large family cars, they're well spec'd, fun to drive, great value and the motoring press can't praise them enough. Even with other models they are on a role now.
In the past I found them to be quite an anonymous marque, a few steps behind Toyota, but I think the tables have very much turned.

Anyway, basically I want to know, why did people buy Mazdas in the past? Why buy a 323 when you could have a Corolla, why buy a 626 when you could have an Avensis? I presume they were cheaper?

They actually made some nice cars in the 323 and 626 era to be fair (when compared with other cars of the era) imo.

The 89 to 94 Mazda 323 looked well for the era - the saloon had a bit of mini Merc W124 look to it and the 323 F coupe was something unusual to offer - a nice sporty FIVE door hatch with pop up lights (COOL at the time).

And the 87 to 92 and the 92 to 97 626s in hatchback form were nice looking cars. The 92 to 97 model was VERY comfy compared to other cars of the era and felt like you were in something from next class up when it came out in 92.

IMO

The 85/86/87 era 323 and 626 were pretty agreeable in my view too.

Its not hard (imo) to understand why someone would opt for a 1990 323 over a 1990 Corolla - or a 93 626 over a Carina E if buying brand new.

sblythe

Old diesel wrote: »

Its not hard (imo) to understand why someone would opt for a 1990 323 over a 1990 Corolla - or a 93 626 over a Carina E if buying brand new.

Exactly, but I was wondering why more people didn't.

Colm killed my curiosity stone dead though.

Old diesel

sblythe wrote: »

Exactly, but I was wondering why more people didn't.

Colm killed my curiosity stone dead though.

Apologies - I misunderstand the question I thought you meant why would someone actually decide I will have a Mazda over a Toyota.

JohnBoy26

sblythe wrote: »

Mazda have really got the new 6 just right. Not only are they attractive large family cars, they're well spec'd, fun to drive, great value and the motoring press can't praise them enough. Even with other models they are on a role now.
In the past I found them to be quite an anonymous marque, a few steps behind Toyota, but I think the tables have very much turned.

Anyway, basically I want to know, why did people buy Mazdas in the past? Why buy a 323 when you could have a Corolla, why buy a 626 when you could have an Avensis? I presume they were cheaper?

The Toyotas had more advanced engines than the mazdas, parts were cheaper for them, they were better advertised and they lasted longer mainly due to being far better protected from the dreaded tin worm. They were also a better quality product overall.

This was up until the 00's. The advanced engines element probably isn't true anymore but I believe the rest of the things I've listed still stand, or at least they did with the last gen of Mazda's. The current gen is a bit too new to make a judgment yet.

colm_mcm

Good example, I have a 1.6 323 here, 95bhp. 1.4 Corolla gives the same power.

JohnBoy26

clogher71 wrote: »

Mazda's are better than Toyota's, people perceive toyota's to be better car, a mazda 6 is less common than an A4 so which is the more exclusive?, price comes into it too, Mazda as a whole don't really care about Ireland, would not be surprised if they pulled out of the Irish market altogether....

It's more than perception though. Toyota genuinely have been the better car, or at least in my own experience anyway.

It's a bit too early to tell weather the tables have turned with the latest generation of Mazda but they have gone through 3 previous generations of cars and have failed to fix faults which have a bearing on the longetivety of their vehicles. One such fault is inadequate protection from rust on the chassis, sills and arches. Lots of crusty 5-10 year old Mazda's around the place with the same age of Toyota fairing far better against rust.

bazz26

Mazda had some good innovative designs for their bread and butter cars back upto the mid 1990s. Cars like the 323F and 626 had way more daring styling than the likes of a Corolla or Carina. Mazda never had a dealer in every city or billboard marketing here like Toyota though so they were never going to be as popular. Then Ford's influence in Mazda became stronger and they started producing drab designs like the last generation 323 and 626 that no longer had anything unique going for them.

Mazda went from offering these to the ordinary Joe:





And replaced them with these:

BBMcQ

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Why buy Mazda? For me personally, 2 reasons - RX8, 6MPS.

I've got an RX8 and my best mate has a 6 MPS! They cost us a fortune in petrol but get the most smiles per gallon!

