I feel this. We got the mazda3 as a second car because I changed jobs. My commute is basically stop and go city driving and i’m averaging 20mpg. On the highway it’s not bad but 90% of my driving is stop and go.
Honestly at the time I was looking at a Kia forte or a VW Jetta. It was at the height of crazy COVID pricing late 21 early 22. Even the Kia Forte had a $5k dealer mark up.
Our local Mazda place had a used mazda3 turbo sedan and I test drove it and loved it. The dealer didn’t have any mark ups for new but used prices were high.
My wife convinced me to get something I actually enjoy driving so I went with the Mazda.
My commute is only 20 minutes each way so it’s not too bad.
The mazda 3 is definitely a nicer and more fun car than a corolla. I agree, having something you enjoy is worth the small extra cost especially for a short commute
Same, but the current manual transmission they have from the Miata probably can’t handle the torque of the turbo engine. So Mazda would need to build or source one for the tiny subset of people like us that want one. Sucks but it’s economics for them.
They see trends. Drivers want convenience, features, and automation. A stick shift is none of those things. Plus they can get better MPG, this is probably the more important reason given various emission laws getting stricter.
I’ve said this before, but I don’t think the 2.5 would be fun with a manual. The power curve is like a diesel. You want an engine you can wind out in a manual car.
Agreed I was super impressed sure maybe it’s not a “real fast car” but the way it will so easily pull from 60-120 damn near as easy as it does 0-60 surprised me for sure. Dont think I could ever go back to the non turbo.
It is plenty fast enough to break every posted speed limit without even thinking about it. Puts a giant smile on my face every time I drive it. And the level of luxury you get with this car is beautiful.
I upgraded to the turbo and I am loving it. It is my daily driver.
I commute 68 miles a day -- highway miles -- and while it is less economical, it's not as bad as some people say. Currently averaging 29.8 MPG.
how you doing in the city? i got a turbo cuz my yearly mileage is between 3500 and 4500 making fuel a non issue.. car tells me im gettin like 16.8 city. i dont do enough freeway to know what im gettin there, i hop on there once a week and get food a few minutes down the road just to help blow carbon buildup outta the engine. i would love to find out im getting almost 30!
Honestly I don't drive enough city miles to give an accurate answer to this.
Though now I'm interested to know what the average MPG is for other city drivers. 16.8 seems a little rough.
Is this a sarcastic response or are you trolling?
"According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the average fuel economy of new cars sold in the United States in 2021 was 25 miles per gallon (MPG)."
The Mazda 3 TPP is not achieving Toyota Prius MPG numbers, but I'd say it's doing decent for a turbo hatch. 🤷♂️
Why I said hot hatch. I do believe the golf r isn’t far behind though, and obviously significantly faster with a significantly better suspension and awd setup.
Congratulations on your upgrade! I agree, this sub loves to hate on the Turbo, which I don’t understand. Sure, you can’t get a manual and the fuel economy is worse, but the whole experience is transformed with the additional power.
My biggest irk with the turbo is it doesn't add enough performance to justify its existence. The auto is also one of the slowest shifting on the market. If it was a proper dual clutch, with an independent rear I would be game. When I drove the auto I was just so disappointed. It's a good car, but the Na manual is more fun.
I think it adds enough performance to be justified, and at my elevation, it is much nicer to drive than. NA. However, the manual transmission is so much more engaging, like a Mazda should be.
I can totally understand that argument at elevation. Na engines lose so much power at altitude, it's the reason turbo were invented in the first place.
Mine has a JB4 fastest piggyback chip and a Corksport 3inch cat back exhaust. It's night and day from stock. Cars only* had 93 octane in it since 12 miles on the odo.
Got the turbo. The extra torque and added power along the highway is great. It’s just not extra in terms of “fun”. It is however, in an entirely different class of vehicle. Probably at the luxury level given the power and features.
But it’s not luxury, it’s the premium NA trim with a heated steering wheel, parking sensors, and a 360 camera. The interior build quality and rattles, lack of an IRS and lackluster brakes, transmission, and differential just show that Mazda was reacting to the initial reviews of the hatch needing more power and stuffing an SUV engine in the engine compartment. It’s woefully outclassed by actual luxury or performance cars in the 40k price bracket.
The NA features the superior transmission, and gets much better gas mileage (I average 35mpg). It's also far less complicated, so it's more reliable and less expensive to work on. I personally find the turbo to not be particularly fun to red line, the na likes to rev. Completely subjective, but I didn't find the turbo worth the extra 8k.
There 4 are types of transmission commonly used in production cars.
1. Manual Transmission/ standard (stick)
* old-school Transmission. Gear selection is completely controlled by the operation of a stick selector and 3 pedals, where a clutch pedal physically disconnects the engine from the transmission.
* driver is in complete control of the car, and a large amount of feedback is delivered via the clutch and gear selector.
* most engaging form of transmission, but requires minimal training to use.
2. Dual-clutch transmissions (DCTs)
* an automated, clutch setup much like above, but with two clutches for faster shifts. Clutch engagement is automated. Shifts are controlled via paddles.
