In November 2003 I bought a Mazda Protegé5 (P5). Because that car was about to be replaced by the Mazda 3, its price was very low. But should I have waited, and paid a few grand more to get a better car? I recently test drove an automatic Mazda 3s sedan to find out. (I would have preferred to drive the 5-speed, but the one on the lot was very low on gas. Next time…)

I’m very particular about what I drive. I won’t drive just anything, no matter how low the price is. Three things won me over to the P5: styling, driving position, and handling. Would the 3 have done the same?

Mazda3 Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Mazda3 rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. To gain access to such information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.

Styling

The P5 is a very artful design, with excellent proportions and very refined forms. I especially like how the rear end is subtly tapered.

The 3’s styling is considerably less artful. Not that it doesn’t have its appealing aspects. The sedan’s tall, solid-looking bodysides look like they could have been penned by Audi’s designers. They lend the car’s styling an upscale, purposeful character. Even more than the Protegé, the 3 looks more expensive than it is.

However, the tall bodysides combine with a very short rear deck to make the 3 sedan appear far less lengthy than its 179 inches. Its stubby, dwarfish body looks no longer than that of a Jetta, but is in fact over a half a foot longer. To look right, the car needs a few more inches on its currently stubby tail end. This despite already being four inches longer than the sedan it replaced. Which was itself four inches longer than the first generation Protegé sold ten years ago. How much longer can a compact get and still be a compact? (Sure, a Saturn ION is 185 inches long, but that’s ridiculous—truly midsize territory.)

The P5 was a wagon with the volume of a hatch. The five-door 3 that has replaced it is styled like a hatch. Length is up six inches, a big jump, for a total of 177. Oddly, the hatch looks lengthier than the sedan, and does not share the above problem. My father, to my surprise as his tastes are usually more conservative, preferred the look of the five-door largely for this reason.

Still, the hatch’s design is not without fault. While the styling of the P5 is nearly timeless, with no gimmicky elements, the 3 hatch is thoroughly trendy. This is most evident in the Vibe-like kick-up to the rear side window. Actually, from the side the 3 hatch looks very much like a lower-profile Vibe.

This time around the hatch shares no metal with the sedan. In place of the sedan’s clean bodysides (and those of the car I drive) it has aggressive fender flares. These do lend the car a more aggressive appearance, but I prefer my sheetmetal a bit less obvious.

Nothing is more artful on the P5 than its vertical tail lamps. They flow perfectly with the tapered rear end. I often find myself admiring their subtle styling. Thus the artlessness of the 3 hatch’s tail lamps comes as a special shock to me. These are overly styled, and their awkward shape floats uneasily in the car’s rear end. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel that horizontal lamps rarely belong on a hatch. Okay, these are not nearly as godawful as those on the previous Sienna minivan. But they are a major step back from those on the P5.

Finally I come to where most people’s eyes begin: the front end. Perhaps to fit this year’s larger four, or to increase crashworthiness, the 3’s front end is far more massive than the Protegé’s. Front overhang is now excessive. To top it off, the thick-barred grille on the 3s is cartoonish. It will probably appeal to twentysomethings into modding and the like. But I’m in my mid-thirties with three kids. I bought the P5 because it’s styling, inside and out, possessed a maturity and even elegance rare among performance-oriented, emoderately-priced compacts. But it’s quite possible that most potential customers like the rides less subtle. Although still not worthy of a Mitsubishi badge, the 3 hatch should appeal to them.

Inside the 3 fares better. The new instrument panel has a considerably more upscale appearance, especially the center stack. The most notable change: the audio controls are not integrated into a flash faceplate; before the black-faced double-DIN stereo was inserted behind a satin-finished, beveled-edge surround. The climate controls are similarly better integrated, and both look and feel more upscale. Overall, while I like the interior of the P5 that of the 3 feels like twice the money. For the past few years VW has sold the compact Jetta at midsize prices largely based on the quality of its interior materials. The 3’s interior doesn’t feel quite as upscale, but it comes close, for a significantly lower price.

The instruments are my least favorite bit of the 3’s interior design. Like the similarly orange-on-black electrolumiscent (i.e. always lit) units in a Pontiac Vibe or Toyota Matrix, they are deeply inset within overlapping chrome rings. I could live with this. What I really don’t like is how, again as in the trendy NUMMI twins, the tach and speedo needles’s sweep starts at six o’clock and ends at one o’clock. Supposedly they do this in race cars. Maybe, but not my thing. That trendy thing again.