I've always found Mazda to be more dynamic than other mid tier brands. Their single digit cars since 2004 have all been based on the upcoming Ford model of the same segment: 2/Fiesta, 3/Focus, 6/Mondeo etc. The X cars until recently have been Mazda in-house specials: MX5, RX7, RX8, CX7 (to a lesser extent the new CX5).

I can see myself getting the new 6 when it comes down to around €10k and I've the need for a full saloon and big boot! Would love if they keep making MPS models and would love even if they keep with the rotary!

Celly Smunt

bazz26 wrote: »

TBH when the facelifted 626 came out I had a serious sweet spot for them,I had one with a slightly different rear to the one in that picture (more rounded lights and such) it might have been the sports model or something.

Mazda are probably the most underrated manufacturer of cars in Ireland or perhaps Europe as a whole,I've never driven a Mazda that I didn't love the feel of or the comfort.In saying that I was never tempted to buy brand new,the new 6 has been on my "to look at" list and might end up being the next car in the driveway. I couldn't bring myself to buy German when you consider the value for money and all round performance of mazdas,they just feel lovely and responsive.

MetzgerMeister

I bought my 2004 RX8 in 2007 and had it for 2.5 years. I missed it the minute I saw it being driven away by its new owner but about an hour later I was sitting in the seat of my 2007 6MPS which is now owned by a member here and I hope he's still enjoying it

I think that if they bring out an MPS model again, it'll be a diesel and will be along the lines of the BMW 330d (260bhp) as the MZR DISI engine's emissions are fairly high. As for the rotary engine, I'm of the opinion that it'll be years before they're able to get the emissions down to a tolerable level.

Back a few years there was always a couple of 3 and 6 MPS cars for sale online but as time went on they've become rarer and the last few times I searched, there was not 1 for sale apart from the unregistered 3MPS going for 32k which doesn't even have a MFSW! That's been for sale for years and years as far as I remember.

Here's my two:





And I almost bought this 2008 R3 before my current car:

Celly Smunt

That R3 is stunning.

pablo128

Isn't the Mazda 6 a Mondeo under the skin? And a Mazda 3 a Focus?

bazz26

pablo128 wrote: »

Isn't the Mazda 6 a Mondeo under the skin? And a Mazda 3 a Focus?

The 3 and Focus share DNA, the 6 and Mondeo don't.

MetzgerMeister

Celly Smunt wrote: »

That R3 is stunning.

It's amazing looking! The R3 is the car that the original should always have been. The interior was very well updated too.

That's now living somewhere in Cork.

BMJD

an RX7 is on my bucket list, it is still an incredibly beautiful design. all I need is a garage to store it in!

JohnBoy26

bazz26 wrote: »

Mazda had some good innovative designs for their bread and butter cars back upto the mid 1990s. Cars like the 323F and 626 had way more daring styling than the likes of a Corolla or Carina. Mazda never had a dealer in every city or billboard marketing here like Toyota though so they were never going to be as popular. Then Ford's influence in Mazda became stronger and they started producing drab designs like the last generation 323 and 626 that no longer had anything unique going for them.

Mazda went from offering these to the ordinary Joe:





And replaced them with these:

In fairness the 323 bj saloon was a much nicer car than the mid 90's version that came before it. Ford had very little influence in any of these models. Ford's influence is seen far more in the subsequent 3.

This version of the 323 was much more drab, especially the interior, compared to it's successor.

JohnBoy26

pablo128 wrote: »

Isn't the Mazda 6 a Mondeo under the skin? And a Mazda 3 a Focus?

No the 6 is a different car underneath. Mazda 3 is indeed the same as a focus underneath.

EazyD

BMJD wrote: »

an RX7 is on my bucket list, it is still an incredibly beautiful design. all I need is a garage to store it in!

Apex seals on the rotary is a major killer afaik. Still I think it's quite possibly one of the most timeless designs ever. Will have one myself someday along with my current MX5.

bazz26

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

In fairness the 323 bj saloon was a much nicer car than the mid 90's version that came before it. Ford had very little influence in any of these models. Ford's influence is seen far more in the subsequent 3.

This version of the 323 was much more drab, especially the interior, compared to it's successor.

The saloon was offered to those who traditionally wanted a 3 box saloon, even in small saloon friendly Ireland it was outsold by the sportier 323f. And Ford's influence was there, the 121 (better known as the noddy mobile) was superseded by a rebadged Ford Fiesta that was actually around longer than the old 121.

