Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

only120xs · Jan 30, 2006, 02:30 PM

What do people think of the Mazda 3s (grand touring) vs. the Jetta 2.5L?

leehotti · Jan 30, 2006, 02:38 PM

Subaru Legacy 2.5i sedan.

But really, for 2 grand more you could get a WRX.

Then again, I think any new car is a stupid purchase... personally I'd say get a used WRX wagon for 15-17k. With the money left over you could get a few upgrades to bump up the power to smoke a few camaros, and outbrake and handle some BMWs.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 30, 2006, 02:39 PM

Aren't Mazda 3s the new Honda Civics for Ginos?

Goldfinger · Jan 30, 2006, 03:51 PM

Something else. Seriously.

The Jetta. Anybody care to tell me why it's so popular in the US ? It's a car for old people that used to be government employees. I've seen some Americans even calling it "sporty"

Bottom line: it sucks.

The mazda, meh probably not bad but it's still a mazda (image & resale value...)

That Legacy is a good option.

only120xs · Jan 30, 2006, 04:06 PM

Aside from looking boring, no leather on the base model and no folding rear seats, the Legacy could probably be thrown in the mix also.

I think to be comparably equipped, you'd have to tack on the LE package, making it over $4k more than the other two. Granted, you get AWD, but it's still more expensive.

leehotti · Jan 30, 2006, 04:25 PM

Yes, but that 4k price hike includes a turbo 250hp engine too.

But yeah, in order to get a jetta or mazda 3 comparably equipped.... oh wait, they don't have AWD.

angelmb · Jan 30, 2006, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

The Jetta. Anybody care to tell me why it's so popular in the US ? It's a car for old people that used to be government employees. I've seen some Americans even calling it "sporty"

Bottom line: it sucks.

I couldn't agree more. If Americans like VW that much, their car industry has serious issues…

leehotti · Jan 30, 2006, 05:25 PM

I like Corrados.

They're gorgeous.

Goldfinger · Jan 30, 2006, 06:42 PM

VERY serious issues

villalobos · Jan 30, 2006, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

VERY serious issues

The new GTi does not suck.

mindwaves · Jan 30, 2006, 11:44 PM

Mazda 3.

AppleCello · Jan 31, 2006, 12:30 AM

Get yourself a MINI and be HAPPY!

Artful Dumf*ck · Jan 31, 2006, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by AppleCello

Get yourself a MINI and be HAPPY that it has a chrysler engine!

Fixed.

AppleCello · Jan 31, 2006, 12:53 AM

Ahem. A tritec that is proven to be bullet proof. besides, the new chryslers are maybe the only american brand worth anything at the moment. and no, i never wrote that in my original post.

Artful Dumf*ck · Jan 31, 2006, 12:57 AM

I just like pointing that out, since most MINI owners are snooty and hate american cars.

AppleCello · Jan 31, 2006, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Artful Dumf*ck

I just like pointing that out, since most MINI owners are snooty and hate american cars.

thats only because there arent any good, small american cars. name one that drives like my mini for the same price.

As i said, I have nothing against any car from any where, as long as it drives well and for a fair price. my last car was a ford brand. sadly, ford and GM are dumping off employees and cutting production while mini/bmw are ramping up production... i wish our industry would produce some more exciting models.

i have no trouble admitting whats under the hood of my car. its a tritec motor (partially owned by chrysler) thats supercharged to 170 horsepower. but thats not whats so great. try the way the car cuts through corners...

the_glassman · Jan 31, 2006, 01:09 AM

Mazdaspeed 3

Sage · Jan 31, 2006, 01:24 AM

Mazda 3, easily. The Jetta is a bloated monster now, and the grille alone will scare little children. I love the previous-gen Jetta (I’m considering buying one, in fact), but the current-gen shows a not-so-pretty side of VW.

zanyterp · Jan 31, 2006, 03:47 AM

ditto/second to Sage's comments.

