Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hello, all. I'm beginning the end stages of car shopping for a replacement for my 2005 Nissan Sentra. I'm the original owner and while she's been well-maintained and only has about 124,000 miles on her (mostly highway) and I'm hoping to get another few years of out of her, I also realize that it's time to become serious about choosing my next long-term car relationship.
Getting another Sentra or a similar car is out of the question as I loathe CVTs; my manual skills aren't nearly good enough for Pittsburgh's hilly terrain. Both of these considerations led me to test driving a Mazda 3 sedan. I loved the car's appearance, handling and acceleration, but didn't like the small trunk size (the Sentra's is larger). This has led me to considering a hatchback as it would be great for city driving/parking, hauling/picking up things *and* should easily fit into my small, below-grade garage. Here are my questions:
a.) Is this a car that can and will easily "go the distance" both inside and out if I care for it as well as I've cared for my current car?
b.) Are general maintenance items and typical repairs (exhaust system, brakes, etc.) of a reasonable cost?
c.) For those of you who actually own hatchbacks, if not a Mazda 3, is visibility an issue for you? The Sentra has very few, if any blind spots. While I've driven cars with the rear cameras in the past (a Mazda CX7, to be exact), I never quite trusted it and always used it in addition to using all mirrors and my own eyes.
Those are my general question, but if anyone has anything else to add or advice, feel free to share it. Thanks!
Hello, all. I'm beginning the end stages of car shopping for a replacement for my 2005 Nissan Sentra. I'm the original owner and while she's been well-maintained and only has about 124,000 miles on her (mostly highway) and I'm hoping to get another few years of out of her, I also realize that it's time to become serious about choosing my next long-term car relationship.
Getting another Sentra or a similar car is out of the question as I loathe CVTs; my manual skills aren't nearly good enough for Pittsburgh's hilly terrain. Both of these considerations led me to test driving a Mazda 3 sedan. I loved the car's appearance, handling and acceleration, but didn't like the small trunk size (the Sentra's is larger). This has led me to considering a hatchback as it would be great for city driving/parking, hauling/picking up things *and* should easily fit into my small, below-grade garage. Here are my questions:
a.) Is this a car that can and will easily "go the distance" both inside and out if I care for it as well as I've cared for my current car?
b.) Are general maintenance items and typical repairs (exhaust system, brakes, etc.) of a reasonable cost?
c.) For those of you who actually own hatchbacks, if not a Mazda 3, is visibility an issue for you? The Sentra has very few, if any blind spots. While I've driven cars with the rear cameras in the past (a Mazda CX7, to be exact), I never quite trusted it and always used it in addition to using all mirrors and my own eyes.
Those are my general question, but if anyone has anything else to add or advice, feel free to share it. Thanks!
I've always enjoyed Mazdas but have had the luxury of having them in sunny coastal California. I'm not sure how well they do in wet and cold areas where road salt might be issue for rust. My sister-in-law has had a Mazdaspeed3 for about 10 years with the only issue being the power steering pump went on her while on the race track. My 68 year old mom is driving a 2014 Mazda6 Sport MT and seems to enjoy it as well. As for the hatchback, you should have fewer blind spots relative to a sedan or coupe since the rear windows are larger with relatively thinner C-pilars. I've had a 5-door Golf TDI for 18 years now and that car has virtually zero blind spots though I've replaced the side mirrors with European convex mirrors to get an even wider field of vision.
Mazdas tend to be underpowered on the stat sheet, but they are very fun on the turns...especially with a manny tranny. The newer automatics get great fuel economy, though they upshift so low on the power band that it feels like the engine is lugging...it's very uninspiring.
Both of these considerations led me to test driving a Mazda 3 sedan.
If only MAZDA had the sense to bring back the 323 WAGON...
(one of the best ever made)
Hell, if any of the car makers would have the nerve to offer something functional
short of the crossover level... just another foot or so of usable stow area in back.
If only MAZDA had the sense to bring back the 323 WAGON...
(one of the best ever made)
Hell, if any of the car makers would have the nerve to offer something functional
short of the crossover level... just another foot or so of usable stow area in back.
As an owner of a '88 Bronco II which would now be considered a cross over SUV I get how handy they are. But now I don't want an SUV, I would love to have a smaller Japanese station wagon but they just don't exist other than Subaru and those are expensive. Bring back the Camry wagon damnit!
Back to the Mazda 3 hatch my wife has had 2, but they were older (her current one is an '07 I believe. With the 2.3L it is extremely quick and the newer ones are even quicker. So I would recommend it if you plan on not driving it forever. Both cars were reliable and trouble free until about 160,000 miles, then problems occurred. A Toyota or Honda will give you more.
And yes both had rust. I'm not sure if they have ever figured that out on the newer ones but the Mazda rust is still a very real problem.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 06-11-2018 at 05:34 AM..
If my manny tranny skills were stronger, I didn't live in hilly Pittsburgh amongst some of the worst drivers I've come across since driving in the Beltway and, more importantly, if most of my highway driving didn't consist of long road trips (cruise control is fantastic), I'd consider a manual. As I wrote, I hate CVTs, which eliminated some of my earlier choices of replacement cars (the Subaru Impreza was a strong contender until I drove one and hated it) and I don't like the new body design of the Honda Civic, either. Drove a friend's brand new Corolla (both city and highway) and didn't care for it. Didn't have enough pick up and go for the often short entrance ramps around the 'burgh. I found during the test drive of the Mazda that it had slightly better acceleration than my Sentra (oddly enough, the Nissan can really get up and go for a small car.). It also handled well on turns, which I liked.