JohnBoy26

bazz26 wrote: »

The saloon was offered to those who traditionally wanted a 3 box saloon, even in small saloon friendly Ireland it was outsold by the sportier 323f. And Ford's influence was there, the 121 (better known as the noddy mobile) was superseded by a rebadged Ford Fiesta that was actually around longer than the old 121.

Were you not talking about later versions of 323 and 626 in your previous post regarding ford having a bigger influence? The later 121 is quiet obviously a ford but the last gen of 323 and 626 are Mazda designs.

thierry14

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

It's amazing looking! The R3 is the car that the original should always have been. The interior was very well updated too.

That's now living somewhere in Cork.

RX-8 with a tuned version of the MZR engine from the MPS lineup would have been an all time great.

3 MPS is such an under rated car.

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1388-1077.htm

MetzgerMeister

The MZR is much heavier than the rotary. It would have made the car very nose-heavy.

Zubeneschamali

sblythe wrote: »

really they are better than Toyota, aren't they?

Nearly everything is better than a Toyota Corolla/Avensis.

Clearlier

sblythe wrote: »

Anyway, basically I want to know, why did people buy Mazdas in the past? Why buy a 323 when you could have a Corolla, why buy a 626 when you could have an Avensis? I presume they were cheaper?

Don't know if this counts as the past but 5 years I went looking for a car that could take a big dog, 4 adults and a baby seat. Started looking for estates and had the Avensis, Mondeo, Mazda 6, Volvo V50, Octavia, FRV, CRV and Passat on the list. Went to a mazda dealer to look at a used 6 and had to wait a few minutes. The OH went climbing around a mazda 5 and any chances of getting one of the others disappeared.

Sliding doors (so much easier with very young kids) and fold flat rear seats clinched it but the trays on the backs of the front seats work very well for the kids and there's lots of little bits of storage that are useful. I found it comfortable though obviously not exciting to drive. Tyre noise was an issue at motorway speeds but new tyres have helped with that.

While I think that they actually look quite good they don't stand out. I wasn't even aware of their existence until that day. Then, I'm not buying a car for performance and looks, they're a bonus for sure but reliability, practicality and comfort are probably top of my list after value for money.

thierry14

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

The MZR is much heavier than the rotary. It would have made the car very nose-heavy.

But a monster in a straight line :pac:

Would be great if the successor to RX-8 uses the 300bhp 2.5l turbo charged that's going to be in the new 3 MPS.

GT86 made the same mistake going with an underpowered engine, would have been an amazing car if it had been fitted with 2.5l turbo charged from the WRX/STI.

BMJD

thierry14 wrote: »

But a monster in a straight line :pac:

Would be great if the successor to RX-8 uses the 300bhp 2.5l turbo charged that's going to be in the new 3 MPS.

GT86 made the same mistake going with an underpowered engine, would have been an amazing car if it had been fitted with 2.5l turbo charged from the WRX/STI.

an RX without a rotary isn't an RX

MetzgerMeister

BMJD wrote: »

an RX without a rotary isn't an RX

Exactly! It's a PX!

NIMAN

Clearlier wrote: »

Don't know if this counts as the past but 5 years I went looking for a car that could take a big dog, 4 adults and a baby seat. Started looking for estates and had the Avensis, Mondeo, Mazda 6, Volvo V50, Octavia, FRV, CRV and Passat on the list. Went to a mazda dealer to look at a used 6 and had to wait a few minutes. The OH went climbing around a mazda 5 and any chances of getting one of the others disappeared.

Sliding doors (so much easier with very young kids) and fold flat rear seats clinched it but the trays on the backs of the front seats work very well for the kids and there's lots of little bits of storage that are useful. I found it comfortable though obviously not exciting to drive. Tyre noise was an issue at motorway speeds but new tyres have helped with that.

While I think that they actually look quite good they don't stand out. I wasn't even aware of their existence until that day. Then, I'm not buying a car for performance and looks, they're a bonus for sure but reliability, practicality and comfort are probably top of my list after value for money.

I was seriously interested in a 5, but ended up with an FRV.

To be honest I think the 5 is the better looking car but they are really a 6 seater, not a 7 seater. And as a 6 seater, you have a small boot and your 2 rear seats (likely to house kids) are only a few inches from a rear-end smash.