Goldfinger · Jan 31, 2006, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by villalobos

The new GTi does not suck.

Yeah well it's not a bad car but it's too expensive, there are better options out there for the price. It's too high, the interior is a bit depressing and it looks quite boring*. The last cool Golf (or even last cool Volkswagen) was the original Golf GTI.

They don't make bad cars, don't get me wrong but they just look...meh. The best cars that VW/Audi sells are the Skodas, they are exactly the same but cheaper.

I just hate VW/Audi these days, they are boring and VW, thanks to the megalomaniac Dr.Piëch, dabbles in categories they shouldn't be in (Phaeton & Touareg). And now they're taking the hit (financially). And the 2 Audis we owned were crap.

*This is my personal opinion of course.

thats only because there arent any good, small american cars. name one that drives like my mini for the same price.

A Renault Clio RS completely destroys a Mini. Any Mini. And it's cheaper.

Paco500 · Jan 31, 2006, 10:11 AM

I drove a Mazda3 GT this past weekend on a lark (my wife wanted to look at the Mazda5) and I was VERY impressed. Were I in the market for a new car, I would definitely consider it.

While not the fastest car in the world, it handled like a dream- I was blown away. It is obviously an economy car- road noise, comfort, etc are on par with a Civic or Corolla, although the leather and available Navigation system make it stand out a bit. It's a bit small in the back seat- limited leg room.

After owning a Jetta in the mid 90's, VW would have to go a long way for me to ever consider them again. The reliability sucked, the dealer and corporate did not stand behind the car at all- it was without question my worst car owning experience.

I think the only issue with the Mazda3 GT right now is availability can be limited and dealers don't seem to be doing much in the way of dealing. Well, that and you have to jump through hoops to get iPod connectivity.

But again, I was very, very impressed with how nice it drove.

villalobos · Jan 31, 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Yeah well it's not a bad car but it's too expensive, there are better options out there for the price. It's too high, the interior is a bit depressing and it looks quite boring*. The last cool Golf (or even last cool Volkswagen) was the original Golf GTI.

They don't make bad cars, don't get me wrong but they just look...meh. The best cars that VW/Audi sells are the Skodas, they are exactly the same but cheaper.

I just hate VW/Audi these days, they are boring and VW, thanks to the megalomaniac Dr.Piëch, dabbles in categories they shouldn't be in (Phaeton & Touareg). And now they're taking the hit (financially). And the 2 Audis we owned were crap.

*This is my personal opinion of course.

A Renault Clio RS completely destroys a Mini. Any Mini. And it's cheaper.

Point taken, but all these nice cars are not available in the US. As far as small sporty cars, GTi and Mini Cooper are pretty much the only choices. Besides at $21,000 (17500 euros), I don't think that the GTi is overpriced (I understand that it is a bit more in Europe though

)
Agreed that the Phaeton was a huge mistake. The touareg was made for the US market where big = good.
Finally, they hopefully improved on the reliability.

angelmb · Jan 31, 2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I just hate VW/Audi these days, they are boring and VW, thanks to the megalomaniac Dr.Piëch, dabbles in categories they shouldn't be in (Phaeton & Touareg). And now they're taking the hit (financially).

A Renault Clio RS completely destroys a Mini. Any Mini. And it's cheaper.

Well, I have to say… can you read my mind? yes, you can!

CorruptModerators · Jan 31, 2006, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by AppleCello

thats only because there arent any good, small american cars. name one that drives like my mini for the same price.

As i said, I have nothing against any car from any where, as long as it drives well and for a fair price. my last car was a ford brand. sadly, ford and GM are dumping off employees and cutting production while mini/bmw are ramping up production... i wish our industry would produce some more exciting models.

i have no trouble admitting whats under the hood of my car. its a tritec motor (partially owned by chrysler) thats supercharged to 170 horsepower. but thats not whats so great. try the way the car cuts through corners...

