Wheels Magazine - 2200km road test of Golf vs Mazda 3

[pologti18t]

March edition of Wheels mag has a 2200km outback road trip testing the base and high spec Golf and Mazda 3 models.

90TSI manual vs Neo Manual
103TSI highline vs SP25 GT Auto.

Overall fuel consumption

Neo Manual – 7.9L/100km
90TSI manual – 6.8L/100km
SP25 GT Auto – 8.6L/100km
103TSI Highline auto – 7.7L/100km

Weight
Neo Manual – 1271 kg
90TSI manual – 1225 kg
SP25 GT Auto – 1357 kg
103TSI Highline auto – 1288kg

[Ryan_R]

Isn't the SP25 more of a GTI (Mk6) competitor performance-wise?

[Lucas_R]

Isn't the SP25 more of a GTI (Mk6) competitor performance-wise?

Not really. It tries to be, but isn't. Probably closer to a GTI than a 103TSI though.

I can vouch for the fuel consumption figures of the Mazda 3. We have just sold our Mazda 3 that we bought new in 2011. Over 45,000km it averaged 7.8L/100km and about 70% of that driving was 100kph on the freeway between Newcastle - Sydney. The other 30% was Newcastle or Sydney city driving.

[Diesel_vert]

Isn't the SP25 more of a GTI (Mk6) competitor performance-wise?

No. Mazda as yet do not make a Focus ST/RS Megane/Golf GTI competitor.

The $25 890 Mazda3 SP25 5-door manual has a naturally-aspirated 2.5 producing 138 kW/250 Nm, weighing 1255 kg (tare).

The $40 490 VW Mk6 Golf GTI 5-door manual has a forced-induction 2.0 producing 155 kW/280 Nm, weighing 1360 kg (tare).

[Jimi]

Verdict?

[Eaglehawk]

Of course, Wheels would prefer you'd buy one of their mags to find out :)

90TSI has been getting a lot of praise...*whistles*

[pologti18t]

No. Mazda as yet do not make a Focus ST/RS Megane/Golf GTI competitor.

The $25 890 Mazda3 SP25 5-door manual has a naturally-aspirated 2.5 producing 138 kW/250 Nm, weighing 1255 kg (tare).


the SP25 tops 1300kg. Max Nms at 3250.

The auto does 0-100 in 7.9 secs. The auto will get to 100 in 2second gear. Looks like the manual may need a change into 3rd to get to 100km/h. So it may not be much faster than the auto.



90TSI has been getting a lot of praise...*whistles*


I would go on to say that maybe the 90TSI Comfortline manual is the sweetspot in the range.
And the base Mazda 3 SP25 is it's sweet spot.

[Diesel_vert]

Figures in brackets are for automatic transmission.


the SP25 tops 1300kg. Max Nms at 3250.

Mazda3 SP25 hatch: tare weight 1255 kg (1285 kg), kerb weight 1308 kg (1339 kg).

I only used tare weight to compare the Mk6 Golf GTI because that's what VW quote in their brochures.


The auto does 0-100 in 7.9 secs. The auto will get to 100 in 2second gear. Looks like the manual may need a change into 3rd to get to 100km/h. So it may not be much faster than the auto.

That's not bad. The Mk5 Golf 1.4 GT did it in 7.9 sec (7.7 sec), which cost $34 990 ($37 290) and has worse fuel consumption.

Such is the rate of progress.

[Ryan_R]

I test drove a SP23 or 25 (can't remember) and it felt quick in the sense of how responsive it was from 0, compared to the DSG which by direct comparison felt like they had noticeable lag (which isn't a problem, but if you drove one after the other you'd notice). Of course this was before all the SkyActive ecoboost stuff that may change how it drives. At least I won't have to worry if one pulls up next to me at the lights :P

[pologti18t]

The unladen weight of an auto 5 door highline 103 should be around 1320 from the detail UK brochure. this includes:


Figures are calculated in accordance with manufacturer’s criteria. The individual unladen weight depends on the specification of
the vehicle, this then reduces the possible payload accordingly. The unladen weight and payload both include the fuel tank 90%
full, driver (68kg) and luggage (7kg) in line with EU directive 95/48. Unladen weight shown refers to 3-door models. The unladen
weight of 5-door models will increase by 30kg.
03) With increasing altitude the engine performance

In the UK an auto Mazda 3 auto that comes to 1389kg (including 75kg driver).

The point is that the Golf spec for spec is noticeably lighter than a Mazda 3.

[Diesel_vert]

The unladen weight of an auto 5 door highline 103 should be around 1320 from the detail UK brochure.

In the UK an auto Mazda 3 auto that comes to 1389kg (including 75kg driver).

