Sooo somebody sell me the idea of a gen 3.

[Engineer Andy]

All current-gen Mazdas look good, but one thing they ain't is cheap when new! The smaller CX-30 is still into the high £20ks for a reasonably-specced 2.0 SA-G and around the £30k for a better SA-X version.  The 3 isn't much cheaper.  Nice sized boot and the same interior as the gen-4 Mazda3 (excellent).  If only Mazda made the fastback with a bigger boot opening and/or an estate version (like the new Corolla).  At least we can now get the full compliemnet of engine and transmission types, though only 4WD in the CX-30, not that most of us would ever need it.

One bit of news I heard on the Interweb grapevine was that a proper turbocharged Mazda3 may be coming, though it may be only abroad (i.e. North America, Down under and parts of the Far East).  They already do a SA-G 2.5T in those markets for the bigger SUVs such as the CX-5 and CX-9, even apparently in auto form if I recall. I'm not sure if that engine is the equivalent to the older 2.3T in the MPS - it's probably somewhat more 'sanitised'...

Some very good (27% discount) deals on high spec gen-4s SA-Xs up North, but 'still' at the £22k mark after the discount.  I still baulk at that after paying just over £10k for my gen-1 1.6 petrol TS2 (new) in 2006.  I remember when I was looking back in early 2017 my local dealership offering a gen-3 Sport 2.0 fastback with less than 500miles (demo car) for about £17k.

[StevenRB45]

Having actually been today, curve ball on the 308, glass roof means there's no headroom for adults in the rear. There was me worried about the virtual cockpit layout and rear knee room when instead got my head against the ceiling.

I've made a decision I think not to buy new we've got other large plans coming up and spending a huge wedge on something that'll be worth 50% of that shortly doesn't make sense in that context.

As a result budget is in the realms of 12k which is about what my wife has been spending on pcps every 3 years but with the goal to own outright. If the car blows up at the end of three years it's still cost less than getting a 20k car on PCP and if it doesn't then I've got a paid for asset hopefully 2 as the 3 will probably still be running then if she hasn't beaten it to death and the rust has been kind.

At that price bracket most CX5s are nearly as old as my 3 which I'm not that keen on as the rust proofing on my 3 doesn't seem to be holding out well. Also that means the interior is just the old style grey plastic fantastic rather than the new extremely nice style.

Mx30 is just odd looking does tick the practicality box but looks weird, more than I want to spend.

Think i'll just suck up a few years of C3 Aircross, it won't be fun but it'll do the job and carry the gear without costing a tonne of money. Also one fun fact in this equation, C3 Aircross weighs 1179kg in the Spec I'm looking at with 108 horses. CX5 weighs 1500kg with 165, however torque figures.. 3lb ft in it so you'd have to rev the CX5 hard to produce similar mid range shove given the near 350kg weight penalty. That and the C3 is a remap away from hitting 145bhp and 200lb/ft. The American spec 2.5 can't match that torque figure and it's delivered from 1500 rpm.

I've got no intention of racing them but it's nice when 4 people get in if you don't have to rag the back side out of the car to make progress.

One is clearly a better car overall and that would be the CX5 but for what it costs it should be. For what I need the smaller car will make a good fist of it while costing a lot less. The natural rival would be the Cx3 versus C3 Aircross but the Cx3 is a fashion item not a family vehicle.

[Engineer Andy]

When testing it back in 2017 I found the CX-3 to be a nice drive, if not spectacular (similar for the gen3 Mazda3), but inside it was rather small - which should be no surprise given that is based on the Mazda2 and not the 3. The problem I found was that whilst the boot was in-between that of the size of the 2 and 3, it wasn't really enough, and if you wanted a Sport, it meant no spare wheel because the uprated ICE went in that space...and the price.

It was bad enough that it was only £500 cheaper than the 'equivalent' specced 3, but that car always came with better discounts, especially via brokers, meaning why would anyone buy a smaller car with higher emissions for £1k-3k more than a Mazda3? No wonder it sold so poorly, in a market (smaller SUVs) that was booming, pre-COVID. Many competing cars could be had for £2k - £5k less after discounts.