A first generation neon outhandles your precious mini.

Sorry. Oh, and in terms of straight line perf, an SRT4 will destroy a mini. Completely. As for you calling it a 'tritec'...uh, whatever. It's a 1.8 liter chrysler engine used in export models of the dodge neon for years.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/rover.html

CorruptModerators · Jan 31, 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

The last cool Golf (or even last cool Volkswagen) was the original Golf GTI.

VW Corrado SLC. Heard of them?

CorruptModerators · Jan 31, 2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by villalobos

Point taken, but all these nice cars are not available in the US. As far as small sporty cars, GTi and Mini Cooper are pretty much the only choices. Besides at $21,000 (17500 euros), I don't think that the GTi is overpriced (I understand that it is a bit more in Europe though

)
Agreed that the Phaeton was a huge mistake. The touareg was made for the US market where big = good.
Finally, they hopefully improved on the reliability.

Neon SRT4, Focus SVT.

villalobos · Jan 31, 2006, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by CorruptModerators

Neon SRT4, Focus SVT.

The SVT was indeed pretty good. The neon is not a hatch.

CorruptModerators · Jan 31, 2006, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by villalobos

The SVT was indeed pretty good. The neon is not a hatch.

So? Neither is the jetta or the legacy. Was being a hatchback a requirement?

Doofy · Jan 31, 2006, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by CorruptModerators

A first generation neon outhandles your precious mini.

Dude, you still have no clue as to what "handling" actually is. So stop being a dick.

Neons don't handle. Period.

Doofy · Jan 31, 2006, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by villalobos

Agreed that the Phaeton was a huge mistake.

The Phaeton wasn't a huge mistake - it achieved exactly what it was designed to do. Which was to take the brand upmarket a little. Back in the days before the release of the Phaeton, Piech stated that it was never intended to sell - just to "be there" and somewhat remodel the brand.

CorruptModerators · Jan 31, 2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dude, you still have no clue as to what "handling" actually is. So stop being a dick.

Neons don't handle. Period.

http://cnyroadrace.web.aplus.net/scc...ts/98solo8.htm

Funny. I see a first gen neon turning the fastest laptimes on this course.... and it's faster than:

Integras, Camaros, MR2s, 300ZXs, Fieros, MG Midgets, 1st gen RX7s, last gen twin turbo RX7s, Mitsu 3000gts, Scirrocos, Daytonas, Bmw 325s, Jettas, Proteges, MGB GTs... in fact... it has the fastest lap time on this course.

villalobos · Jan 31, 2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by CorruptModerators

So? Neither is the jetta or the legacy. Was being a hatchback a requirement?

It is for me.

The neon is really not that good anyways.

CorruptModerators · Jan 31, 2006, 11:07 AM

http://cnyroadrace.web.aplus.net/scc...ts/98solo4.htm

Neon faster than a SS vette. And celicas, CRXs, Firebirds, probes, eclipses, 911s, Merkur XR4Ti, fiats, Sprits, etc etc etc.

I can keep going if you want.

CorruptModerators · Jan 31, 2006, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by villalobos

It is for me.

The neon is really not that good anyways.

You are correct. It's a kinda crappy car... but it is a hoot to drive.

It has a lot of torque for a small car, and handles exceptionally well. I want to get another one someday...just for weekend racing.

Doofy · Jan 31, 2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by CorruptModerators

http://cnyroadrace.web.aplus.net/scc...ts/98solo4.htm

Neon faster than a SS vette. And celicas, CRXs, Firebirds, probes, eclipses, 911s, Merkur XR4Ti, fiats, Sprits, etc etc etc.

I can keep going if you want.

Faster does not mean "handles better". The fact that you're equating the two further illustrates the fact that you have no idea at all what the word "handling" means.

Paco500 · Jan 31, 2006, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Faster does not mean "handles better". The fact that you're equating the two further illustrates the fact that you have no idea at all what the word "handling" means.

