I'm not sure if it would be within budget, but one of the forum members, skidpan, has recently taken delivery of a new Fabia 1.0tsi (110ps). Seems very enamored with it, with a bit of luck he will see this thread and chip in. But all I've read about that engine, in various VAG cars, including the new Seat Arona, has been positive.
We do indeed have the 1.0 TSi Fabia 110PS, got it almost 2 weks ago. It drives great and although we have not done many miles yet (mostly local) the mpg is already approaching 50 mpg.
The previous 1.2 TSi 110 got very good reports as well but I never actually drove one. We did drive a Polo with the 90 PS 1.2 TSi and it was a slug, walked away.
Have tried a couple of Mazdas, the 120 PS in the 3 and the 145 PS in the 6. Compared to the VAG TSi's they are very poor, best left in my opinion. I cannot see how the 1.5 would be anywhere near as competent as a VAG 1.0 or 1.2 TSi. We considered a new 1.5 Jazz but the dealer could only offer an auto for us to drive, all they sell apparantly so we walked on that one as well.
|
“Have tried a couple of Mazdas, the 120 PS in the 3 and the 145 PS in the 6. Compared to the VAG TSi's they are very poor, best left in my opinion.“
Yes they are a split second slower than an equivalent TSi but this doesn’t make them poor in my opinion. You can maintain the same progress but it just involves changing down a gear and letting it rev, something it’ll do better than the lower revving TSi motor and while there’s no reports to cause concern with the later TSi engines so far (early days yet) VW can be a bit hit and miss regarding longterm reliability with the old 1.9 PD TDi capable of interstellar mileages yet the 1.6, 2.0 FSi and 1.8 20v petrols rather notorious for carbon build up and timing belt failure and the early chain driven TSi’s prone to timing chain issues.
The proof is out on the road with loads of old Mazda’s still running perfectly well into old age and usually rotting out before the engine or gearbox give a moments trouble. If you’re buying and plan on keeping it longterm then there’s nothing to beat a simple Japanese petrol motor.
Driving pleasure is not all about straightline speed, certainly isn’t for me and I’ve driven everything from a McLaren through V8 Aston Martin to 750 Fiat Panda yet the greatest pleasure for me on the road comes from a modestly powered lightweight two seater or hatch more often than not with a simple non-turbo petrol motor which can rev and rev.
But that’s just it, we’re all different and have different likes so try it before dismissing based on our opinions.
|
|
Whilst the Mazda2, CX-3 and 3 are generally fine cars (in petrol form - diesels aren't so reliable in my view, but are good in performance and mpg terms), they do have one or two 'issues', less so with the 3 - some 2s & CX-3s have suffered from problems with the A/C systems, and Mazda had to replace the faulty parts, and had problems sourcing them in sufficient quantities at first back in 2017.
Additionally, the SatNav/ICE system isn't apprently the easiest to use and, without someone knowing what they's doing to 'hack' the OS, cannot be loaded with Android Auto/Apple Car Play or other 'standard' phone-based systems for ICE/Satnav use. Additionally, it apparently has operational issues requiring a hard reboot neccessitating the engine be turned off for it be usable again.
Given my recent woes regarding my local dealership bodging up a very simple order and proceedure (changing alloys and tyres) and quite a few issues from Mazda owners forums with Mazda dealerships (they seem to vary in quality as much as Fords IMO), I am somewhat less enthusiastic about them than I have been for a while now. A sham really, as the cars are very good to drive and in petrol form generally still reliable and good value, if a little unexciting on the performance front.
In this instance, the OP wants a slightly large car than their Fiesta, so the Mazda2 surely won't do as its not really any bigger. The CX-3 is, but is very expensive in comparison and attracts little and far lower deals than the 2 and especially the larger 3 (even via brokers), which can often be sourced (for the same spec) for less than the CX-3.
If the OP does consider a Mazda, just make sure it comes with a space-saver spare wheel and tyre that fits in the space below the main boot area - the 'tube of goo' solution doesn't work and the manufacturer's sourced spare arrangement if bought afterwards costs £395.
The Hyundai i30 1.4T might be worth a look even if it, performance/mpg wise isn't as good as the VAG equivalent but comes with a better warranty. It depends on budget.
|
Yes they are a split second slower than an equivalent TSi but this doesn’t make them poor in my opinion. You can maintain the same progress but it just involves changing down a gear and letting it rev, something it’ll do better than the lower revving TSi motor
If it were mere tenths we would probaly have a Mazda 3 with the 2.0 litre petrol on the drive at this moment but its not just 10ths.
