Recently test drove both. I’m looking for a potential replacement for an aging, full bolt on Mazdaspeed3 and a CX-30 (would be nice to consolidate down to one vehicle.)
Interior is the same on both (that lovely red leather). The N/A Skyactiv 2.5 pulls nicely from idle and is enough to push you back in the seat once the tach sweeps over 5 grand. It did not feel lacking in power and while it’s no sledgehammer like the DISI in the MS3, it’s more than adequate for public roads with 191hp. The shifter/clutch combo is fantastic and you can easily heel/toe this car just like the Speed. Handling is good, it rotates well, but not quite as good as the Speed (more body roll on a spirited back road drive), and the car is under-tired IMO, but the suspension is far more compliant over rough surfaces even with the torsion beam. The Speed is a hardcore car and kind of beats you up but as a guy who’s over 40 now, which is why I stopped dailying it, and the new 3 feels easier on the back.
The Turbo is great, I would totally rock one of them as a fast cruiser, but I have to give it a zonk for the SUV-like power delivery that falls off over 4k and artificial engine noise from the speakers (really, Mazda?) Also felt heavier over the front axle than the 3 manual, which is a given given a turbo, intercooler, plumbing, and heavier engine internals to take the boost. Finally, it’s an automatic, and not a particularly crisp shifting one, and as such, there’s just less to do, less engagement, less moment to moment fun outside of onramp blasts. You drive the 3 manual with all four limbs. My arm and hand, and left foot, are a piece of the powertrain.
Anyway, the N/A manual feels like an enthusiast gem that gets slept on more than it should. I had a buzz after driving it that I didn’t get off the Turbo.
You must log in or register to comment.
The biggest problem with the turbo is not even that it isn’t offered with a manual, but that it’s only offered with Mazda’s ancient 6AT; which is really lackluster. I wouldn’t have minded nearly as much if it was a DSG or just a much more modern 6-8 speed torque converter unit. The fuel economy issues with the turbo would also be reduced with a better transmission.
Manual is more fun, but it’s undeniably underpowered. I came from 187hp 3rd gen NA to 4th gen 250hp turbo and I enjoy all the torque and additional power. I lowered the car a little bit and got better tires and it handles leaps better than stock now.
As a miata owner I would rather own a manual premium than an auto turbo. The turbo engine is really a CUV engine that is fun because it’s fast but not really a driver’s engine. Manual Mazdas also hold their value very well. Look at early skyactiv generation manual Mazda 3 2.5 prices. The turbo is a fun torquey daily driver. It’s like a grand touring compact. The manual premium is the drivers car though. Most affordable manual compacts have small turbo engines. The Mazda 3 has a relatively high displacement normally aspirated four. It’s a nice setup that feels a bit like an older NA V6.
I’ve always thought the turbo is over-rated. Manual is much more fun, and plenty fast.
I’m not going to the track or drag racing, the manual is fast enough, especially if driven correctly (power band is ~4000 to 6000 RPM). I’d bet no turbo can go through hairpin corners faster than I can.
I don’t need AWD, and it’s not worth the extra ~$6000 for the turbo for me. N/A is more reliable too.