As in my P5 the very optimistic speedo goes to 140, but now 80 is at ten o’clock, 60 is at nine, 40 is at eight, and so on. This has three implications. First, since 40 is where I am used to finding 0, just glancing at the speedo left me constantly thinking I was going far slower than I meant to. Second, the numbers are bunched closer together, with hash marks only every five MPH. Except on the highway the speedo needle spends almost all of its time between seven and nine o’clock. Third, the right half of the speedo is nearly empty, occupied only by three small warning lights. This looks odd. In the NUMMI boxes the odometer LED filled this spot, a more aesthetically pleasing solution.

In another way the 3’s controls are thankfully better than those in the midsize 6. While both cars use an LCD strip for the center stack controls, in the 3 this strip is used only for the stereo, and not the climate controls as well, and is located immediately above the stereo buttons. In the 6 air vents come between the LCD strip and the controls, so your eyes cannot view both at once, especially not with the climate controls. This separation afflicts more and more cars. I, for one, don’t like it.

Accommodations

More significant than even the new styling and more upscale interior, at least for me, is the altered driving position. I like a lot of glass. In the P5 you sit far above the dash, affording a very unobstructed view over the hood. As you might have already guessed from my description of the more massive exterior styling, the cowl (windshield base) is much higher in the 3. So it’s a good thing the new instrument panel looks so good, because you see more of it. In this regard the 3 resembles the average compact German sedan. You’re not buried in the car, but close. A large change that eliminates one of the things I like most about the P5. In its defense, the revised driving position like many other aspects of the 3 lends the car a more upscale, European character. Exceptionally low instrument panels are rightly associated with Japanese compacts, especially Hondas (though the Accord has also largely abandoned a low-cowl design as it has grown into a midsize car). In addition to feeling more upscale, I also suspect the 3 will feel safer to many people as a result of the higher dash and door panels, because you sense more car around you.

The front seats are not much different from those in the Protegé. This isn’t a bad thing, as the seats in my car are quite comfortable, especially for a compact. On the other hand, the seats continue to provide a marginal level of lateral support for aggressive drivers. The car I drove had the cloth interior, which helps. In a leather car, like my P5, I suspect it will be necessary to use an arm or two to brace yourself at times. At the very least the seats fail to provide the sort of snug fit I found confidence-inspiring in my previous car, a 1996 Ford Contour SE.

One area where the 3 has regressed: height control for the driver’s seat. In my P5 the front and rear height of the front seat are separately adjustable, so you can also adjust the tilt of the cushion. I appreciate this. In the 3, only a single height control is provided, so tilt is not adjustable.

I’ve mentioned how the 3’s additional length. Usually when cars grow at least some of the growth finds its way to the back seat. Not this time. On paper, the new car has nearly an inch more rear legroom, for a total of 36. (Front legroom has declined a bit, but there’s still a net gain.) I’ve been paying attention to vehicle specifications for about two decades now. I’ve come to identify 36 inches as the amount of rear legroom a adults need for decent comfort. It used to be that only midsize cars offered this much rear legroom, but lately many compacts do. In my P5, with a bit over 35 inches back there, I can comfortably sit behind my five-foot-nine-inch self even with the front seat in its lowest position. Well, in the 3 I cannot. There’s too little space between the rear seat and the front seatback. On paper the new car is a little roomier, but in the real world it is not. Puzzled I am.

Aside from the kneeroom issue (a sizable aside) the 3’s rear seat is comfortable, with decent headroom and a well-shaped, reasonably high cushion. The rear seat is mounted high enough that occupants can see over the front seats, which helps to prevent claustrophobia.

Maybe the additional length went into the cargo area? Um, no. In the sedan the trunk has shrunk about ten percent. This still leaves it with a decent amount of capacity (11 cubic feet), but leaves our mystery unsolved. As in most compact sedans the rear seat folds, in two parts. In the hatch volume with the seat up is down about three cubic feet (to 17), and seven with the seats folded (to 31). I’ve found that my P5 can handle the usual medium-large grocery store or CostCo run, but is no substitute for a wagon—or even my Contour—when you need to carry a family with their luggage. The last time my parents visited, their luggage—one fairly large suitcase and two carry-on bags—barely fit behind the seats.