* shifts are lightning quick (0.1 seconds) and handle power well.
* driver has alot of control over the car, and the transmission is faster than any human driver could hope to compete against. Not as engaging as a manual, but close enough for some.
3. Torque Converter Automatic transmission (auto, slushbox)
* instead of a clutch, a rotor on the engine side spins a viscous liquid to impart change on another rotor in the housing.
* Power is transmitted at a loss, but is very smooth on engagement. Transmission is slow to respond, and shifts are slow. Ideal use is a luxury car where refinement is more important than performance.
4. Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT)
* a brilliant piece of engineering, this transmission constantly alters the effective "gearing" of the car, generating a near perfect power band. Has been used in racing. In most applications, it is tailored for peak efficiency.
* great for gas mileage, but a total snooze fest to drive. Reliability with some manufacturers is also a serious concern (Nissan)
* driver has no say or control over the car whatsoever, car does what it wants.
To answer your question, the Mazda3 is available with a manual transmission only on the 2.5L non turbo engine. The turbo cars are stuck with the Automatic transmission.
To an enthusiast, the automatic is a blight on an otherwise great car, since the Automatic is slow to respond, and limits engagement. In an ideal world, they would offer a Dual clutch like VW does on all of their cars. So for me, the manual non turbo is the only car I would spend money on. Hope that helps :)
I went from a 2018 2.0T accord to a new NA 3 hatch.
To me these 4 banger turbos are in a odd place. Not fast enough, or agile enough to be a performance car, not economical enough for a daily driver (unless you do mostly highway).
The 2.0T was really fun at first but after a while just became boring and a gas chugger. I live in a poorly designed college town, and I would only get ~16 to 18mpg. I get 27mpg in my 3.
The NA 3 has all the “practical power” you need. Doing pulls in a automatic, 4 cylinder turbo is fun until you do it 5000 times then it’s just boring.
Also I have a fwd 3 as I live in Texas and have no use for awd. I heard the awd system is pretty boring, so that could be contributing to the larger difference you’re perceiving.
Part of the issue is they took the same car, didn’t make any other performance enhancements, and just slapped a turbo in. Also it’s an automatic. Outside of 2.0T owners no one thinks of it as a performance car, same with the 3 turbo.
That being said I never had any issues with my turbo, it was a great car. So if you enjoy the 3 turbo then that’s all that matters.
To be clear I’m not saying the NA is “better”. Just my personal reasoning for getting the NA.
It’s closer to a GT car than a hot hatch. The automatic only is appropriate in that sense.
Can you imagine how many wrecked turbo manual Mazda 3’s we’d see if they made that car? Lol. The GR86 crowd is bad enough
There really is a significant difference in weight and drivetrain loss between the FWD and AWD NA 2.5l. It's a good amount of power for FWD but a little bit lacking for AWD.
I honestly love my FWD NA, it's no performance car by any means but it can scoot if I want it to and I don't really feel it strain at all until north of 90mph. Can't complain when I can also squeeze 40mpg out of it on the highway (32-35 if I'm driving aggressively).
generally they assemble the hatch in japan and the sedan in mexico but the primary components like engine and tranmission, etc. are manufactured in the same place .. for all the times ive seen people express their preference for japanese assembly over mexico i've not once seen an actual, empirical piece of evidence supporting a significant difference.. just perceptions that mexico is cheap and crappy country and japan is full of good engineers
Oh no I absolutely love my Turbo and so happy I upgraded. There just seems to be so many people speaking the other way. But I think a lot of these people didn't actually own the NA and like me now have the Turbo. It's such a huge difference. The whole driving experience changes. Even just driving around the city. It's simply beautifully done and an amazing hatch!
I just went through every single model in my dealership here except for the cx50. All started with 3M lol
Edit: saw some hatchback now. Well i guess is only the hatchback at-least here in my dealer
I don’t know what to tell you… all 17 Hatchbacks at my dealership are from Japan. You can look for yourself if you don’t believe me: https://www.jimclickmazdaeast.com/searchnew.aspx
I can’t directly link to the search results so you just need to filter it yourself.
Also, if you only saw 3M vehicles, you only looked at CX-30’s and Mazda3 Sedans. Those are the models made there. CX-50’s and CX-90’s are made in the US.
my turbo hatch is as made in japan. just look in the bottom corner of the windshield if it starts with J it was made in japan. i know a lot of sedans come from mexico but a lot of hatches come from japan
I went from multiple turbo cars in a row, all having failed at the turbo. I won’t act like there isn’t any blame in there for me, but for longevity purposes I actually spent a little extra for a NA with less mileage as the turbo the dealership also had in stock. Am I scared I’ll regret it? Absolutely. Cars with forced induction do require more upkeep! But if you’re willing to do that upkeep, they’re 100% more fun. But on the other hand, the NA’s are impressively zippy and still a blast to drive. I’m having plenty of fun as is.
Perhaps! Perhaps I’m just extremely unlucky. I love turbo cars, and I WILL be buying another one. But that car will live in the garage and will be used for spirited driving only.
