Author Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Mazda3 Sport GS-Sky (Read 11046 times)

Autos_Editor · « **on:** June 12, 2013, 06:28:32 am »

More power and better fuel economy distinguish the Mazda3's oddly named Skyactiv drivetrain.

Read More...

mixmanmash · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:17:55 am »

One small correction here:

"The Skyactiv engine also gets an impressively high 12:1 compression ratio (about 20 percent higher than most engines) to help get the most power out of every drop of regular unleaded fuel, while a specially-tuned 4-2-1 exhaust system helps fight the engine knock that can otherwise be the Achilles heel of high-compression designs."

If I am not mistaken, Mazda could not implement the 4-2-1 exhaust manifold in this application because of space restrictions. Hence, they had to drop the compression to 12:1, whereas in the CX-5, the same engine has a 13:1 compression ratio.

The issue I found in the 3 is rear seat space. I found it very tight when compared with my 2002 Protege. I can comfortably sit behind myself (6 ft) in the Protege but found it a challenge in 2010+ Mazda3s.

dkaz · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:58:00 am »

^^^ That's correct.

But weird, I could comfortably sit behind myself in the 3 and I'm 6'-1". I've come to the conclusion that my legs are shorter than average, my inseam is 32".

810 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2013, 10:28:32 am »

Same sentiment, moving from Protege 5 to 2nd gen 3, tight in the back. I compared the actual specs - they are a wash. I think the problem is that the B-pillaar is further back in the newer car, which hurts getting in and out of the back. As well the cut line of the door (the bottom edge) is longer in the protege, again making it easy to get in and out.

mixmanmash · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2013, 10:52:46 am »

Quote from: 810 on June 12, 2013, 10:28:32 am

Same sentiment, moving from Protege 5 to 2nd gen 3, tight in the back. I compared the actual specs - they are a wash. I think the problem is that the B-pillaar is further back in the newer car, which hurts getting in and out of the back. As well the cut line of the door (the bottom edge) is longer in the protege, again making it easy to get in and out.

I think you maybe on to something. I did mange to fit into the 3, but it just felt so cramped compared to the Protege. This just further proves the point that comparing dimensions by numbers is pointless and one has to physically see and try.

mixmanmash · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2013, 10:54:04 am »

Quote from: DKaz on June 12, 2013, 07:58:00 am

^^^ That's correct.

But weird, I could comfortably sit behind myself in the 3 and I'm 6'-1". I've come to the conclusion that my legs are shorter than average, my inseam is 32".

My inseam is 32" as well. I did fit, but it seemed cramped by comparison.

tooscoops · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2013, 11:07:56 am »

hmmm... i had looked at this car for my wife and she was fine with it... but i just didn't see spending the extra cash for the driving dynamics that my wife wouldn't notice.

this is one of those cars that sells well and we car people hope it has to do with the driving dynamics, but i feel like that will have little to do with it... it does everything pretty well and looks good (to most people) while still meeting the "individuality" that people crave when purchasing a new car... basically, those who want the japanese benefits of apparent reliability, without getting the cookie cutter civic or corolla. all while being competitive in price.

then there are those who actually know that it drives better than almost anything in the class...

overall... good car.

redman · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2013, 11:22:35 am »

Got mom the non Sky 2012 version since she barely drives and mostly short distance.

Gut feeling tells me Mazda will drop regular non Sky versions and just use the Sky versions as standard equipment helping to further maintain CAFE standards.

Mazda clearly understands driving dynamics can be balanced between comfort and sport, benefiting the driver in both safety and fun. Something Toyota failed to or cared to realize regarding the Corolla.

dkaz · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2013, 12:21:43 pm »

I second that the rear door is quite small.

I did notice not in the last gen Protege but the one before that (96?) that the rear seat was very spacious.

Blueprint · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2013, 12:32:04 pm »

Drove a GS-Sky Sport (automatic) in a comparo last year, and it wasn't nearly as sporty as expected. The manual may be better, but currently I'd give the "sporty compact" crown the the Focus. Even a basic SE with Powershift feels special on the road.

If the new Mazda6 is any indication, things should improve in the next Mz3.

JRM · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2013, 02:56:52 pm »

Quote from: DKaz on June 12, 2013, 07:58:00 am

^^^ That's correct.

But weird, I could comfortably sit behind myself in the 3 and I'm 6'-1". I've come to the conclusion that my legs are shorter than average, my inseam is 32".

I'm over 6'2" with a 33" inseam and fit nicely behind myself even in the Mazda3 and Golf, neither of which are noted for rear leg room. By comparison my daughter is 5'9" with a 36'' inseam and doesn't wear stillettos. Go figure!

