New Mazda 3
- Thread starter gregmav
- Start date
Kain said:
Kain,
I was not, and AM not, looking for "YES men" who agree with what I say. If that was the case, why would YOU respond? I value everybody's (opinions) here. Perhaps sometimes, the perception of the DELIVERY is questioned. And I would not belittle someone or call them names either. Please, in the future, do not accuse me of looking for something that I am not.
As far as the exotics go, I do agree with what you say, however, I am not an expert on their financials. Are you?
With regards to your opinion of an AWD Mazda 3, let me see if I understand your logic. You think a $21,000.00 AWD car is not a good marketing decision. OK, what about a car with a navigation system which pushes the price to the same amount? What is the difference? You talk about differentiating the car from its competitors. Who are Mazda's competitors? Mitsubishi, Toyota, Nissan, Suzuki, Hyundai, Subaru, Volkswagen. In certain segments, Ford, GM. How many of them offer NAV systems, and how many offer AWD? Perhaps the AVAILABILITY of AWD as an OPTION, might help set them apart from the pack. Just because it is available, doesn't mean you have to have it. Of course that argument works for the NAV system too, but then why offer it? What was their logic? And I am sure you don't really believe that all AWD would be used for is a MOD, or X-ing or SLALOM numbers. And I don't believe that the manufacturers who do offer it, ONLY have that in mind either.
Mazda can still offer inexpensive cars. So what if they offer other options? Let people have the choice to build and have the car how they want. It's their money they would be spending, not yours or mine.
By the way, in an earlier post I offered some info on price ranges of AWD systems. Isn't it interesting that Mazda's NAV system carries a price of $1,750.00? Right in the middle of the range of AWD systems I mentioned.
Greg
OK, I'm over the flu, time for me to get that hamster wheel a rollin'.
Yes, I mispoke. Daimler, not GM.
There are a couple of big differences between a NAV system as an option and AWD as an option. First off, deleting or adding NAV to a car is a relatively simple procedure and can sometimes be done at the dock to meet a customer's specifications. AWD, however, is predetermined at the factory and isn't quite as easily deleted or added. So while Mazda could decide to include NAV in a given vehicle on a whim, with AWD they'd have to predetermine what percentage of potential 3 buyers want AWD. If they make too many, they could lose out.
Aside from trucks and SUVs, I can't think of more than a handful of passenger cars that have AWD as an option (BMW 330xi, Infiniti G35... um, I think the Volvo V70...). However, a lot of vehicles these days do offer NAV as an option. Why? For my reason above, plus...
... AWD systems, especially for a manufacturer like Mazda that doesn't specialize in AWD, has to put a lot of Yen/dollars into R&D to either creating their own AWD or borrowing from another make's and making it fit their own cars. NAV systems? I couldn't imagine the investment to integrate a NAV system in a vehicle equalling that of an AWD system.
It's not like I wouldn't love to have AWD, but I think Mazda has some compelling reasons not to go that route. I used to own a '98 Mitsu Eclipse GSX (the AWD version. The RS, GS and GS-T were FWD) and I certainly miss it.
Yes, I mispoke. Daimler, not GM.
There are a couple of big differences between a NAV system as an option and AWD as an option. First off, deleting or adding NAV to a car is a relatively simple procedure and can sometimes be done at the dock to meet a customer's specifications. AWD, however, is predetermined at the factory and isn't quite as easily deleted or added. So while Mazda could decide to include NAV in a given vehicle on a whim, with AWD they'd have to predetermine what percentage of potential 3 buyers want AWD. If they make too many, they could lose out.
Aside from trucks and SUVs, I can't think of more than a handful of passenger cars that have AWD as an option (BMW 330xi, Infiniti G35... um, I think the Volvo V70...). However, a lot of vehicles these days do offer NAV as an option. Why? For my reason above, plus...
