A question about Mazda

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.

declan123

Also, I believe Mazda are one of the few remaining Jap manufactures where the cars are still actually built in Japan for the European market. Most are built in Europe or elsewhere.

Even VW as a Eurpoean manufacture makes the Jetta in mexico for the the local market here