I also think that one of Mazda's chief problems (other than issues with diesels over the last 15 years and poor/patchy customer service) has been their lackluster UK engine lineup, compared to other markets.  Whilst the EU corporate CO2 fines have played a part, I don't think that's the entire story, as higher-spec engines have been available (albeit not to the same extent as in North America and Australia, for example) in EU countries like Spain.

Now that we've left the EU, they aren't encumbered by such rules and can sell cars in the UK with their full range of engines...but they seem to shy away, just at a time when they have probably the best looking line-up of models in the entire industry. I firmly believe that this is is seriously missed opportunity, given how many people have less and less loyalty to a particular car manufacturer any more.  I do think that they have to improve the post-sales experience (and significantly) in tandom.

[StevenRB45]

In general I don't "get" the SUV craze the vast majority are barely any more practical on the superminis than they are based on at the bottom end of the market but at a similar price to the next class up. Move up and they are practical but they are also expensive, heavy, and inefficient when fitted with a petrol engine, so you'd be better off with an estate.

The only reason I'm giving the Aircross the time of day is they haven't forgotten it's a replacement for the c3 Picasso and as a result it has a cabin similar in size to large family car in a supermini footprint with a supermini kerbweight.

Also they are cheap, reasonably comfortable and I like the 1.2 turbo, it's a good combo of strong mid range and decent economy. It's one of few downsized engines that delivers decent economy consistently (40+ mpg) and it actually matches the cx5 0-60. They work because the kerbweight isn't ridiculous, in a bigger car economy would probably be catastrophic.

Am I excited about the prospect? Not really but having a car a bit more in tune with how we use it would be nice. 3 is still lovely but clearly wasn't designed as a family car. If it was you wouldn't need to damage the seats to use isofix points  .

Maybe we'll get something a bit more fun for the next one but I'll still have the keys to the 3 as well so if Citroën life gets to much it's an option. Perhaps Chop it in against a gen 4 in 3 years once the practical one is paid off and the Toddler is in School.

[Engineer Andy]

Indeed - the only reason why I'm even contemplating a CX-30 over a Mazda3 is becuase the 3 in hatch form has a boot that's too small and, as we've both said, the fastback, whilst having a decent sized boot, has a small opening and I too have problems getting boxes into my car.

It was embarassing that I had to have a new PC delivered to my parents home (I could only chose my work address or their home as no weekend deliveries back then) and they had to drive it to me as it could fit in their mid 2000s Fiesta but not through my gen-1 Mazda3's boot, despite my car's boot  being twice the size.

I realise that my car (and the latest fastback) does have slightly better bodyshell stiffness than the hatch and thus handles a *bit* better (rather like it has a slightly better 0-60 time and mpg), but it would be great if they either had a bigger boot aperture (like other saloons or go the proper fastback route and give it a hatch opening like on the i30 and Octavia) or produce an estate version (like the Corolla).

Like all SUVs, the CX-30 is needlessly bigger, heavier and has a higher centre of gravity, meaning it will be slower, less efficient and not as good at handling as the hatch/saloon cars they are based on.  The annoying thing is that the Mazda 3 make poor use of its size, with a relatively long bonnet and small boot/boot aperture in compairson to most other cars.  Whether this is because Mazda went the large normally asiprated engine route rather than small size turbocharged engines, I don't know.  Undoubtedly great to look at, but space-wise...and all they appear to be doing is competing against themselves with the 3 and CX-30.

They've done a great job with the interior design, styling and ergonomics-wise, but it's just that space hasn't been used a well as competitors.  I, like you, will keep my eye on things as the situation worldwide develops, trying to keep my car going until I'm forced to change or can easily afford to.

[StevenRB45]

I seem to recall reading the long nose short tail form is determined by the skyactiv requirement of a long convoluted exhaust manifold to work correctly. So the engine is set as far forward as possible but the exhaust encroaches into the fire wall eating into cabin and requires a reasonably sized transmission tunnel.

This is getting a bit me just talking about PSA stuff but if you compare the engine layout to the puretech, the block is smaller physically, with a turbo on the exhaust ports at the front with a simple dump pipe running to the rear under the engine. It's already below floor level as it passes the firewall, rear suspension is a compact beam design allowing a flat floor in the higher riding models.