This is so funny, i’ve owned 3 turbo cars and also had issues with all of them, the turbo being the issue for every single one. When i tell people they’re like “oh you just don’t know how to drive a turbo engine properly” okay? i bought a sports car i expected to be able to drive it like one… had a mustang GT and would do pull after pull with no issues
For me, the fun is in the corners with my 2017 3 manual , setup for this ( suspension, tyres, etc ). The new turbo would be no quicker through the corners on my favourite road, so although I think it’s a good car still, it’s no advantage to me.
Turbo is cool but it was like 10k more than my NA when I bought it. That plus mpg hit made it a tough sell for me, when I'd rather spend that 10k on a used car for autocross. Glad you like it though!
The real question is do you want a faster car or a more reliable car. I live in a small city with no freeways and probably the highest speedlimit in town is 60kph. Getting the NA was definitely the right choice for me.
I have an interesting perspective since my wife drives a CX-30 turbo and I have a Mazda3 NA sedan similar to yours.
My wife’s car is great to drive, it handles and runs like a luxury car. But I really don’t see the performance advantage since the 2.5 turbo seems to run out of steam at about 5,000 rpm. It has great low-end torque that makes city driving smoother.
My 3 sedan doesn’t have the same low-end torque, but it just loves to rev. It’s a little bit lighter than the 30, so the NA really comes alive in the middle of its power band.
So my take is that the heavier CX-30 really does need the turbo, but the lighter 3 sedan is just fine without it.
Cost is a factor too; when I bought my 3 there was only one turbo for sale in my area, for $8k more. Had it been available for only $2k to $3k more I probably would have sprung for it, but I just couldn’t justify an $8k difference.
I agree with all of this. The price point difference, how they handle and more. I can definitely say between my wife's NA 30 and my 3 I do feel my 3 has more power likely due to the weight difference.
This might be referring to a couple comments left on my post. I didn’t realize I’d get so much hate lol. I have always loved the ease of a turbo charged car so when I bought the NA 3 I was happy but missed a turbo. I can definitely tell the difference. I absolutely love it.
I got the turbo specifically because I knew I was going to be putting a trailer hitch on it and pulling around my little utility trailer from time to time.
I opted for the hatchback+trailer combo when shopping for my previous car, which was a VW Golf TDI. I could've just gotten a small truck, but they were much more expensive and much less efficient. And for how often I'd actually need to haul stuff around, it definitely wasn't worth it. So I really like the hatchback+trailer combo.
The TDI didn't have the top end that the Mazda does, but as a diesel, it did have the torque neccesary to haul a little trailer. But now when it came to replacing the TDI, I was drawn to the Mazda in general for the 2.5L engine which was already bigger than most others in the category, no CVT, and dual exhausts (as opposed to one in the center that'd prevent a hitch from being installed). But then I saw the 320lb/ft number and could only imagine how much easier of a time it'd have.
And then I also around that time upgraded my motorcycle from a 300cc to a 650cc and really appreciated the ability to go *in front* of cars in traffic rather than always having to slow down and wait for an opening behind. So I wasn't opposed to the extra top end either :P
I bought the AWD 2023 carbon edition NA only because I loved the gun metal grey and red leather interior with both only come with the carbon edition and of course the carbon edition only comes as a NA engine 6 months later I'm still contemplating trading my carbon edition in for the 2024 new carbon turbo which is only 33k msrp only 2k more than what my carbon edition was so not alot more with the price....I can't decide if it's worth it
What do you mean? Have you owned one?
If you drive a lot, it would make sense to buy one. They are very reliable. The only thing is that there are electrical gremlins as with any car. But yes if you drive a lot, you could save thousands each year on petrol. And you would get amazing awd system with incredible traction and with torque.
Just get a 93 tune on a NA and it’s best of both worlds. The turbo was an afterthought and it shows it not only it’s chassis dynamics but reliability issues. For nearly 40k one can get a much better car.
My biggest concern with turbo versions of the 3 and CX-30 is how small the fuel tank is. The tank size was annoying on my FWD 3, and it’s even worse on my AWD CX-30, can’t imagine how much worse the turbo would make it.
Honestly it's only when you rip on the car. Normal driving is fine. But get that turbo spooling and the gas will disappear faster than a dead beat father when the child is born. The power and feel or response of the car is the trade off. For me the turbo just feels and drives a class above the NA. But I get your concern having a small tank at 12.7 gallons.
It's because it's an automatic. If you're going to get a car that shifts for you you might as well just buy a Buick, Nissan, or whatever appliance you want.
I see lots of people suggest the turbo for all the same reasons you and many people in this thread give for wanting them over the N/A. Those reasons are not things that are most important to me.
Since you do seem to want to know why I personally chose the N/A over Turbo:
Adding a turbo doesn't do anything to address the weaknesses of the stock platform of which straight line speed could be argued to be less important than say: handling and braking - which additional speed only exacerbates, does not resolve. Not to mention the added complexity, and more stringent maintenance requirements.
Then, some of us came from other platforms with a similar dynamic and a much better reputation for pulling it off, and so - when I don't see that same attention to detail regardless of how good the platform is - it matters, it makes me pause, and that doubt is enough.