The FRV on the other hand seats 6 easily (and can be 6 adults), and also has a proper boot even with 6, and no one is a couple of inches from the rear of the car.

That's what swung it for me. As well as Honda's reputation.

Ferris

thierry14 wrote: »

But a monster in a straight line :pac:
.

If you ever get to drive an rx8 down a windy road you'll realise that straight line speed is not what they're about.

You can pick up a renesis block on your own, try doing that with a DISI engine. Also the renesis is mounted so far back in an rx8 that the car is actually mid engined.

Clearlier

NIMAN wrote: »

I was seriously interested in a 5, but ended up with an FRV.

To be honest I think the 5 is the better looking car but they are really a 6 seater, not a 7 seater. And as a 6 seater, you have a small boot and your 2 rear seats (likely to house kids) are only a few inches from a rear-end smash.

The FRV on the other hand seats 6 easily (and can be 6 adults), and also has a proper boot even with 6, and no one is a couple of inches from the rear of the car.

That's what swung it for me. As well as Honda's reputation.

I test drove an FRV as well and was tempted towards it especially as I was coming from a Civic. One thing that swung us against it is that the front seats are a bit narrow and slightly cramped for two adults but mostly the design just isn't as flexible or practical. Access to the boot for the dog was a little more awkward too. It's a good car and I wouldn't have minded having one but for our needs (2 adults, 2 young kids and a dog that comes on almost every journey) the Mazda 5 was a better fit. The rear row does take adults comfortably and that's where they often go to save faffing about with car seats but we only use it when we have visitors so the proximity of passengers to a rear end crash isn't a big consideration for us.

MetzgerMeister

Ferris wrote: »

If you ever get to drive an rx8 down a windy road you'll realise that straight line speed is not what they're about.

You can pick up a renesis block on your own, try doing that with a DISI engine. Also the renesis is mounted so far back in an rx8 that the car is actually mid engined.

Sore back after replacing the ignition coils and doing the engine steam clean it's so far back :pac:

Tea 1000

People are unimaginative and boring when it comes to cars. They never really think, they follow. That's the main reason why. Most people wouldn't know a decent chassis if it hit them in the face. Sure why did anyone buy an Avensis when the Legacy diesel came out at €29,850 in 2008? Or the Impreza at 21k was for buttons too. Mazda are more popular than Subaru, but it's a similar story. People don't think of them as a default. The new Mazda 3 is a better car in every way than it's competition really, but the sales don't reflect that. Even if you compare like with like on a price front.

Old diesel

Tea 1000 wrote: »

People are unimaginative and boring when it comes to cars. They never really think, they follow. That's the main reason why. Most people wouldn't know a decent chassis if it hit them in the face. Sure why did anyone buy an Avensis when the Legacy diesel came out at €29,850 in 2008? Or the Impreza at 21k was for buttons too. Mazda are more popular than Subaru, but it's a similar story. People don't think of them as a default. The new Mazda 3 is a better car in every way than it's competition really, but the sales don't reflect that. Even if you compare like with like on a price front.

Most people are buying them (cars) for simply A to B - and they buy the makes they perceive to be good A TO B cars. The VW, Toyota and maybe Ford. These days people are copping on to Hyundai so consider those as A to B cars.

Tell them something is nicer to drive - and it goes right over their head "its pointless having the 2.2 diesel in the Mazda over the 1.4 Auris - because cars can only do 70 mph - i drover a 1.4 Auris last week - and - it was fine"

That's what most people want - something that's "grand" for going to work or picking up the kids from school.

Btw - it frustrates me too when i see a Skoda Superb with leather seats and all the toys and a 1.6 diesel under the bonnet.

Really you want the 140 - even better the 170 - but for many people the 1.6 is "grand"

That's how people think - its not boredom or lack of imagination - its just a complete lack of interest in general driving

Tea 1000

Old diesel wrote: »

Most people are buying them (cars) for simply A to B - and they buy the makes they perceive to be good A TO B cars. The VW, Toyota and maybe Ford. These days people are copping on to Hyundai so consider those as A to B cars.

Tell them something is nicer to drive - and it goes right over their head "its pointless having the 2.2 diesel in the Mazda over the 1.4 Auris - because cars can only do 70 mph - i drover a 1.4 Auris last week - and - it was fine"

That's what most people want - something that's "grand" for going to work or picking up the kids from school.