Rust was and is a concern as I've heard that it was a problem with Mazda vehicles in the past. I'm glad that someone mentioned that. The car will be garaged the majority of the time and I do wash and wax my cars regularly--hopefully that would help to offset any rust issues?
Dave in Mt. Airy--what were the problems that occurred at 160,000 miles on your wife's Mazdas? On a high mileage car, I expect a few issues (I do plan on keeping my next car for at least a decade), but it's nice to know what typically goes wrong on certain makes of cars so I'm prepared to deal with them as they arise.
If only MAZDA had the sense to bring back the 323 WAGON...
(one of the best ever made)
Hell, if any of the car makers would have the nerve to offer something functional
short of the crossover level... just another foot or so of usable stow area in back.
I'd seriously consider a small wagon about the size of the of the Cavalier my mother drove back in the late '80s, but alas, wagons seem to make it to the European market only. :-/ The hatchback seems like a good compromise between a SUV/CUV (no way either is fitting easily into my garage) and a wagon in terms of being able to haul the stuff that I now manage to cram into the Sentra.
Long time hatchback owner - but mine are much older, mid-80s and 2004. I find the visibility to be much better than a coupe for me. And extremely practical, it's all I ever want as a daily driver.
Issue I found to be model specific: my old hatch lifted from above the taillights, not between them, which made getting heavy objects out of it more difficult. 2004 lifts from between the taillights. Not a deal breaker but something to consider.
That said, I worked for a dealer for awhile and found that newer cars in general are more difficult to see out of for me. Even between my two cars, the difference in the outside mirrors are significant. The newer mirrors are not as tall, I'm assuming for aerodynamics, but it really makes positioning challenging. I can either set them to see traffic, or to see the ground (i.e. curbing) when I am backing up. In all my older cars, I could see everything.
I know you're replacing a car that's the same vintage as my new one, but I found trunk space to be less in the 2004 than the 1980s cars, even though they are essentially the same size. Much less. There is probably more backseat room but I never have passengers so my trunk is more important to me.
Not all hatchbacks have seats that fold flat. Even some SUVs have them where there is a large lip between the trunk area and the folded down seat. This would be a deal breaker for me, as it was for friends who were looking at an SUV and needed to put a crate for their dog in the back.
I too wish they'd bring back smaller wagons, like the original Outbacks and the Mazda posted above. I always thought those were a great size.
ps - you know that cruise control works fine with manuals? I saw your post on highway driving and wondered if you thought they didn't.
Long time hatchback owner - but mine are much older, mid-80s and 2004. I find the visibility to be much better than a coupe for me. And extremely practical, it's all I ever want as a daily driver.
Issue I found to be model specific: my old hatch lifted from above the taillights, not between them, which made getting heavy objects out of it more difficult. 2004 lifts from between the taillights. Not a deal breaker but something to consider.
That said, I worked for a dealer for awhile and found that newer cars in general are more difficult to see out of for me. Even between my two cars, the difference in the outside mirrors are significant. The newer mirrors are not as tall, I'm assuming for aerodynamics, but it really makes positioning challenging. I can either set them to see traffic, or to see the ground (i.e. curbing) when I am backing up. In all my older cars, I could see everything.
I know you're replacing a car that's the same vintage as my new one, but I found trunk space to be less in the 2004 than the 1980s cars, even though they are essentially the same size. Much less. There is probably more backseat room but I never have passengers so my trunk is more important to me.
Not all hatchbacks have seats that fold flat. Even some SUVs have them where there is a large lip between the trunk area and the folded down seat. This would be a deal breaker for me, as it was for friends who were looking at an SUV and needed to put a crate for their dog in the back.
I too wish they'd bring back smaller wagons, like the original Outbacks and the Mazda posted above. I always thought those were a great size.
ps - you know that cruise control works fine with manuals? I saw your post on highway driving and wondered if you thought they didn't.
Good to know about the cruise control! My recent experience with driving a manual was taking my boyfriend's 2014 Kia Soul for a spin. Prior to that, the only stick cars I'd driven were a '92 Corolla and a mid-nineties Escort (both were base models). It's a pretty stripped down version, so perhaps cruise control wasn't offered on his model. I think the lack of cruise on his car is the one thing that he dislikes about the car.
Good to know about the cruise control! My recent experience with driving a manual was taking my boyfriend's 2014 Kia Soul for a spin. Prior to that, the only stick cars I'd driven were a '92 Corolla and a mid-nineties Escort (both were base models). It's a pretty stripped down version, so perhaps cruise control wasn't offered on his model. I think the lack of cruise on his car is the one thing that he dislikes about the car.
I think it's almost always an option in an econobox. I ordered my only new car with it (1988) and my 2004 came with it. Haven't had it for years and really missed it! I only drive sticks.
I can certainly drive steady without it and have taken many 10+ hour trips. I'm finding now that our highways are so busy it's hard to use as often as I'd like.
*I* didn't think they would work well being 4 cylinders but that is not the case either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