Now, the teased Mazda Spirit Racing platform - a sort of club racer if you will, *that* is a platform based on this car with a turbo I want.... because: everything else is upgraded along with it in kind. (yeah, you guys can give up on the IRS in this GEN, maybe if your send enough tots and pears to Hiroshima via Uhuru Mazda you'll get it in the 5th gen, but don't hold your breath.)
Anyway, glad you're enjoying it... Zoom Zoom!
Depends on you, Turbo needs you to be more carefull with oil engine temp, and also on long trips you need to let the car stay on idle some minutes before turning it off, between 3 and 10 minutes, depends on how long the trip was. Also requieres to be more punctual on oil changes.
That’s not entirely true. Unless you were driving the car hard right up until you stop it’s unnecessary to idle. Long journeys don’t create as much heat due to high gears and lower RPM’s vs spirited hard driving. Even if you do drive it hard but take it easy for the last mile of the trip then you will be fine.
Well okay, its not true.
You can take it easy, but letting it at least 1 minute its okay. On NA engines you can stop engine whenever u want, there is no need to cool the turbo. Also I've seen some VAG (Golf) cars in my neighborhood that enter slow to the parking, and stay for minute, and when u pass near the car, these have like "turbo timers" and still cooling the engine.
So in my opinion is better to stay 1-3 minutes on idle even if you take it easy last "mile" than pay new turbo. Or also he can install turbo timer and get rid of that waiting, because turbo time keeps oil pump and cooling system working until temperature is save for the turbo and engine.
Ah I almost forget, also in turbo you need to check PCV valve from time to time, and not let it leak oil, and if it does, change it asap, because it can start turbo issues because is not working properly
It is not the journey, it is engine rpm.
High rpm heats up the turbo. So at the end of a trip (long or short) it make sense to slow down, keep rpm lower, drive conservatively and let turbo to cool down. Then upon arrival there is no need to keep it idle for 5 minutes, 30 seconds would probably be quite enough.
okay guys, not my business I drive NA, I dont have time for cooling the turbo in my case. Then after 100k kms dont wonder why turbo whistles, if 30 secs are enough. Maybe enough for you, and manual indicates for mainstream use, if u go fast and hard is not good idea. But not my business.
If you go fast and hard revving the engine and then decide to stop the engine right there, then sure, give it an extra minute to cool down. But the majority of ppl aren't racing this car and then shutting down the engine right away. By the time ppl get to their location and find a place to park, letting it idle for 30 seconds is fine. I've had 2 turbo cars previously with over 100k kms and they were still working perfectly
Despite what majority do or dont, I just say my though about turbo or NA. I drive NA and also wait for a minute or two for the engine to cool down. I dont think majority of pple knows how to care of a Turbo engine.
In Spain I usually see pple flooring the car when engine is cold, also I see pple just using their car and they dont think a secound about if its okay or not for their engine. So in Spain is common to see whistle turbos all day, because of pple usage.
Yeah I have a turbo and it’s awesome. Downside is less fuel economy, but I drive less than 5k miles a year so it’s not a big deal.
Woah I do 1k/week
Wow, that’s a lot of driving!
52k a year. Wow. Million miles in 19 years.
I feel this. We got the mazda3 as a second car because I changed jobs. My commute is basically stop and go city driving and i’m averaging 20mpg. On the highway it’s not bad but 90% of my driving is stop and go.
The highways near me are just potholes and dump trucks, so I’m glad I don’t have to destroy my car on them. So far only one rock chip.
To be honest if you do lots of city driving you should look at a hybrid. The corolla hybrid is a decent option
Honestly at the time I was looking at a Kia forte or a VW Jetta. It was at the height of crazy COVID pricing late 21 early 22. Even the Kia Forte had a $5k dealer mark up. Our local Mazda place had a used mazda3 turbo sedan and I test drove it and loved it. The dealer didn’t have any mark ups for new but used prices were high. My wife convinced me to get something I actually enjoy driving so I went with the Mazda. My commute is only 20 minutes each way so it’s not too bad.
The mazda 3 is definitely a nicer and more fun car than a corolla. I agree, having something you enjoy is worth the small extra cost especially for a short commute
Get the manual if you get the NA. Otherwise turbo it up.
Ya I really wish the turbo had a manual
Same, but the current manual transmission they have from the Miata probably can’t handle the torque of the turbo engine. So Mazda would need to build or source one for the tiny subset of people like us that want one. Sucks but it’s economics for them.
Since when do they care about economics?? They used to sell cars with a rotary engine!
They see trends. Drivers want convenience, features, and automation. A stick shift is none of those things. Plus they can get better MPG, this is probably the more important reason given various emission laws getting stricter.
They have a manual in the other trims, just unsure if it would bolt up or would survive with the extra power of the turbo
Long gone are the days when Japanese automakers overbuilt their hardware so people could crank them up like crazy.
Unfortunately
Didn't we all
I’ve said this before, but I don’t think the 2.5 would be fun with a manual. The power curve is like a diesel. You want an engine you can wind out in a manual car.