I think completing a course designed to test handling at a higher speed than your competitors does kind of mean it handles well. The neon is not faster in a straight line than most if not all the cars on Rob's list. It just maneuvers... or HANDLES ...more efficiently than the other, faster cars.

If this is not the definition of handling, than just what is? Looks nicer? Costs more? Has power windows?

Goldfinger · Jan 31, 2006, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by CorruptModerators

VW Corrado SLC. Heard of them?

Corrados could be cool but the fact is that every single one of them is riced. An original looking one is exceptionally hard to find. Their image is somewhat dented over here.

Doofy · Jan 31, 2006, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Paco500

I think completing a course designed to test handling

There are very few courses out there which are designed to test handling.

Originally Posted by Paco500

If this is not the definition of handling, than just what is? Looks nicer? Costs more? Has power windows?

It's predictable when traction has been lost.

For example, a Subaru WRX is faster than a Ferrari 550 Maranello over a rural road. This is because the WRX has better roadholding. However, the 550 has better handling because it's highly predictable in the way it loses traction and slides into gentle oversteer - you can basically corner the things with the angle of your right foot. The WRX, on the other hand, throws unpredictable oversteer and understeer at you in the same corner - largely due to the variable power distribution between the front and rear wheels - you never know which end has the traction so you just hold on and hope for the best.

It's understandable why Rob knows nothing about handling. There's very, very few US cars which handle well - with those long, long straights and the liking for the quarter mile or bowl the US simply hasn't got a culture of car handling. You guys just aren't exposed to it.

TheUnmember · Jan 31, 2006, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Faster does not mean "handles better". The fact that you're equating the two further illustrates the fact that you have no idea at all what the word "handling" means.

Yes, but FASTER IN A ROAD COURSE SETUP IN A PARKING LOT WITH A LOT OF REALLY TIGHT TURNS AND NOT MANY STRAIGHT SECTIONS DOES.

The fact that you're trying to tell me slower cars through a tight autocross course handle better is hilarious.

TheUnmember · Jan 31, 2006, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Paco500

I think completing a course designed to test handling at a higher speed than your competitors does kind of mean it handles well. The neon is not faster in a straight line than most if not all the cars on Rob's list. It just maneuvers... or HANDLES ...more efficiently than the other, faster cars.

If this is not the definition of handling, than just what is? Looks nicer? Costs more? Has power windows?

Actually, 1st gen neons can run 15.5-15.8s stock with DOHC and 5spds and 3.94 transmissions (expresso, R/T, ACR). So they're not exactly slow either. But yeah, you'd be right. A tight road course with a lot of turns and not many straights really plays down outright power, and plays up handling, transitions, and road holding.

Hence why smaller lighter cars are pretty quick. Especially neons.

d4nth3m4n · Jan 31, 2006, 08:29 PM

go for the bora.

TheUnmember · Jan 31, 2006, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

There are very few courses out there which are designed to test handling.

Autocross courses are. They don't have many straights to keep the speeds down. Hence, lots of turns. Hence, they're all about handling. And a neon ACR is one of the best stock cars to drive in autocross, because it handles so well.

It's predictable when traction has been lost.

Just because something is predictable does not mean it handles well. My friends 86 buick would understeer when going around a corner at over 28mph, every time. That doesn't mean it handles well.

For example, a Subaru WRX is faster than a Ferrari 550 Maranello over a rural road. This is because the WRX has better roadholding. However, the 550 has better handling because it's highly predictable in the way it loses traction and slides into gentle oversteer - you can basically corner the things with the angle of your right foot. The WRX, on the other hand, throws unpredictable oversteer and understeer at you in the same corner - largely due to the variable power distribution between the front and rear wheels - you never know which end has the traction so you just hold on and hope for the best..

Well that is a complete lie.