... AWD systems, especially for a manufacturer like Mazda that doesn't specialize in AWD, has to put a lot of Yen/dollars into R&D to either creating their own AWD or borrowing from another make's and making it fit their own cars. NAV systems? I couldn't imagine the investment to integrate a NAV system in a vehicle equalling that of an AWD system.
It's not like I wouldn't love to have AWD, but I think Mazda has some compelling reasons not to go that route. I used to own a '98 Mitsu Eclipse GSX (the AWD version. The RS, GS and GS-T were FWD) and I certainly miss it.
C'mon I know you can think of more awd passenger cars than that. How bout the Suzuki Aerio, Porsche 911, all those freakin Subura's, a lot of Audi's like the A4, S4 A6, A8, the Volvo S80 and the XC wagons, the VW passat and R32, the Mitsusbishi Evo (hey they're not dead yet), the Toyota Matrix, Pontiac Vibe. That's just in the U.S, we could probably dig up some more if we looked world wide.
You're right nav. is easier to add than awd. Good point. Still unusual in compact cars at this point but that's probably just cause it's relatively new. Awd's been around a while and with the resources of Volvo and Ford to draw from I don't think the idea is that far fetched, but the bottom line is if it was a sure bet then we'd have it available already. Guess it wasn't. Oh well.
You're right nav. is easier to add than awd. Good point. Still unusual in compact cars at this point but that's probably just cause it's relatively new. Awd's been around a while and with the resources of Volvo and Ford to draw from I don't think the idea is that far fetched, but the bottom line is if it was a sure bet then we'd have it available already. Guess it wasn't. Oh well.
If you read my post again, I said cars that have AWD as an option, as in normally the car is RWD or FWD but there is an option to get it AWD. All Subarus are AWD, but you could make a case for the R32 and Evo, but then I can make a case that the R32 and Evo aren't just another variation of the standard Golf and Lancer line-up and that they are essentially new models all together. But from the others you mentioned that can be had in either FWD/RWD and AWD, notice how most of them are higher-end, luxury vehicles. I bet if you priced their AWD versions with their FWD/RWD versions, the difference would be more than just a couple of grand.dulog said:
PeteyBoy3K
Member
- :
- '04 Mazda3 5d, Titanium Gray
would it really be that useful?
A concern I have with random AWD options on cars is that the car might just not take to it well.
I like what the spiffy multilink rear suspension has done for the handling of the 3... usually allowing the 3 to beat out lots of the luxury AWD makes in slolam times.... I'm not sure all the same components would be able to exist with a variety of CV driveshafts and a limited slip differential shoehorned in there.
Also, a lot of the cars mentioned don't have transverse engines (I know the R32 does... not sure about the volvo's). It'll be interesting to see how the S40 AWD is handled (since it's the same chassis). and you can't get "the good (XRS) matrix
if AWD is going to exist for performance reasons, it'll probably come along in the Mazdaspeed 3, just because there will have to be all sorts of performance improvements to justify the costs of re-engineering the drive train and probably the suspension... not to mention the necessity to add HP to make up for all the new spinny (technical term!) components being thrown in.
I'm not sure that there would be any justification for AWD in the normal 3 other than "it does better in snow"... and most of the people in canada don't seem to think that FWD only is something that is getting them stuck all the time
A concern I have with random AWD options on cars is that the car might just not take to it well.
I like what the spiffy multilink rear suspension has done for the handling of the 3... usually allowing the 3 to beat out lots of the luxury AWD makes in slolam times.... I'm not sure all the same components would be able to exist with a variety of CV driveshafts and a limited slip differential shoehorned in there.
Also, a lot of the cars mentioned don't have transverse engines (I know the R32 does... not sure about the volvo's). It'll be interesting to see how the S40 AWD is handled (since it's the same chassis). and you can't get "the good (XRS) matrix
if AWD is going to exist for performance reasons, it'll probably come along in the Mazdaspeed 3, just because there will have to be all sorts of performance improvements to justify the costs of re-engineering the drive train and probably the suspension... not to mention the necessity to add HP to make up for all the new spinny (technical term!) components being thrown in.