The glove compartment and center console storage compartment have grown a little over the P5. They’re passable, but not exceptional. On a positive note, the new car unlike the old has map pockets on the front seatbacks. If you want these, buy the car now. If many people complain about the rear kneeroom they’ll go bye-bye.

On the Road

The P5’s 130-horsepower, 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engine is perhaps its weakest aspect, both literally and figuratively. It runs out of breath well before the redline and feels agricultural everywhere from idle on up. The 3 is available with two different fours. The 3i, available in sedan form, comes with a 148-horsepower 2.0-liter. The power figure looks acceptable, but peak torque remains unchanged at 135 foot-pounds, so I wouldn’t expect much better real-world performance. It could be smoother than the old four, though.

The 160-horsepower 2.3-liter that comes in the 3s is superior on both counts. It is noticeably more powerful at all RPM. Of at least equal importance, it is far smoother than the P5’s mill. Credit a newer design with dual balance shafts (which the 2.0 continues to do without).

Fuel economy has improved. The P5 earned ratings of 25/31 from the EPA. Even with the 2.3 the 3 earns 25/32. With the 2.0 and five speed the numbers are 28/35. In the real world I get around 25, a bit less than I had hoped. The 3 should do at least as well as my car with the larger four, and significantly better with the smaller one.

I drove the 3 with an automatic, so I cannot compare apples to apples. Still, even burdened with a slushbox—and one with only four ratios—the 3 with 2.3 felt quicker than my car. It should. Although the 3 is longer and feels more substantial, weight has increased only about 100 pounds. The extra thirty horses that come with the 2.3 should easily compensate for this gain, and then some. The 3s is no rocket, mind you, and torque junkies might still smirk on their way to buying a Nissan Sentra SE-R, VW Jetta GLI, or Dodge Neon SRT-4; but owners of automatic P5s who have complained about a lack of grunt would be pleased to have this engine in their car. I know I’d like to have it in mine.

The automatic comes equipped with a manual shift feature engaged via the shift lever. Some people manage convince themselves that this is a suitable substitute for a true manual, but not me. I need the additional sense of connectedness and control that comes only with a clutch. For those who must have an automatic, though, this feature lends an extra degree of control over the powertrain, and at any rate supports the sporty character of the car.

Update: A brief test drive in a five-speed 3s hatch found a shifter with a reasonably long throw and moderate effort, above average if not quite among the very best. The car did not seem significantly quicker with the manual transmission. Quite likely the smoothness with which the 2.3 revs disguises how quickly the car is accelerating. As in the Mazda6, I find myself impressed with the refinement of this engine but wish it was good for a stronger push in the lower back, especially in the midrange.

As in the P5, the steering is quick, well-weighted, precise, and provides good if not great feedback. If anything it’s a bit firmer and quicker than the P5's. There is less kickback over bumps, a good thing. Although the steering wheel is now festooned with buttons, it remains similar in size (small) and shape (with good finger grips), also a good thing. Around curves the 3 feels more balanced and planted than the P5, already an excellent handler. Despite the 2.3’s greater torque, torque steer remains minimal (unlike, say, a Sentra SE-R).

The 3 has a firm ride even with the 16-inch wheels on the car I drove. Seventeens with lower profile (but still 205 mm wide) tires are optional on the sedan, standard on the hatch. But there’s firm, and then there’s busy. The 3 thankfully lacked most of the busyness that can plague the P5’s ride. Credit better damping and a stiffer body structure. Noise levels are also considerably lower, if not as low as in a Corolla. On the highway engine and road noise levels in the P5 soon become tiresome—we use my wife’s car for long trips. The 3 is far better in this regard. It would be better still if Mazda would beg, borrow, or steal a extra gear for each transmission. As it is, the five speed retains the P5’s very short gearing. In my car the engine is turning nearly 3500 RPM at 70. The inch-taller tires on the 3 reduce engine speed a bit, but to further enhance both highway noise and fuel economy it needs to be cut a lot. Luckily the 2.3 is so much more refined than my 2.0 that the ears don’t mind cruising at high engine speeds so much.