Before I go any further the 3 goes well enough if you are prepared to rag it to the red line at every gearchange but how many people drive like that. I like to press on but driving like that is very tiring and the resulting economy is not good.
The TSi motor is redlined at 6000, think the Mazda is redlined at 6500 but the TSi is more than happy to rev, but you don't need to except on very rare occations.
Looking at performance figures from reputable sources make interesting reading.
Mazda 3 2.0 120 PS 0-60 9.7, 30-70 (through gears) 9.5
Leon 1.2 TSi 105 PS 0-6010.3, 30-70 (through gears) 10.2
Leon 1.4 TSi 125 PS 0-60 9.0, 30-70 (through gears) 8.9
Leon 1.4 TSI 150 PS 0-60 7.8, 30-70 (through gears) 7.2
Golf 1.0 TSi 110 PS 0-60 9.6, 30-70 (through gears) 8.9
So when you thrash it to the redline the Mazda 3 will beat the now defunct 1.2 TSi 105 PS but it is beaten by the remainder (in some cases by 10ths).
But lets look at the figures that matter most to the average driver, the ones that relate to overtaking on A roads and lane changing on motorways.
Mazda 3 2.0 120 PS 30-50 (3rd) 5.8, 50-70 (5th) 12.0
Leon 1.2 TSi 105 PS 30-50 (3rd) 5.2, 50-70 (5th) 10.7
Leon 1.4 TSi 125 PS 30-50 (3rd) 4.7, 50-70 (5th) 9.7
Leon 1.4 TSI 150 PS 30-50 (3rd) 3.8, 50-70 (5th) 6.9
Golf 1.0 TSi 110 PS 30-50 (3rd) 4.1, 50-70 (5th) 8.1
In gear the Mazda 3 is within 6 tenths of the 1.2 TSi 105 PS in the 30-50 test but in every other test its over a second behind. Just look at the figures turned in by the bang up to date 1.0 TSi 110 in the Golf, its actually better than the 1.4 TSi 125 in some tests but since it has the same max torque figure with less weight to rotate and less friction (its only 3 cylinders) thats hardly surprising.
And its not just the figures, I had made my mind up not to get a 3 after a test drive, the figures simply confirmed what my head and bum told me.
But it has to be said that the 3 looks much nicer on the outside than the very dull Golf and slightly dated Leon, and that will matter most to some buyers.
|
If you change down to 4th to do that 50-70 increment you’ll find the gap between the two much reduced. Yes you might initially be a few feet further down the road in a 1.4 TSi Golf but when you have to change up the Mazda owner will gain ground.
Ultimately you’ll cover ground almost as quick but you’ll have to work a bit harder to do so. I agree though that the TSi motor is more relaxing to drive, a bit like a diesel with a much wider power band. Great engine but so is the bulletproof Mazda motor you just got to accept it needs a lower gear for overtaking. It has enough power for most tastes if you do.
Not talking the TSi down here at all, it might prove to be one of VW’s longest lasting engines but equally it might be a pain in backside later in life we just don’t know yet.
Edited by SLO76 on 15/05/2018 at 17:26
|
|
These figures and comparisons are completely futile on our roads!! Who on Earth is bothered by split second differences, honestly it makes absolutely no difference at all to journeys on the roads! I regularly drive South wales to North Wales, on some of the best driving roads in the UK, it takes the same time in a Fiat panda as it does in a Civic 1,8 or previously any number of various powered cars. Even on a sports 600 bike it's about 20 mins quicker, looking after licence which already has points for an insane 35mph infringement! So I really don't think it matters one jot, just buy the best value best bet for the long term that is comfortable and quiet - now a quiet car, that's more important!
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure where you're getting your figures for the Mazda3 from Skidpan, but they are incorrect, at least for the 0-60 through the gears:
The Mazda3 definitely does 0-62mph in 8.9sec for the hatch and 8.8sec for the saloon (direct from Mazda UK's website).