Btw - it frustrates me too when i see a Skoda Superb with leather seats and all the toys and a 1.6 diesel under the bonnet.

Really you want the 140 - even better the 170 - but for many people the 1.6 is "grand"

That's how people think - its not boredom or lack of imagination - its just a complete lack of interest in general driving

I understand the "why" alright, but it bugs me when sometimes they pay more for some notion, despite being infomed of the contrary.
Some of the recent model Toyota's haven't been nearly as reliable or well built as older ones, but people will pay more for one for no good reason.
Apart from the driving dynamics, you couldn't convince someone that a Subaru Legacy is a more reliable, quicker (so safer to overtake), just as economical, more extras and has 4WD for safety in the winter for commuting with your kids than an Avensis and all for a lower price tag than the 2 litre D4D Avensis. That it's better to drive by far is just a happy by-product for other folk to enjoy, but aside from that there should be no comparison.
But there is. People like to listen to opinions in numbers rather than in validity. If 10 clueless people in a pub all chime in with "The Avensis is a great car", that'll be outweighed in their mind by a factor of approximately 10 over one informed opinion that it's just not the car it used to be and car B is better and cheaper.
In reality, the Mk3 and Mk4 Golfs shouldn't have sold at all at the price they were at if people were using their heads!

Old diesel

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I understand the "why" alright, but it bugs me when sometimes they pay more for some notion, despite being infomed of the contrary.
Some of the recent model Toyota's haven't been nearly as reliable or well built as older ones, but people will pay more for one for no good reason.
Apart from the driving dynamics, you couldn't convince someone that a Subaru Legacy is a more reliable, quicker (so safer to overtake), just as economical, more extras and has 4WD for safety in the winter for commuting with your kids than an Avensis and all for a lower price tag than the 2 litre D4D Avensis. That it's better to drive by far is just a happy by-product for other folk to enjoy, but aside from that there should be no comparison.
But there is. People like to listen to opinions in numbers rather than in validity. If 10 clueless people in a pub all chime in with "The Avensis is a great car", that'll be outweighed in their mind by a factor of approximately 10 over one informed opinion that it's just not the car it used to be and car B is better and cheaper.
In reality, the Mk3 and Mk4 Golfs shouldn't have sold at all at the price they were at if people were using their heads!

Yes i completely get what you mean - just remembered a story from way back in 1998 regarding a couple i knew at the time buying a brand new car.

Hubby was mad keen to replace the 4 year old Corolla with another brand new Corolla. Which was fine - only problem is the Wife REALLY wanted a Civic saloon - as her sister had bought one a few months earlier - and it was a nicely specced one with nice extras you wouldn't have in the Toyota - and it was just in her eyes a really nice car she wanted to have.

But hubby insisted on having the Toyota for resale values.

Id take a hit on resale values if if it meant my OH having a car she really liked.

JohnBoy26

Old diesel wrote: »

Yes i completely get what you mean - just remembered a story from way back in 1998 regarding a couple i knew at the time buying a brand new car.

Hubby was mad keen to replace the 4 year old Corolla with another brand new Corolla. Which was fine - only problem is the Wife REALLY wanted a Civic saloon - as her sister had bought one a few months earlier - and it was a nicely specced one with nice extras you wouldn't have in the Toyota - and it was just in her eyes a really nice car she wanted to have.

But hubby insisted on having the Toyota for resale values.

Id take a hit on resale values if if it meant my OH having a car she really liked.

The base spec civic of the time was more sparse than a Terra spec corolla. The base spec civic didn't even come with airbags :eek:

The corolla could be got in Luna spec back in 1998 which outdone the 1.4 SRS civic of the time in the spec department. Admittedly these are rare but they do exist.

As for the current Mazda 3, it's underspecced and overpriced imo. For the same money as a base 1.5 you can get a Luna corolla or a civic with decent enough spec.

It's not the best car in it's class either as some would lead you to believe. That award goes to the Golf.

colm_mcm

Go way with your balanced opinion!