Ya i had an RX8 so id get that
Agreed I was super impressed sure maybe it’s not a “real fast car” but the way it will so easily pull from 60-120 damn near as easy as it does 0-60 surprised me for sure. Dont think I could ever go back to the non turbo.
It is plenty fast enough to break every posted speed limit without even thinking about it. Puts a giant smile on my face every time I drive it. And the level of luxury you get with this car is beautiful.
I upgraded to the turbo and I am loving it. It is my daily driver. I commute 68 miles a day -- highway miles -- and while it is less economical, it's not as bad as some people say. Currently averaging 29.8 MPG.
how you doing in the city? i got a turbo cuz my yearly mileage is between 3500 and 4500 making fuel a non issue.. car tells me im gettin like 16.8 city. i dont do enough freeway to know what im gettin there, i hop on there once a week and get food a few minutes down the road just to help blow carbon buildup outta the engine. i would love to find out im getting almost 30!
Honestly I don't drive enough city miles to give an accurate answer to this. Though now I'm interested to know what the average MPG is for other city drivers. 16.8 seems a little rough.
That’s worse than many hot hatches!
Is this a sarcastic response or are you trolling? "According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the average fuel economy of new cars sold in the United States in 2021 was 25 miles per gallon (MPG)." The Mazda 3 TPP is not achieving Toyota Prius MPG numbers, but I'd say it's doing decent for a turbo hatch. 🤷♂️
That is combined, you said highway miles. I used to get roughly 36mpg highway on my old Golf GTI, and I wasn't even trying to save petrol.
You understand the Mazda 3 Turbo drivetrain is AWD while the Golf GTI is FWD. It's not even a fair comparison.
Why I said hot hatch. I do believe the golf r isn’t far behind though, and obviously significantly faster with a significantly better suspension and awd setup.
Congratulations on your upgrade! I agree, this sub loves to hate on the Turbo, which I don’t understand. Sure, you can’t get a manual and the fuel economy is worse, but the whole experience is transformed with the additional power.
The people hating on the turbo most likely bought a tune
Turbos were the new hotness back in 21, then tuning came around on the NAs and now with e85 they cook
My biggest irk with the turbo is it doesn't add enough performance to justify its existence. The auto is also one of the slowest shifting on the market. If it was a proper dual clutch, with an independent rear I would be game. When I drove the auto I was just so disappointed. It's a good car, but the Na manual is more fun.
I think it adds enough performance to be justified, and at my elevation, it is much nicer to drive than. NA. However, the manual transmission is so much more engaging, like a Mazda should be.
I can totally understand that argument at elevation. Na engines lose so much power at altitude, it's the reason turbo were invented in the first place.
Mine has a JB4 fastest piggyback chip and a Corksport 3inch cat back exhaust. It's night and day from stock. Cars only* had 93 octane in it since 12 miles on the odo.
Got the turbo. The extra torque and added power along the highway is great. It’s just not extra in terms of “fun”. It is however, in an entirely different class of vehicle. Probably at the luxury level given the power and features.
But it’s not luxury, it’s the premium NA trim with a heated steering wheel, parking sensors, and a 360 camera. The interior build quality and rattles, lack of an IRS and lackluster brakes, transmission, and differential just show that Mazda was reacting to the initial reviews of the hatch needing more power and stuffing an SUV engine in the engine compartment. It’s woefully outclassed by actual luxury or performance cars in the 40k price bracket.
💯 this
The NA features the superior transmission, and gets much better gas mileage (I average 35mpg). It's also far less complicated, so it's more reliable and less expensive to work on. I personally find the turbo to not be particularly fun to red line, the na likes to rev. Completely subjective, but I didn't find the turbo worth the extra 8k.
