0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 in 15.0 .88g skidpad. Not bad, but it got blown away by the Mazda 3 GT.

They really panned the new cars fake hood scoop and uber-sized speedo. They also didn't care for the Playskool looking HVAC controls. (I have to say that personally, I agree with all of that).

Called the car twitchy and difficult to control on the twisties.....

Wow!

 

What were the other cars beisdes the mazda? and their 0-60 times etc. The mazda 3 GT only comes with a 150hp engine. I find that highly unlikely that the MCS got beat 0-60 by that car. You sure you don't mean mazdaspeed 3?

Regular mazda 3:

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/7566/mazda-3.html

 

In my judgement the best review thus far was published in the New York Times last sunday.

 

I think the best reveiw of the new car is what ever the person driving thinks. I have read articles bashing cars that great cars, they may just not be for everyone. I really only read articles for the performance numbers since personnal biasis can't really get in the way of that.

 

It would make no sense to test the basic 3 against the MCS, so I imagine so.

I'll definitely be trying out both the MS3 Sport and MSC this summer to decide what to go with at the end of the year. While the MS3 is a bit more practical space-wise and trumps the MCS on performance, I like a small car and I'm a bit concerned about the practicality of 260hp at the front wheels during winter.

 

where did you find this comparison? i don't see it on the caranddriver site??

 

I recieved the issue yesterday in the mail. I really hoped for a better showing with a title like who makes the best fun car for $25k, or something like that.

 

IMHO magazines and other reviewers can be pretty off on performance - not only will they thrash the car beyond what a real world owner would do to attempt to extract numbers, but in comparos they don't often seem to account for tires, options/weight, conditions and other real factors that effect the outcome. So in the end I personally don't think the numbers are honestly all that accurate or telling about the car overall at all.

As for reviewers opinions, well they are just that and may not jive with your own, but sometimes, if they are good at their job, they have astute perspectives to offer based on the scope of their experience that can be interesting/helpful. One thing reviews never help with though is which cars have issues or good service (not that the Mini would win out there tho...).

So what was the third car in this comparo?

 

But the other ones a Mazda, not exactly reknown for cutting edge design or high desirability (at least not here).

 

Uh the article rated the

Mazda Speed 3.. Not the Mazda 3 GT..

 

They always compare cars at stock. Being that Mazda has a lot more lines of cars, they have a lot more options available and I'm sure the Mazdaspeed 3 comes with a few steps above runflats...The tires alone will make a huge difference. I would love to see a comparison between the 2 cars with the same tires.

 

Edmunds did a comparison of 2006 sport compacts, and there Mazdaspeed 3 came out on top as well. 2006 Cooper S came in fourth.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...2/pageNumber=1

We are MINI enthusiasts and would like to see MINI on top, but there is no shame in being beaten by Mazdaspeed 3. It may have little appeal in terms of style and character, but in terms of performance it truly sets a standard for bang for the buck.

 

Well, no fooling if the comparison is with the Mazdaspeed 3! The comparison is like comparing a jet ski with a boat.

 

Does anyone have a direct link to the car and driver article in question?

 

Speed3 > MCS. Easy enough.

 

In the Edmunds test the MCS had stock 16" wheels. The MazdaSpeed3 comes standard with 18s (250hp too).

 

This explains a lot. I'd still rather have an R56 MCS. Although I'm quite happy with my R53 version.

 

Me too, Crashton, which is why I picked the MCS after driving it, the MazdaSpeed3 and the GTI.

 

This is true. For example, Elise owners have complained that the Elise 0 - 60 numbers are impossible to match without dumping the clutch at 8K, something that few owners are willing to do ... meanwhile the car mags could care less.

However, they do run what you brung. Nothing wrong with that. If the car comes with runflats, then that is what the car makers says is OEM. That is real life

The moment you change the tires, its not longer OEM and ALL the cars can do the same thing.

 

Just wanted to chime in, even though new here I seem to be the resident Mazda fan :P.

The speed3 is quite an amazing car, and Mazda set out to build it with one goal in mind: Beat the GTI.

I've heard great things about it, but a friend of mine test drove one. The engine was smoking when she was done. I don't know about you guys, but I don't feel comfortable driving a car that smokes after a test drive.

Besides, I've heard that the MINI is so much more tossable and fun to drive. The Speed3 is great on highways, but it isn't as nimble as the MINI. Mazda has the MX-5 for its go-kart handling car.

I'm here because I enjoy handling and the overall car's feel on the road. :bigthumb:

 

I looked at the Mazdaspeed 3 before deciding to go with the R56. The Mazda is very fast and handles very well...but the quality and feel of the car did not compare to the MCS. I also think the styling is very dated. I also looked at the GTI but the horrible customer service from VW and plain styling made the Mini an easy choice.

 

I just got back from B&N and read the article from top to bottom

They considered the WRX which was in 5th place too be the quickest from 0-60 but it is running into issues where its just too dated. The car is on its last year before a redesign, but they said the car can't keep up with all the new redesigns from its competitors (Mazda, MINI, VW, Nissan) They said it didnt take twisties as well as the other cars. Also the all black interior was dull to them.

The Nissan was the only car w/o a turbo and also had a few issues on twisties.. it didnt accerlerate as fast as any of the others and just seemed marginal for what it was.

The MINI came in third and they claimed the car was quick and had great performance. It was the lighest of all the cars and smallest, but they really killed some points due to interior space and elements inside the car like cheap looking controls etc. They found the styling to be the best out of all cars and the performance was either 1st or 2nd of all the cars. They said the car was "twitchy" on twisties due to the stability control (Disable it idiots) and they said "The car is fun if you consider it fun"

VW GTI they said was the complete polar opposite of the MINI in terms of twisties.. They said it was smooth and could zoom out of them really smoothly. They enjoyed all the features in the car, but the gas mileage was the shoddiest and the performance mainly matched the MINI's or was below it.

Mazda Speed3 was top honors due to how quick it was and the looks. The interior was a bit too bright orange for them but they found the exterior very nice and the speed and handling extremely good. They think its a cop magnet due to the looks and though it was a bit slower then the WRX to 0-60 it was the 2nd best and still pretty affordable.

MINI rated pretty well.. The only thing that caused it to not do well was just the interior room and the cheap controls on the manual AC... But other then that everything else was either better or just as good as the GTI in score and close to the Mazda Speed3.

 

Great comparison - thanks

 

I test drove a MS3 back in early February and want everyone to know this who have never driven one...the CAR IS A BEAST! No its not an icon, no its not easily noticed like the Mini's are, but that car is rock solid and FAST, STOPS and STEERS! That being said, I have NO, ZERO, ZIP, NOTTA a regret about ordering my R56

 

I guess I could be a bit biased...but I got my issue of Car and Driver today, and I thought the MCS write-up was downright insulting, especially considering it's performance numbers.