I'm not sure that there would be any justification for AWD in the normal 3 other than "it does better in snow"... and most of the people in canada don't seem to think that FWD only is something that is getting them stuck all the time
Kain said:
Yep you did say offer. That is an important distinction because it does make the lineup complex. Just having fun here and wanted to group the Porsche 911 with the Suzuki Aerieo. Wanted to see if anyone would go off on a tangent related to that kinda like the nav system.
I took a look at how much more a Matrix XR fwd costs vs. the Matrix XR awd. If you compare automatic to automatic it appears less than $2000 which seems nice if you want an automatic anyway, but if you wanted a 5sp you're screwed. Similar thing for the Suzuki Aerio/Aerio SX except the option is a bit less. If you want a manual and awd if a sub 20k small car then the only options may just be the Impreza TS or RS, which of course is a car that only comes in awd. So I'd have to agree in this price range it all comes down to compromises in one way or another. Impossible to offer unlimited choices.
PeteyBoy3K said:
Justification is subjective. Are you talking about justification for automakers to decide to offer awd vehciles, or are you talking about justification for individual consumers to purchase one? The reference to people in canada not getting stuck makes it sound like you're talking about the latter. People buy things they can't justify all the time especially when it comes to vehicles. I got around with an old rwd Volvo living in the northern Rockies, and it didn't stop me from enjoying outdoor activities year round. I just made sure I had good winter tires and carried a pair of chains along just in case. Knowing your vehicle well and driving within its limits is more important than what you drive. Yes, a Subaru or an old 4x4 pickup would have been more fun and a lot of people in that area had those, but I didn't really need it. I couldnt justify the moon roof /6cd changer package I opted for on my 3 but I got it anyway -- my fianc thought the sunroof would be a lot of fun.
PeteyBoy3K
Member
- :
- '04 Mazda3 5d, Titanium Gray
hmmm, justifying my justifications
Hmmmm
My justification ^2: I wasn't really trying to speculate whether people would buy AWD mazda 3's if they were offered, I was just putting forth my opinion that it would be silly for mazda to offer AWD outside of some super sporty high-price variant (IE, mazdaspeed3)
In my mind, the only conceivable reason to have AWD on a car like the mazda 3 would be performance... the only other reason I could think of was the handling/safety in inclement weather which is marketed by volvo, subaru, and other companies that make AWD options or have it standard (it makes me think back to the guasi-successful all-trac camry's and corolla's of 80's fame... I remember the manual for my '88 camry describing how you can use the center differential lock (should you have an all-trac) to get out of mud/snow... I guess they hadn't thought of it as a "this lets you drive safer in rain" marketing gimmick yet).
I don't feel that the mazda3 needs much help in the "handle better when the road is snowy/wet" department. I think the mazda 3 has been adequately engineered for nasty weather situations and it's limits are rather high despite lacking AWD and traction control as options (this being said from my experiences owning a 3 hatch with no ABS, and from the statistics I have observed that would define handling). and I think that just slapping the rear half of the drivetrain into a regular 3 might actually hurt some of the nicer handling aspects of the car by changing the weight distribution, and maybe changing the way the spiffy rear multi-link suspension works.
I'm sort of echoing Dodge's reasoning for not slapping AWD onto the SRT-4: the neon is not an AWD car, and they didn't want to waste money and time trying to shoehorn in an inferior system. The chassis might not have room for the rear differential and transfer case... and if the S40 doesn't have AWD I imagine that ford/mazda/volvo just didn't plan for it to be there. Thus, adding it would be expensive R&D trying to figure out how to wedge in more driveshafts and transfer components without screwing too many things up.
Which brings me to my original thought: if AWD should come to exist on a 3 chassis, I expect be in the mazdaspeed 3, because that seems to be the comitted platform for "we are going to dump money into R&D to make a tiny production car with a turbo, AWD, small nuclear reactor, etc. which will cost 10-15K more".