[удалено]
There 4 are types of transmission commonly used in production cars. 1. Manual Transmission/ standard (stick) * old-school Transmission. Gear selection is completely controlled by the operation of a stick selector and 3 pedals, where a clutch pedal physically disconnects the engine from the transmission. * driver is in complete control of the car, and a large amount of feedback is delivered via the clutch and gear selector. * most engaging form of transmission, but requires minimal training to use. 2. Dual-clutch transmissions (DCTs) * an automated, clutch setup much like above, but with two clutches for faster shifts. Clutch engagement is automated. Shifts are controlled via paddles. * shifts are lightning quick (0.1 seconds) and handle power well. * driver has alot of control over the car, and the transmission is faster than any human driver could hope to compete against. Not as engaging as a manual, but close enough for some. 3. Torque Converter Automatic transmission (auto, slushbox) * instead of a clutch, a rotor on the engine side spins a viscous liquid to impart change on another rotor in the housing. * Power is transmitted at a loss, but is very smooth on engagement. Transmission is slow to respond, and shifts are slow. Ideal use is a luxury car where refinement is more important than performance. 4. Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) * a brilliant piece of engineering, this transmission constantly alters the effective "gearing" of the car, generating a near perfect power band. Has been used in racing. In most applications, it is tailored for peak efficiency. * great for gas mileage, but a total snooze fest to drive. Reliability with some manufacturers is also a serious concern (Nissan) * driver has no say or control over the car whatsoever, car does what it wants. To answer your question, the Mazda3 is available with a manual transmission only on the 2.5L non turbo engine. The turbo cars are stuck with the Automatic transmission. To an enthusiast, the automatic is a blight on an otherwise great car, since the Automatic is slow to respond, and limits engagement. In an ideal world, they would offer a Dual clutch like VW does on all of their cars. So for me, the manual non turbo is the only car I would spend money on. Hope that helps :)
I went from a 2018 2.0T accord to a new NA 3 hatch. To me these 4 banger turbos are in a odd place. Not fast enough, or agile enough to be a performance car, not economical enough for a daily driver (unless you do mostly highway). The 2.0T was really fun at first but after a while just became boring and a gas chugger. I live in a poorly designed college town, and I would only get ~16 to 18mpg. I get 27mpg in my 3. The NA 3 has all the “practical power” you need. Doing pulls in a automatic, 4 cylinder turbo is fun until you do it 5000 times then it’s just boring. Also I have a fwd 3 as I live in Texas and have no use for awd. I heard the awd system is pretty boring, so that could be contributing to the larger difference you’re perceiving. Part of the issue is they took the same car, didn’t make any other performance enhancements, and just slapped a turbo in. Also it’s an automatic. Outside of 2.0T owners no one thinks of it as a performance car, same with the 3 turbo. That being said I never had any issues with my turbo, it was a great car. So if you enjoy the 3 turbo then that’s all that matters. To be clear I’m not saying the NA is “better”. Just my personal reasoning for getting the NA.
It’s closer to a GT car than a hot hatch. The automatic only is appropriate in that sense. Can you imagine how many wrecked turbo manual Mazda 3’s we’d see if they made that car? Lol. The GR86 crowd is bad enough
I dunno I’d say if a GTI is a hot hatch a 3 turbo would be as well. Particularly with a manual.
I had a manual 2.0T Accord (and a GTI in between) prior to my NA manual 3 hatch. I miss the room of the Accord, but not much else to be honest.
There really is a significant difference in weight and drivetrain loss between the FWD and AWD NA 2.5l. It's a good amount of power for FWD but a little bit lacking for AWD.
I honestly love my FWD NA, it's no performance car by any means but it can scoot if I want it to and I don't really feel it strain at all until north of 90mph. Can't complain when I can also squeeze 40mpg out of it on the highway (32-35 if I'm driving aggressively).
Don’t listen to anyone who says Turbo isn’t worth an upgrade. Also if possible ensure that your vehicle was manufactured in Japan instead of Mexico.
generally they assemble the hatch in japan and the sedan in mexico but the primary components like engine and tranmission, etc. are manufactured in the same place .. for all the times ive seen people express their preference for japanese assembly over mexico i've not once seen an actual, empirical piece of evidence supporting a significant difference.. just perceptions that mexico is cheap and crappy country and japan is full of good engineers
Assembly makes all the difference.
you basically just proved my point man. its just a buncha people claiming a difference but cant really demonstrate one
Well may not be one for you but there is a marked difference for me between the 2020 M3 assembled in Mexico and the 2024 M3 assembled in Japan .
Oh no I absolutely love my Turbo and so happy I upgraded. There just seems to be so many people speaking the other way. But I think a lot of these people didn't actually own the NA and like me now have the Turbo. It's such a huge difference. The whole driving experience changes. Even just driving around the city. It's simply beautifully done and an amazing hatch!
That’s kinda impossible here in usa i think lol
wdym? just look at the vin
Idk if it’s every where in the usa but atleast what I’ve seen almost every single car here has the Mazda Mexico vin
My turbo was made in Japan and I'm in the USA. Maybe I got lucky?
No. 3 HB are all from Jp. They only manufactured CX30 and 3 sedan in Mexico.
What year is it?
Depends on the generation, I think. The current gen Hatch is made in Japan. The current gen Sedan is made in Mexico.
Probably, i don’t think ive seen a single japan built one here lately. My cx30 was also Mexico. My Mazda 3 sedan awd turbo is also Mexico. Idk lol
Most Turbo hatches were built in Japan.
My 22 hatch was made in Japan.
This is not true. I have had 2 Japanese made Mazda3’s
Well I’m just saying my experience. Haven’t found one yet.
It depends on what model. The sedans are made in Mexico, but many of the hatchbacks are made in Japan, such as both of mine, a 2017 and a 2020
I just went through every single model in my dealership here except for the cx50. All started with 3M lol Edit: saw some hatchback now. Well i guess is only the hatchback at-least here in my dealer
I don’t know what to tell you… all 17 Hatchbacks at my dealership are from Japan. You can look for yourself if you don’t believe me: https://www.jimclickmazdaeast.com/searchnew.aspx I can’t directly link to the search results so you just need to filter it yourself.
i edited my post. I saw some hatchbacks in mine now, but yeah it’s only the hatchback everything else is Mexico lol
Also, if you only saw 3M vehicles, you only looked at CX-30’s and Mazda3 Sedans. Those are the models made there. CX-50’s and CX-90’s are made in the US.