Here's proof:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12376935133899

A mitsubishi EVO with a variable center diff keepin up and OUTHANDLING a lamborghini, and being extremely extremely easy to drive and drift in corners. The STi, subarus version of hte evo, has a selectable center diff allowing you to adjust the ratio of power split between the front and rear wheels, so there's no change whatsoever, which would be even easier to drive than the mitsu.

only120xs · Feb 1, 2006, 08:53 AM

Wow, lots of posts. Interesting how the discussion turned too... thanks everyone

I'm now thinking of going a little higher up whenever I finally get a new car. (it'll be a while though... probably into '07) I'm tossing around the Volvo s40, Saab 9-3, and others in the ~$30k range...

turtle777 · Feb 1, 2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

go for the bora.

There ain't no 2.5 Bora, AFAIK.

Tardbus · Feb 1, 2006, 11:47 AM

I like how Doofy is avoiding this thread.

Doofy · Feb 1, 2006, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by TheUnmember

Well that is a complete lie.

Here's proof:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12376935133899

A mitsubishi EVO with a variable center diff keepin up and OUTHANDLING a lamborghini, and being extremely extremely easy to drive and drift in corners. The STi, subarus version of hte evo, has a selectable center diff allowing you to adjust the ratio of power split between the front and rear wheels, so there's no change whatsoever, which would be even easier to drive than the mitsu.

You make it sound like it's some spectacular feat to outhandle a Lambo. Shows how much you know. The last decent handling Lambo was the Diablo SV before Audi bought them. Since then they've been relying on roadholding and fancy gadgets like traction control to keep you alive. Traction control does not equal "good handling".

Notice how the Evo is lifting an inside rear during heavy cornering. That's not good handling. On the racetrack it's acceptable. On the road it'll kill you because it doesn't allow predictable linear progression (which is what "handling" is all about).

I'm well aware of the thumbwheel in Subarus which allows you to set the power distribution. I'm also well aware of how they handle. I stand by my statement: They all handle like crap, as does the Neon.

Doofy · Feb 1, 2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Tardbus

I like how Doofy is avoiding this thread.

Sorry for the delay dude. I had some sleep then went out for a drive in a friend's Skyline. See, some of us actually drive the cars we're talking about instead of permanently sitting on here waiting for the next argument.

Tardbus · Feb 1, 2006, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

You make it sound like it's some spectacular feat to outhandle a Lambo. Shows how much you know. The last decent handling Lambo was the Diablo SV before Audi bought them. Since then they've been relying on roadholding and fancy gadgets like traction control to keep you alive. Traction control does not equal "good handling".

Nope. Getting around a tight racecourse in the lowest time does. Like neons do.

Notice how the Evo is lifting an inside rear during heavy cornering. That's not good handling. On the racetrack it's acceptable. On the road it'll kill you because it doesn't allow predictable linear progression (which is what "handling" is all about).

So you're saying that cars that are acceptable on a racetrack don't handle well? Keep digging the hole Doofy.

I'm well aware of the thumbwheel in Subarus which allows you to set the power distribution. I'm also well aware of how they handle. I stand by my statement: They all handle like crap, as does the Neon.

Yep. That's why Subarus suck at rallying. They're just so unpredictable. And that's why neons win roadraces. Because of their awful handling.

glideslope · Feb 1, 2006, 07:26 PM

The perception of "Speed" is subjective.

Paco500 · Feb 1, 2006, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's understandable why Rob knows nothing about handling. There's very, very few US cars which handle well - with those long, long straights and the liking for the quarter mile or bowl the US simply hasn't got a culture of car handling. You guys just aren't exposed to it.

Some advice. When you reach maturity, you will learn that different != bad. Until then, you are most likely cursed with the unfortunate burden of coming across as an arrogant, self-important jack-ass without much interesting to say.

While it is quite clear you are very impressed with yourself and your myopic world view, those of us over the age of 15 have learned to filter out the bravado and chest thumping.

Hope this helps.