NIMAN

Clearlier wrote: »

I test drove an FRV as well and was tempted towards it especially as I was coming from a Civic. One thing that swung us against it is that the front seats are a bit narrow and slightly cramped for two adults but mostly the design just isn't as flexible or practical. Access to the boot for the dog was a little more awkward too. It's a good car and I wouldn't have minded having one but for our needs (2 adults, 2 young kids and a dog that comes on almost every journey) the Mazda 5 was a better fit. The rear row does take adults comfortably and that's where they often go to save faffing about with car seats but we only use it when we have visitors so the proximity of passengers to a rear end crash isn't a big consideration for us.

Are the driver and passenger seats not full size? I didn't notice them any smaller than any other car.
The middle one is slightly narrower, but fine for an adult as long as you aren't driving for hours. It would be perfect for a child though.
Ours is never used, always folded down, with 3 kids in the rear.

Clearlier

NIMAN wrote: »

Are the driver and passenger seats not full size? I didn't notice them any smaller than any other car.
The middle one is slightly narrower, but fine for an adult as long as you aren't driving for hours. It would be perfect for a child though.
Ours is never used, always folded down, with 3 kids in the rear.

Well I only sat in the drivers seat. It was fine. The positioning of everything felt a bit strange but nothing that I couldn't have adapted to very quickly. My wife sat in the front passenger seat and the sales guy hopped into the back. My wife is pretty slender but said that she found the seat to be a bit smaller than what we had in the Civic and didn't relish the thought of somebody beside her banging elbows. It could have been a perception thing but it was a very straightforward no from her because of that.

Tea 1000

Old diesel wrote: »

Yes i completely get what you mean - just remembered a story from way back in 1998 regarding a couple i knew at the time buying a brand new car.

Hubby was mad keen to replace the 4 year old Corolla with another brand new Corolla. Which was fine - only problem is the Wife REALLY wanted a Civic saloon - as her sister had bought one a few months earlier - and it was a nicely specced one with nice extras you wouldn't have in the Toyota - and it was just in her eyes a really nice car she wanted to have.

But hubby insisted on having the Toyota for resale values.

Id take a hit on resale values if if it meant my OH having a car she really liked.

There wouldn't have been too much of a hit either.

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

The base spec civic of the time was more sparse than a Terra spec corolla. The base spec civic didn't even come with airbags :eek:

The corolla could be got in Luna spec back in 1998 which outdone the 1.4 SRS civic of the time in the spec department. Admittedly these are rare but they do exist.

As for the current Mazda 3, it's underspecced and overpriced imo. For the same money as a base 1.5 you can get a Luna corolla or a civic with decent enough spec.

It's not the best car in it's class either as some would lead you to believe. That award goes to the Golf.

Pound for pound the Civic was better spec'd. And the Corolla saloon at the time was manky looking.
You say the Golf is the best in it's class, but I'd disagree.

colm_mcm wrote: »

Go way with your balanced opinion!

Johnboy's opinion is far from balanced. It's pro Toyota and VW consistantly, and strongly anti-Mazda consistantly too.

Special Circumstances

LIGHTNING wrote: »

In my opinion Mazda are one of the few motor companies that still seems to be a engineering company. Rotary engines, ultra high compression petrol engines, light weight construction long before everybody else was doing it.

I don't know where I read it but I remember seeing somebody saying that BMW is no longer a car company but a marketing company that also makes cars.

To have one quirky engine on the go would be too much for many companies.
Mazda had miller cycle petrols, comprex supercharged diesel AND rotary on the go at the same time at one stage. I admire them for being slightly bonkers in engineering terms! You really do get the feeling that they had a serious R&D department and the bean counters were threatened with a very big stick any time they came nosing around...

Tea 1000

Special Circumstances wrote: »

To have one quirky engine on the go would be too much for many companies.
Mazda had miller cycle petrols, comprex supercharged diesel AND rotary on the go at the same time at one stage. I admire them for being slightly bonkers in engineering terms! You really do get the feeling that they had a serious R&D department and the bean counters were threatened with a very big stick any time they came nosing around...

The way it should be. Bean counters are the bain of the motor industry these days. Look at Toyota for the prime example. Look at them in the mid-90's as comparison. Today the new CEO with a racing history had to try to justify to the bean counters/share holders that the GT86 project could be done in a way to satisfy them. And the only way he could do that was to link in with Subaru, who had a production line idle and were happy to get the use.
It's sad when Toyota say they can't justify producing a fun car.