Oddly enough, the Leon's 0-60 figures change from website to website - maybe they were due to the variants, although the 125hp version hasn't been upspecced like the FR (140 like yours to 150 in the later model)
From Seat's own website Leon 5dr 1.4TSi 125hp: 0-60 in 9.3 sec (seconda hand one for sale at my local dealer);
Parkers (booo!) has the same at 8.8sec to 60 (admitedly this could be due to one being 0-60mph and the other being 0-100kph or 0-62mph equivalent).
Similarly for the higher bhp unit in 7.7sec and 7.9sec to '60'.
This all being said, I too found the VAG engine more spritely in the mid-rev range when I test drove a similar-engined Scirocco 1.4 (125hp) as well as a Mazda3 2.0 petrol last year - the Mazda3 was quicker than my 12yo 1.6 petrol 3, but it wasn't THAT much quicker, which surprised me. I think it was because I didn't want to thrash the new 3 to make the same progress as the Scirocco did at reasonable revs.
Even though both the Leon and Mazda3 have roughly the same torque (148 lb-ft for the Leon and 155 for the Mazda), I suspect the addition of the turbo in the VAG engine means more power is on tap at lower revs, making it feel more powerful than the 3 whilst driving in 'normally'. The 150hp variant would obviously be much swifter for that reason and its extra 29 lb-ft or torque available. The Mazda Skyactive engines seem to be biased towards mpg than for performance.
I did find the 3 to be very comfortable in terms of the seat and ergonomics - I prefer the exterior looks of the 3 fastback over the hatch (bigger boot too but small aperture counts against it), but the Leon SC (FR) and Golf 3dr GT are, to me at least, even better looking.
The 3 is nice inside, not so keen on the Leon interior, but I do like the Golf interior best as long as its a GT with climate control (option only, standard in the Leon FR and Mazda3 SE-L Nav) and the 'piano black' dash backing rather than the brushed aluminium. Both the 3 and Leon are good value as they both attract discounts via brokers of around the 20% across the range, unlike the Golf, where its mainly single figures, and often none for the rare GT (especially in 3dr form). Plus of course you have to spec a number of options in the VW to get up to the better spec of the other two.
When I was looking for a new car (gave up) last year, I regularly found both Mazda3 SE-L Navs and Seat Leon SC FR 150s for around the £16-£17.5k mark from brokers; the Golf 1.4TSi (150) GT with the spec I wanted to match the other two was coming in at £20k or more. I just looked them up again and currently the Mazda is even cheaper (23% discounts - even the 2.0 165hp can be had for £17.5k) than last year, the other two about the same. That's a lot for similar cars.
Hopefully the all-new 3 coming in 2019 will resolve the performance issues. I wish they could sort out their UK arm and dealer network though - patchy quality of service at best in my view - up until recently, I had a good experience at my local one, but less so of late, and other 3 owners have complained. One guy came in with a 3 which had a broken wing mirror - his second that didn't saty on (not his fault BTW); I've seen more people of late coming in with quality issues with the latest gen cars (not the petrol engines - other parts).
|
|
According to auto-data.net, the Leon 1.4tsi 125 has 250nm (184lb/ft) of torque from 1400-4000rpm. The Mazda's peak torque (of 155lb/ft like you say) is achieved at 4000rpm.
|
According to auto-data.net, the Leon 1.4tsi 125 has 250nm (184lb/ft) of torque from 1400-4000rpm. The Mazda's peak torque (of 155lb/ft like you say) is achieved at 4000rpm.
I got the 1.4TSi 125hp figures from both HJ's review page and an ad from SEAT's own website. Not the first time though power/torque and performance figures haven't matched up for the same car from site to site. In one way, I would've though both the 125 and 150hp versions would have the same torque figures as the Mazda 3 in 120hp and 165hp versions do, given its just engine mapping that changes the power output and curve characteristics.
Still, its defintely noticeable that the VAG engined cars have more mid-range grunt than their Mazda 'equivalents' when driving them. Oddly enough, the CX-3 I tested felt actually slightly more springlty at normal speeds than the 3, even though (same engine and power) its 0-60 figure is actually 0.1-0.2 sec slower (probably due to the extra wind resistance because its higher sided). Maybe at slower speeds, the extra drag is offset by the lower weight compared to the 3. Oddly enough, when both have the TC auto fitted, the CX-3's 0-60 time is 0.3sec quicker than the 3's. Same reason (weight)?
|
|
I compared the 1.4 TSI 150hp and 2.0 SkyActiv 165hp extensively in a Leon+A3 and Mazda 3 respectively.