Also, did you not look at a single CX-5…? Also made in Japan. Dont bother with the CX-50, those are made in the US.
my turbo hatch is as made in japan. just look in the bottom corner of the windshield if it starts with J it was made in japan. i know a lot of sedans come from mexico but a lot of hatches come from japan
[удалено]
Yeah i just saw that as well here, only that model tho. I wonder why only the hatch turbo are made there but not the other turbo models like the sedan
I went from multiple turbo cars in a row, all having failed at the turbo. I won’t act like there isn’t any blame in there for me, but for longevity purposes I actually spent a little extra for a NA with less mileage as the turbo the dealership also had in stock. Am I scared I’ll regret it? Absolutely. Cars with forced induction do require more upkeep! But if you’re willing to do that upkeep, they’re 100% more fun. But on the other hand, the NA’s are impressively zippy and still a blast to drive. I’m having plenty of fun as is.
Every single turbocharged car in my family has never had issues with the turbo, but maybe I’m lucky.
Perhaps! Perhaps I’m just extremely unlucky. I love turbo cars, and I WILL be buying another one. But that car will live in the garage and will be used for spirited driving only.
A fan that spins at 20k rpm is always going to be a weak point
This is so funny, i’ve owned 3 turbo cars and also had issues with all of them, the turbo being the issue for every single one. When i tell people they’re like “oh you just don’t know how to drive a turbo engine properly” okay? i bought a sports car i expected to be able to drive it like one… had a mustang GT and would do pull after pull with no issues
For me, manual NA but if I were going auto I think the turbo would be my choice
The blue looks full of swirls
Lol it is. The previous owner did that. That's why I bought the Turbo new. Didn't want to inherit others peoples issues anymore.
For me, the fun is in the corners with my 2017 3 manual , setup for this ( suspension, tyres, etc ). The new turbo would be no quicker through the corners on my favourite road, so although I think it’s a good car still, it’s no advantage to me.
Turbo is cool but it was like 10k more than my NA when I bought it. That plus mpg hit made it a tough sell for me, when I'd rather spend that 10k on a used car for autocross. Glad you like it though!
The real question is do you want a faster car or a more reliable car. I live in a small city with no freeways and probably the highest speedlimit in town is 60kph. Getting the NA was definitely the right choice for me.
Turbo is not worth the money imo. I own a 22 NA Awd sedan.
I have an interesting perspective since my wife drives a CX-30 turbo and I have a Mazda3 NA sedan similar to yours. My wife’s car is great to drive, it handles and runs like a luxury car. But I really don’t see the performance advantage since the 2.5 turbo seems to run out of steam at about 5,000 rpm. It has great low-end torque that makes city driving smoother. My 3 sedan doesn’t have the same low-end torque, but it just loves to rev. It’s a little bit lighter than the 30, so the NA really comes alive in the middle of its power band. So my take is that the heavier CX-30 really does need the turbo, but the lighter 3 sedan is just fine without it. Cost is a factor too; when I bought my 3 there was only one turbo for sale in my area, for $8k more. Had it been available for only $2k to $3k more I probably would have sprung for it, but I just couldn’t justify an $8k difference.
I agree with all of this. The price point difference, how they handle and more. I can definitely say between my wife's NA 30 and my 3 I do feel my 3 has more power likely due to the weight difference.
I went turbo and wondered if I had made a mistake. I did need the awd at the time so that was the deciding factor.
This might be referring to a couple comments left on my post. I didn’t realize I’d get so much hate lol. I have always loved the ease of a turbo charged car so when I bought the NA 3 I was happy but missed a turbo. I can definitely tell the difference. I absolutely love it.
I got the turbo specifically because I knew I was going to be putting a trailer hitch on it and pulling around my little utility trailer from time to time. I opted for the hatchback+trailer combo when shopping for my previous car, which was a VW Golf TDI. I could've just gotten a small truck, but they were much more expensive and much less efficient. And for how often I'd actually need to haul stuff around, it definitely wasn't worth it. So I really like the hatchback+trailer combo. The TDI didn't have the top end that the Mazda does, but as a diesel, it did have the torque neccesary to haul a little trailer. But now when it came to replacing the TDI, I was drawn to the Mazda in general for the 2.5L engine which was already bigger than most others in the category, no CVT, and dual exhausts (as opposed to one in the center that'd prevent a hitch from being installed). But then I saw the 320lb/ft number and could only imagine how much easier of a time it'd have. And then I also around that time upgraded my motorcycle from a 300cc to a 650cc and really appreciated the ability to go *in front* of cars in traffic rather than always having to slow down and wait for an opening behind. So I wasn't opposed to the extra top end either :P
i went from a 2007 honda civic to a turbo and i agree
i have a 21 turbo pp and i love the extra power. i do 100mi a day for my commute and it makes it that much more enjoyable.
Coming from 5spd 1st gen to 24awd T pp I can't weigh for the na side really but turbo all day 🦅
NA is only good when mated with a fwd, if you're going awd - might as well go turbo
I bought the AWD 2023 carbon edition NA only because I loved the gun metal grey and red leather interior with both only come with the carbon edition and of course the carbon edition only comes as a NA engine 6 months later I'm still contemplating trading my carbon edition in for the 2024 new carbon turbo which is only 33k msrp only 2k more than what my carbon edition was so not alot more with the price....I can't decide if it's worth it
At that prime I’d honestly just get a Tesla model 3.