The canadian driver in snow thing was a silly quip... I figured that if anyone had a problem with bad handling in bad weather, they would have complained by now... seeing the number of complaints on this board about clutch squeaks, non-instant A/C, and strange transmission gremlins... but I haven't seen too many "the tail end kicks out all the time in the rain" or "if it had traction control... I wouldn't have this massive and dangerous front end traction loss on ice"
Sunroofs are lots of fun... opening the rear windows and the sunroof creates turbulence that lifts all your hair up from the back.... instant punk-rock hairdo
dulog said:
Hmmmm
My justification ^2: I wasn't really trying to speculate whether people would buy AWD mazda 3's if they were offered, I was just putting forth my opinion that it would be silly for mazda to offer AWD outside of some super sporty high-price variant (IE, mazdaspeed3)
In my mind, the only conceivable reason to have AWD on a car like the mazda 3 would be performance... the only other reason I could think of was the handling/safety in inclement weather which is marketed by volvo, subaru, and other companies that make AWD options or have it standard (it makes me think back to the guasi-successful all-trac camry's and corolla's of 80's fame... I remember the manual for my '88 camry describing how you can use the center differential lock (should you have an all-trac) to get out of mud/snow... I guess they hadn't thought of it as a "this lets you drive safer in rain" marketing gimmick yet).
I don't feel that the mazda3 needs much help in the "handle better when the road is snowy/wet" department. I think the mazda 3 has been adequately engineered for nasty weather situations and it's limits are rather high despite lacking AWD and traction control as options (this being said from my experiences owning a 3 hatch with no ABS, and from the statistics I have observed that would define handling). and I think that just slapping the rear half of the drivetrain into a regular 3 might actually hurt some of the nicer handling aspects of the car by changing the weight distribution, and maybe changing the way the spiffy rear multi-link suspension works.
I'm sort of echoing Dodge's reasoning for not slapping AWD onto the SRT-4: the neon is not an AWD car, and they didn't want to waste money and time trying to shoehorn in an inferior system. The chassis might not have room for the rear differential and transfer case... and if the S40 doesn't have AWD I imagine that ford/mazda/volvo just didn't plan for it to be there. Thus, adding it would be expensive R&D trying to figure out how to wedge in more driveshafts and transfer components without screwing too many things up.
Which brings me to my original thought: if AWD should come to exist on a 3 chassis, I expect be in the mazdaspeed 3, because that seems to be the comitted platform for "we are going to dump money into R&D to make a tiny production car with a turbo, AWD, small nuclear reactor, etc. which will cost 10-15K more".
The canadian driver in snow thing was a silly quip... I figured that if anyone had a problem with bad handling in bad weather, they would have complained by now... seeing the number of complaints on this board about clutch squeaks, non-instant A/C, and strange transmission gremlins... but I haven't seen too many "the tail end kicks out all the time in the rain" or "if it had traction control... I wouldn't have this massive and dangerous front end traction loss on ice"
Sunroofs are lots of fun... opening the rear windows and the sunroof creates turbulence that lifts all your hair up from the back.... instant punk-rock hairdo
Last edited:
Lol. "justifying my justifications." I should lighten up and stop making people explain themselves so much. I agree the handling of the 3 is great just how it is and it would be a shame to throw something off balance. Did you see that guy's posted auto x results and video? Looks like fun.
By the way, I use to have an camry from that era too, it was a 91 that was an al-trac that I bought used from family. I didn't buy it because it for the all wheel drive thing (at the time I was living in MD actually), and I didn't buy it for performance either it was an auto and was pretty slugish. I got it thinking it would be a reliable car since it was a Toyota Camry but unfortunatley it wasn't.
By the way, I use to have an camry from that era too, it was a 91 that was an al-trac that I bought used from family. I didn't buy it because it for the all wheel drive thing (at the time I was living in MD actually), and I didn't buy it for performance either it was an auto and was pretty slugish. I got it thinking it would be a reliable car since it was a Toyota Camry but unfortunatley it wasn't.