Interesting finding, but I suppose quoting the tare mass from the RVCS website would be more relevant to us:

Golf 90TSI 7AT - 1233 kg
Golf 103TSI 7AT - 1265 kg

Mazda3 2.0 6AT - 1265 kg
Mazda3 2.5 6AT - 1285 kg

(Subtract 5 kg each from the Mazda3 for the sedan variant)

Again, in the absence of published kerb mass figures for the Australia-bound Golf (or at least, none that I could find), this is as level a playing field as I could get it.

As far as models bound for our market go (and assuming the figures on the RVCS website are accurate), the Golf still weighs less than the 3, but the difference appears to be reduced compared to models bound for the UK or European market.

[Amalgam]

I went and test drove both the Mazda3 and Golf yesterday.

My ideal car :- manual, preferably diesel, peppy and interesting to drive, something that I can hand down to my daughter in 3 years time who will have her P plates by then. Therefore not the GTI, Focus ST, WRX :(

There were no 90TSI manuals available so it was the 103 Highline vs SP25 GT. I know that we are comparing apples with oranges but they are similarly priced.

SP25 GT

Advantages:

Great engine !!!! Lots of pep.
Uses 91RON
Great smooth shifting 6spd manual
Bi-xenon as standard
Nicely weighted and direct steering especially for an electrically assisted unit.
Large ICE screen with user friendly iDrive like controls.
Feels slightly larger internally especially in the back seats.

Disadvantages:

Some hard plastic touch points
Cabin not as premium feeling as the Golf.
Fuel economy only average.
10000 km service intervals

103Highline

Advantages :

Better perceived build quality. Switches, dials and knobs are weighted better and the door closes with more authority.
A considerably more premium feel.


Disadvantages :

Not as peppy
95RON
No manual and potential service problems with the 7spd DSG
Smaller especially in the rear.

Once again I am comparing apples to oranges but this is an exercise in helping me crystallize my thoughts.

[Lucas_R]

10000 km service intervals

And 6 month intervals too (10,000km / 6 months) so servicing is expensive.

[Paul_R]

And 6 month intervals too (10,000km / 6 months) so servicing is expensive.

I'm not sure why Mazda Australia persist with this. They sell the same cars in UK with 12 month service intervals. Why the difference?

We have a CX9. Costs $600 to $700 a year from an independent who is a close family friend so we probably aren't getting ripped off. Haven't had to replace the 20" tyres yet though...

[Mountainman]

"Wheels" really do need to be more accurate with their information. The claimed weights for the Golf 90TSI manual in Aust is 1209kg and the 103TSI is 1265kg. They also say the width is 1790mm where VW Aust specs say 1799mm. And in the article they complained about the Golfs not having a CD player. They obviously didn't open the glove boxes. What was also interesting comparing the 2 Golfs they tested was the 90TSI continually got better fuel consumption than the 103TSI which is a contradiction to the official claims of 5.7L/100km combined for the 90 manual v 5.2L/100km for the 103 DSG. And acceleration wise the 103DSG performed no better than the 90 DSG they tested a couple of editions back.

[Diesel_vert]

And 6 month intervals too (10,000km / 6 months) so servicing is expensive.


I'm not sure why Mazda Australia persist with this. They sell the same cars in UK with 12 month service intervals. Why the difference?

The new Mazda3 has a service interval of 10 000 km or 12 months, whichever is reached first.

For all other models, Mazda is in the process of rolling out this new service regime over the coming months.


"Wheels" really do need to be more accurate with their information. The claimed weights for the Golf 90TSI manual in Aust is 1209kg and the 103TSI is 1265kg.

That is the tare mass.

I suspect Wheels magazine are measuring the vehicle's kerb mass, which should indeed be higher than its tare mass.

[pologti18t]

I
Smaller especially in the rear.


Interesting as even Mazda says that the rear leg and headroom are no better or worse than the outgoing model and the boot space smaller.

Ok.. straight from Redbook

Tare mass 90tsi manual - 1209 kg
Tare Mazda 3 neo hatch manual - 1230 kg

Tare mass
Mazda 103TSI Highline auto - 1265kg
Mazda sp25GT hatch auto - 1285 kg

[Paul_R]

The new Mazda3 has a service interval of 10 000 km or 12 months.

That's an improvement but my wife will still be getting her car serviced twice a year with those numbers. 45,000 klms in 2 years so far. And yes still on first set of tyres.

[Mountainman]

I suspect Wheels magazine are measuring the vehicle's kerb mass, which should indeed be higher than its tare mass.
I have always wondered what is the difference between tare and kerb masses. Subaru, like most Jap manufacturers, used to quote their cars in kerb mass but then a few years ago started using both tare and kerb, The difference was always 40kg, no matter which model in their range. I always assumed it was the difference between a full and empty fuel tank as all their cars had either 60L or 64L fuel tanks, which would be about 40kg.

