Originally Posted by
cbrmale
It was quoted as being a 2.3L Mazda 3 (the same as I considered and rejected in favour of the Astra). Let me read the post again, yep it's a 2.3L Mazda 3 (Ford Focus platform with engine from the Mazda 6).
I would be stupid to compare my normally aspirated to a turbo, but against a normally aspirated 2.3L Mazda 3, there isn't much between the two. But to me, the Mazda isn't in the hunt because the 2.3L Mazda 3 with leather seats (not Recaro like the Astra) came out $7,000 more expensive and is too cramped for my needs. The turbo (MPS is quoted above) has to be more expensive again, so how much more? $13,700 more than the recommended retail of the SRi. I got $5,000 discount, so that's $18,700 premium, or two-thirds more again!
Dug74, what makes you think a normally aspriated 2.3L Mazda 3 is worth a $7000 price premium over a 2.2 SRi Astra? Do you honestly think it's that good (or an Astra is that bad)? And Dug74, why do you think a Mazda is a totally different league? Do you think I didn't test drive one? Do you think I haven't been on a long country drive as a passenger in one (and half-deafened by tyre noise all the way to Moss Vale and return)? As far as I was concerned, it was toss a coin. Steering / handling / braking, similar at worst (although the SRi has turbo brakes so it stops well). Performance almost identical (both do 0-100 in 8.5 for the manual and 8.9 for an auto). Fuel economy in the SRi's favour (the tricky variable high-pressure direct injection at work). Roominess: the SRi has more head room and a bigger boot. Comfort: the Recaro-sourced leather seats in the SRi are amazing. Noise: the biggest criticism I've read about the Mazda 3 is noise transmitted from the rear suspension.
The only things I could see that the Mazda was better in is the interior lay-out (storage spaces, an armrest and some cupholders) and probably more reliable (as Japanese cars tend to be).
I drive a VXR but still miss the handling of my MY98 Rexxie at times.