Car & Driver criticized the 3 for being less fun to drive than the P5. While music to my ears, I’m not sure I agree. The 3 is a much more refined car—with significantly lower noise level, fewer vibrations, and a greater sense of solidity—and refinement and driving enjoyment tend to vary inversely. But I found even the autobox 3 fun to drive. Yes, owing largely to the revised driving position it lacks the go kart feel of the P5, and I miss this. Because of this and the greater refinement you do feel less connected to the car, but it’s a matter of degree. The 3 remains superior even in this area to nearly every other car I’ve driven. In terms of handling and driving fun alone I do prefer my car, but I’d be lying if I said I’d never trade the P5’s advantages in this area for the 3’s greater refinement and generally more upscale feel. Looking at the total package, the 3 is a decidedly better car.

The Advertisement

From time to time I critique a car’s advertising. Generally I do this when the ad is very, very bad.

In the case of the 3 the TV ad I keep seeing over and over and over has a twentysomething innocuous dude by the side of the road imagining himself simultaneously driving the sedan and hatch. His primary observation? Each car has “lots of stuff.”

This seems a very base way to promote a car with so much more going for it than lots of bells and whistles. Such an approach is usually used to cover for an inadequate basic car. Since even without the optional xenon lamps, navigation system, and so on the 3 is an excellent car, I cannot begin to imagine why Mazda took this approach. Maybe their market research found that the target market cared mostly about “stuff.” But then why spend the money to develop and build a car with excellent performance and a decidedly upscale interior?

Pricing

For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.

The following is from when the review was originally written:

So, Mazda has replaced the P5 with a car that is far superior technically: more powerful, smoother engine; more refined chassis; more upscale interior, etc. By all rights they could charge a lot more for it than they did for the P5.

Do they? Well, yes and no. The base MSRP for the hatch is the same as it was for the P5, $17,415, despite the greater refinement, larger engine, and larger wheels. The base for the sedan has increased, such that now it is just $490 less than the hatch—and thus the same price when both are fitted with side skirts and 17s.

That was base prices. Options unfortunately have in many cases increased in price. However, they used to be very cheap, so the new prices aren’t bad.

New options include a $1,750 navigation system and $700 xenon headlights (the last includes tire pressure monitoring). I cannot see paying these prices on a $20,000 car, but I imagine someone will.

With the moonroof and ABS packages a 3s sedan lists for $18,615. Add another $900 for the automatic on the car I drove, another $490 for the sport package that was not. I’m going to analyze the $18,615 price.

Now we come to the big change from my P5. With the P5 late last year the rebate was $2,500, the dealer often passed along $1,000 of factory-to-dealer cash, and the discount was another grand or so, for a total discount of about $4,500 (and more in some cases). Well, with the new car there are currently no rebates or dealer bonus cash, and according to Edmunds dealers are only knocking about $250 off the price. So the actual price has gone up about $4,250. Add in the $600 increase on the options, and the difference is nearly five grand, which is, well, a heck of a lot. It would have been a deal breaker in my case.

But then Mazda was practically giving the P5 away (and I believe still is if you can find one you like on a dealer’s lot). Check TrueDelta to see how the Mazda3 currently compares to other cars.

Final Words

I was very impressed by the Mazda3, especially its performance, refinement, and upscale interior. The trendy styling is questionable, and loss of rear seat kneeroom mysterious, but overall it’s an excellent car. (Where did that extra length go? Like money with a coke habit, I suspect most of it went into the nose.) Highly recommended, big nose and stubby rear notwithstanding.

The upscale character of the car should not be such a shock. The Mazda3’s structure will be shared with the 2005 Volvo S40 and V50, so they’ve been engineered to compete with premium import brands. (Unfortunately, the Volvo’s suffer at least as much from a lack of rear kneeroom.)

As for the P5 comparison, as much as I like the Mazda3 I do not at all regret buying my car. Not only was it far less expensive, but when it comes down to it I’m a sucker for the P5’s styling, low cowl, and go kart personality. I would like to see the 3’s engine, center stack, and lower noise level in my car, but all in all I’ve got the car I prefer.

Update: The new Volvo S40, based on the same platform as the Mazda3, is now available. For my review see the link below. I liked the Mazda much better, especially after its much lower price is factored into the equation.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, visit www.truedelta.com.

Links to my reviews of related vehicles:
Ford Focus ST (2005)
Honda Civic Hybrid
Hyundai Elantra GT
Mazda Protegé5
Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart
Nissan Sentra SE-R
Saturn ION
Toyota Corolla XRS
Volvo S40 (2004.5)
VW Jetta

Amount Paid (US$): 18,615
Model and Options: 3s sedan, moonroof, ABS