[Ryan_R]

Doesn't 1 litre = 1 kg, or is that dependent on what's being stored (water v fuel)?
Plus there's coolant, windscreen wiper fluid, oil, etc supposedly included in kerb weight I though. That said I think there's an ISO standard for the amount of fuel that is added (i.e. perhaps 30L regardless of tank size) when reporting kerb/wet weight.

[Diesel_vert]

That's an improvement but my wife will still be getting her car serviced twice a year with those numbers. 45,000 klms in 2 years so far. And yes still on first set of tyres.

This is a generalisation, but Japanese passenger vehicles aren't known for having long service intervals.



I have always wondered what is the difference between tare and kerb masses.

If anyone is interested, here are the official definitions as used in Australia:


TARE MASS - mass of a vehicle other than a L-group vehicle ready for service, unoccupied and unladen, with all fluid reservoirs filled to nominal capacity except for fuel, which shall be 10 litres only, and with all standard equipment and any options fitted.

KERB MASS - see 'Unladen Mass'

UNLADEN MASS - the mass of the vehicle in running order unoccupied and unladen with all fluid reservoirs filled to nominal capacity including fuel, and with all standard equipment.

Source: Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule - Definitions and Vehicle Categories) 2005 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2005L03850)

For the most authoritative source of tare mass figures, I refer to the Road Vehicle Certification System (RVCS) website. The relevant sections can be viewed by members of the public.

In any case, figures viewed in isolation mean nothing - it's the overall package that counts.



Doesn't 1 litre = 1 kg, or is that dependent on what's being stored (water v fuel)?

Water has an approximate density of 1 kg per litre at 4°C.

Unleaded petrol has a typical density of 0.75 kg per litre at 15°C.

[Mountainman]

So with 1L of petrol weighing 0.75kg and the fuel tank of a mk7 Golf being 50L and the tare mass requiring10L of petrol in the tank that leaves the weight of 40L of petrol to be added to the tare mass to get it to the kerb mass. that would be 30kg extra. It still doesn't account for the 1209kg tare mass claim for the 90TSI by VW and the 1225kg figure in the "Wheels" test - that's only 16kg difference. It really does make me wonder where they got their stats from. Their early tests of mk7 Golfs always quoted the specs from the VW Aust web site which were incorrect but at least they have now updated most of that information more accurately.

[Diesel_vert]

So with 1L of petrol weighing 0.75kg and the fuel tank of a mk7 Golf being 50L and the tare mass requiring10L of petrol in the tank that leaves the weight of 40L of petrol to be added to the tare mass to get it to the kerb mass. that would be 30kg extra. It still doesn't account for the 1209kg tare mass claim for the 90TSI by VW and the 1225kg figure in the "Wheels" test - that's only 16kg difference. It really does make me wonder where they got their stats from. Their early tests of mk7 Golfs always quoted the specs from the VW Aust web site which were incorrect but at least they have now updated most of that information more accurately.

I have to say, it's been a rather long time since I picked up a copy of Wheels magazine.

Maybe that's what the readout was on the scale? Maybe they use a different procedure or methodology? Maybe it's an calculated estimate? Maybe they pulled a number of a hat?

I suppose you could always write to them or contact them directly.

In any case, it doesn't really change anything for me - I think the new 3 and the Mk7 Golf both remain great packages overall, irrespective of their true tare or kerb mass.

[JustCruisn]

So what was the best car ?
Mazda is always going to use more fuel. The engine is over sized and under tuned to provide better reliability, but you have to service it twice as often ??

Servicing costs per KM
Golf90 $0.0658
Mazda3 Neo $0.0911
Mazda cost 38% more to service

BMW have been using Condition Based Servicing for more than 10 years now. It aims to lengthen service intervals and maximise the use of serviceable components.
By reducing the number of oil changes the "dust to dust" carbon emissions is lower, giving BMW a greener name.
So drive a beemer like a grandma and who knows how long the oil change interval will be ?


Other than the extra cost and damage to the environment it is a PITA to have to drop the car off for service, twice a year FFS. I love my VWs for this reason.

[Amalgam]

From the respective websites, servicing to and inclusive of 90000kms regardless of time and including the extras ie: brake fluid, air filters etc

Mazda3 2.0 manual $3052
90TSI manual $2634

It real puts pay to the myth that VWs are expensive to service.

But for me the 9 visits to the dealer vs 6 is the biggest factor.

The only possible advantage for the Mazda3 is that the more frequent oil changes with similar quality synthetic oils may increase the longevity of the engine.

[Amalgam]

Mazda 3 2014 Review – Car Reviews, News & Advice - CarPoint Australia (http://www.carpoint.com.au/reviews/small-passenger/mazda/3/mazda-3-2014-review-41806)