JMB · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2013, 05:45:29 pm »

I would love to know if anyone who has the 2.5L motor is actually achieving anything close to the 10.2/7.0 supposedly achievable.

I have had the 2.5 GT for 3.5 years now and, while I really like the car overall (aside from tight back seats...challenging with an infant seat now, and a faulty 6 speed transmission that took months to have dealt with properly), my average fuel economy is consistently over 11.3. Most of the miles are done in stop/go city traffic and I don't make much of an effort to drive with a light foot, but still I would expect a bit better than 11.3/100km from a modern 2.5L 4cyl. I achieved better economy in my old 240sx's 2.4L.

mixmanmash · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2013, 05:56:08 pm »

Quote from: JMB on June 12, 2013, 05:45:29 pm

I would love to know if anyone who has the 2.5L motor is actually achieving anything close to the 10.2/7.0 supposedly achievable.

I have had the 2.5 GT for 3.5 years now and, while I really like the car overall (aside from tight back seats...challenging with an infant seat now, and a faulty 6 speed transmission that took months to have dealt with properly), my average fuel economy is consistently over 11.3. Most of the miles are done in stop/go city traffic and I don't make much of an effort to drive with a light foot, but still I would expect a bit better than 11.3/100km from a modern 2.5L 4cyl. I achieved better economy in my old 240sx's 2.4L.

The 2.5L in the Mazda 3 is anything but modern. It's a design that is over 10 years old. It wasn't that efficient even when it first came out. Mazda back in the day wasn't known for fuel efficiency. They are now making big waves to improve that.

drive67 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 12, 2013, 06:29:36 pm »

Two owners of Mazda 3's I know had over $5000 in engine repairs that was not covered under warranty. They were not abusive type of drivers but had high maintenance cost with bad dealer service. You might as well buy VW GTI if you want a drivers car with high cost of ownership.

mixmanmash · « **Reply #14 on:** June 12, 2013, 06:34:49 pm »

Quote from: drive67 on June 12, 2013, 06:29:36 pm

Two owners of Mazda 3's I know had over $5000 in engine repairs that was not covered under warranty. They were not abusive type of drivers but had high maintenance cost with bad dealer service. You might as well buy VW GTI if you want a drivers car with high cost of ownership.

I'd need to see more information... What model year, which engine, what exactly happened and let me guess the dealer was Krooked Kramer Mazda?

drive67 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 12, 2013, 06:49:39 pm »

2010 and 2011 both serviced from Kramer Mazda from new but when they had problems no help

mixmanmash · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:39:05 pm »

Quote from: drive67 on June 12, 2013, 06:49:39 pm

2010 and 2011 both serviced from Kramer Mazda from new but when they had problems no help

Sounds more like a dealer problem. Kramer is pretty bad in all my experiences.

sacrat · « **Reply #17 on:** June 13, 2013, 12:50:46 am »

Quote from: mixmanmash on June 12, 2013, 07:39:05 pm

Quote from: drive67 on June 12, 2013, 06:49:39 pm
2010 and 2011 both serviced from Kramer Mazda from new but when they had problems no help

Sounds more like a dealer problem. Kramer is pretty bad in all my experiences.

I only had dealings with Sunridge. What's the review on them like?

mixmanmash · « **Reply #18 on:** June 13, 2013, 04:01:24 am »

Quote from: sacrat on June 13, 2013, 12:50:46 am

Quote from: mixmanmash on June 12, 2013, 07:39:05 pm
Quote from: drive67 on June 12, 2013, 06:49:39 pm
2010 and 2011 both serviced from Kramer Mazda from new but when they had problems no help

Sounds more like a dealer problem. Kramer is pretty bad in all my experiences.

I only had dealings with Sunridge. What's the review on them like?

Never dealt with them. I use to deal with Weber in Edmonton prior to the GoAuto invasion. Since then, the service has been lacking and has become a rip off. All the good staff left shortly after the takeover. Also had issues with Park Mazda. They messed up my mirror and the way the service manager dealt with it was bad from a customer relation perspective. I personally would only deal with Landmark or LA Mazda in the Edmonton area. Of course, all the current servicing is done by myself. Best place for servicing IMHO.

dkaz · « **Reply #19 on:** June 13, 2013, 11:27:29 am »

I had to get my oil change done at Weber last November. $105 after tax for a synthetic oil change!!! Alberta's must be well paid. Same oil change costs $70 after tax in Vancouver. At least I had a $50 off coupon. I'll do my oil change in Vancouver next time, even if it means soon it early.