They are two very different engines, both excellent but suited to different tasks/preferences.
In a motorway car, I would definietly take the TSI. The engine is flexible enough that you rarely have to change down to accomodate fluctuations in traffic, you have the feeling of being "shoved" forward - reminds me of the old 1.9 TDI PD engines in some ways. I'm sure it is the better engine in a big car you load up regularly. On the other hand, it can feel a bit detatched or artifical... I can't decribe it properly but it's not a rewarding engine to "push".
The 2.0 Skyactiv definitely has less shove at low revs, it can feel relaxed and "lazy" if you keep changing gear before 2000rpm or potter around town. On the other hand, if you get it on a twisty A or B road and open it up a bit, it wakes up and is an absolute joy - a proper old school linear power delivery, instant throttle response, really rewarding to work through the gears, wills you to enjoy driving it.
Edited by landmarked on 15/05/2018 at 22:33
|
Not sure where you're getting your figures for the Mazda3 from Skidpan, but they are incorrect, at least for the 0-60 through the gears:
The figures are taken from Autocar, Autoexpress and WhatCar tests. Manufacturers figures can be a bit exagerated (just like the official MPG figures) thus I think it best to ignore them. Honda suggest that the new Jazz 1.5 has a 0-60 in the 8's, how many typical Jazz buyers would actually be interested in that.
According to auto-data.net, the Leon 1.4tsi 125 has 250nm (184lb/ft) of torque from 1400-4000rpm. The Mazda's peak torque (of 155lb/ft like you say) is achieved at 4000rpm.
Both Skoda and Seat quote the 1.4 TSi 125 as having 200nm torques (147 lb/ft) at 1400-4000 rpm and I would suggest that Seat and Skoda are more likely to be correct, they make the cars don't they.
Figures are of course only part of the story, its the drive that matters. Since 2010 I have driven 2 x 1.4 TSi 125, a 1.2 TSi 90, a 1.0 TSi 95 and owned a 1.4 TSi 140, a 1.4 TSi 150 ACT and now a 1.0 TSi 110. I have also driven the Mazda 3 120 and the Mazda 6 145. It was not only the both Mazdas that were disapointing, the 1.2 TSi 90 was also disapointing (despite the magazines drooling over it in the Polo, Fabia and Ibiza.
I suppose we became accustomed to the easy going driving manners of turbo diesels over 20 years which made modern non-turbo petrols seem very lethargic unless revved. We have found that the TSI's have the advantages of both types, the easy going manners of the turbo diesels and the ability to rev out when needed of a petrol.
During those 20 years we did have 3 non turbo petrols and all were decent enough in the cars choosen. The Puma had a cracking 1.7 which felt very much like the Golf engines from the 80's but the K12 Micra with the 80PS 1.2 was a match made in heaven. It had low gearing (3500 @70 mph) and a very revvy engine, it could punch well above its weight. We bought one in 2005 and inherited dads when he stopped driving, still miss it after 3 years. A couple of years ago I went to Cadwell on a track day, lots of fast and expensive cars and a few cars that looked like they should be parked at Asda. The more expensive and difficult to drive cars appeared to spend more time in the paddock with the owners simply talking. Some modified cars had expensive looking failures. But a couple of young chaps in a 1.2 K12 Micra spent virtually the whole day on the track ragging the car to the limit. They had a great day and drove home after (probably on bald tyres).
|
|
I would summarise that the TSi engines have a very 'diesel' like quality to them, whereas the Skyactives are ok, but mated to better chassis for sharper handling. None are bad - its more personal preference as to what each potential owner wants out of the car.
I used to (when I bought my Mazda3 back in 2006) wanted reasonable performance and comfort but really good handling so I could enjoy driving; now I'm more biased to comfort with more poke easily on tap when needed for overtaking without the need to thrash the proverbial nuts off the car, hence why after test driving both types I didn't go ahead with the Mazda, but held off on the Golf, Leon or Scirocco as I wasn't happy with the DSG auto box from a reliability perspective.
|
|
5 door hatchback for under £10k
get yourself a pre reg Suzuki Baleno, an excellent car with superb rear space and fuel economy
|
5 door hatchback for under £10k
get yourself a pre reg Suzuki Baleno, an excellent car with superb rear space and fuel economy
I hadn't really considered one of these but looking they seem to have all the kit that I would want. Has anyone got one of these to recomend best engine and trim?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