Mazda layout there's a long 4-2-1 manifold to the rear of the block behind the dashboard/trans tunnel. Not only that but they've failed to take advantage of any space savings the move away from independent suspension would have given. Also the low roof lines mean passengers need to sit lower and be reclined more for head room so take more space relatively within the wheel base.

All of this is shame, as I said at the start of the thread, I'd have loved to just upgrade but I can't go for a 5 door coupe much as I love the interior and the look.

I will probably regret going French reliability wise given how absolutely trouble free my car has been but that's only one factor in many.

[Engineer Andy]

Quite right - I think that on many occasions, Mazda engineers get too anal about some of their design concepts (persisting with the rotary engine, for example), continually giving each one some flashy Japanese 'legend' name as if they are some mythical figure, rather than an inanimate piece of technology - and to the detriment of many failings in previous cars that seem to continue on to the next generation model, despite hoardes of customers complaining about them - the saloon/fastback's boot aperture and the relative poor use of interior space (including of the boot) compared to rivals, dating back to the gen-1 cars.  Not sure if them ignoring complaints about cars' shortcomings are arrogance or just poor management.  Either way, not good.

I remember when the gen-1 car appeared, and wondered why the hatch - the same size as the equivalent Ford Focus mkII, had boot that was around 20 litres larger but with a body that was 70mm shorter, plus the saloon version of the Focus was 100mm shorter than the Mazda3 equivalent, and yet had a boot that was nearly 100L larger - all with better leg room in the back seats.  I may have gone for the Focus (1.6 petrol) had I not found my car on such a great discount at Motorpoint, given that it met all my criteria, aside from getting cube-shaped boxes in the boot (a rare occurrance).

I think people are slowly going back to good old 'common sense' purchases of cars - going more for value and practicality than purely on looks and performance.  Mazda have improved, but as we see, they still are distinctly lacking in some areas and have been for some time now.  It's a right shame, as the time is ripe to strike hard at rivals who have been struggling (even before the COVID pandemic) - they could easily pick up significant numbers of customers that have been moving from Honda and, to a lesser extent, from Toyota and Ford, to the likes of Hyundai/KIA and Skoda.

[StevenRB45]

The engineers are why I bought a Mazda in the first place, compared to PSA product the attention to the basics of driving is beautiful. Linear throttle, Consistent pedal weights, good gear change natural feeling steering...these are not things you tend to get in a lot of cars now. They are clearly set up for people who enjoy driving..but unfortunately I must also live in reality.

Probably lucky you choose the Mazda, my dad has a Focus on an 05 early mk2 tivct he's had from new. It's very crusty along the sills, rear arches, front arches and where the bumpers join.

However plastic rusts where I live so if he'd got a gen 1 it would probably also be rough. I've seen 06/07 Golfs with rust blistering the whole sill and both arches that has come from the inside. So basically dead cars driving until the next mot.

I suppose one advantage of the SUV style is everything likely to get stonechipped and start to rust is swathed in black cladding.

Not sure about common sense purchases though, the rise of the SUV is not common sense. It's anti the laws of physics for a start but it is the fashion and the "lifestyle" vehicle. I'm only happy picking an Aircross because...well the C3 already have is pretty terrible to drive anyway as anything other than a sofa to lope round on so a bit of extra height and interior space doesn't hurt it if anything it's a better proposition. But when they are based on a good car and make it worse then that's very hard to fathom.

[StevenRB45]

So after all this....my new car will be a White Mazda 3 gen 2 with about 84k on it.

It's my wifes car we were meant to be replacing really due to the end of the finance agreement having looked at all the options and said "meh". We've decided...we like our cars.

So the car I'm buying is *Drum roll*



It's come to the end of the finance in about 2k of positive equity, my wife likes it, she's going to pay for the service plan and warranty to be extended and it's about half the price of the options I was looking at so can be fully paid for within 12-18 months or outright on day 1 if I raid my savings fully.

Doesn't solve space issue obviously but baby is getting bigger so crap he needs is getting smaller. Also we've coped this long...(2 years at this point) so it can't be that bad.

Shall look again for a replacement for the 3 once C3 is paid off or I can be bothered..