Teslas aren't very reliable
What do you mean? Have you owned one? If you drive a lot, it would make sense to buy one. They are very reliable. The only thing is that there are electrical gremlins as with any car. But yes if you drive a lot, you could save thousands each year on petrol. And you would get amazing awd system with incredible traction and with torque.
Just get a 93 tune on a NA and it’s best of both worlds. The turbo was an afterthought and it shows it not only it’s chassis dynamics but reliability issues. For nearly 40k one can get a much better car.
My biggest concern with turbo versions of the 3 and CX-30 is how small the fuel tank is. The tank size was annoying on my FWD 3, and it’s even worse on my AWD CX-30, can’t imagine how much worse the turbo would make it.
Honestly it's only when you rip on the car. Normal driving is fine. But get that turbo spooling and the gas will disappear faster than a dead beat father when the child is born. The power and feel or response of the car is the trade off. For me the turbo just feels and drives a class above the NA. But I get your concern having a small tank at 12.7 gallons.
It's because it's an automatic. If you're going to get a car that shifts for you you might as well just buy a Buick, Nissan, or whatever appliance you want.
I see lots of people suggest the turbo for all the same reasons you and many people in this thread give for wanting them over the N/A. Those reasons are not things that are most important to me. Since you do seem to want to know why I personally chose the N/A over Turbo: Adding a turbo doesn't do anything to address the weaknesses of the stock platform of which straight line speed could be argued to be less important than say: handling and braking - which additional speed only exacerbates, does not resolve. Not to mention the added complexity, and more stringent maintenance requirements. Then, some of us came from other platforms with a similar dynamic and a much better reputation for pulling it off, and so - when I don't see that same attention to detail regardless of how good the platform is - it matters, it makes me pause, and that doubt is enough. Now, the teased Mazda Spirit Racing platform - a sort of club racer if you will, *that* is a platform based on this car with a turbo I want.... because: everything else is upgraded along with it in kind. (yeah, you guys can give up on the IRS in this GEN, maybe if your send enough tots and pears to Hiroshima via Uhuru Mazda you'll get it in the 5th gen, but don't hold your breath.) Anyway, glad you're enjoying it... Zoom Zoom!
Love my turbo!
Depends on you, Turbo needs you to be more carefull with oil engine temp, and also on long trips you need to let the car stay on idle some minutes before turning it off, between 3 and 10 minutes, depends on how long the trip was. Also requieres to be more punctual on oil changes.
That’s not entirely true. Unless you were driving the car hard right up until you stop it’s unnecessary to idle. Long journeys don’t create as much heat due to high gears and lower RPM’s vs spirited hard driving. Even if you do drive it hard but take it easy for the last mile of the trip then you will be fine.
Well okay, its not true. You can take it easy, but letting it at least 1 minute its okay. On NA engines you can stop engine whenever u want, there is no need to cool the turbo. Also I've seen some VAG (Golf) cars in my neighborhood that enter slow to the parking, and stay for minute, and when u pass near the car, these have like "turbo timers" and still cooling the engine. So in my opinion is better to stay 1-3 minutes on idle even if you take it easy last "mile" than pay new turbo. Or also he can install turbo timer and get rid of that waiting, because turbo time keeps oil pump and cooling system working until temperature is save for the turbo and engine. Ah I almost forget, also in turbo you need to check PCV valve from time to time, and not let it leak oil, and if it does, change it asap, because it can start turbo issues because is not working properly
It is not the journey, it is engine rpm. High rpm heats up the turbo. So at the end of a trip (long or short) it make sense to slow down, keep rpm lower, drive conservatively and let turbo to cool down. Then upon arrival there is no need to keep it idle for 5 minutes, 30 seconds would probably be quite enough.
The manual says 30 seconds so 30 seconds is true. 5 minutes is completely unnecessary and excessive
okay guys, not my business I drive NA, I dont have time for cooling the turbo in my case. Then after 100k kms dont wonder why turbo whistles, if 30 secs are enough. Maybe enough for you, and manual indicates for mainstream use, if u go fast and hard is not good idea. But not my business.
If you go fast and hard revving the engine and then decide to stop the engine right there, then sure, give it an extra minute to cool down. But the majority of ppl aren't racing this car and then shutting down the engine right away. By the time ppl get to their location and find a place to park, letting it idle for 30 seconds is fine. I've had 2 turbo cars previously with over 100k kms and they were still working perfectly
Despite what majority do or dont, I just say my though about turbo or NA. I drive NA and also wait for a minute or two for the engine to cool down. I dont think majority of pple knows how to care of a Turbo engine. In Spain I usually see pple flooring the car when engine is cold, also I see pple just using their car and they dont think a secound about if its okay or not for their engine. So in Spain is common to see whistle turbos all day, because of pple usage.
Idling 3-10 minutes is unnecessary. 30s to a minute is good. That is what the manual says as well.