Just over 2 years ago we were replacing our 12 year old diesel Focus and it was going to be a petrol because of the lower mileage we were doing. Looked at all the usual suspects which included the Mazda 3. At the time the model had either just been replaced or was on model run out and there were some staggering deals. But it fell well short of the 12 year old Focus in too many respects.

First was rear seat space and access, very cramped. Then there was the view form the mirror out the letter box rear window, very poor. The boot was tiny with not even a space saver, think it was over £400 and took over a large amount of the limited boot space. Not going well and then we drove it. Considering the Focus was 12 years old with over 100,000 miles we expected the Mazda to be wonderful, wrong. It had a very hard ride and was very claustrophobic. Despite the engine being a 2 litre petrol with more power than our Focus 1.6 diesel it was very flat and even if you gave it full throttle it was still not great, just noisy. very disappointing.

We bought a Nissan Pulsar 1.6 DIG-T for less money (also on run out). The car ticked all the boxes and drove like a new car should. None of the issues we noted with the Mazda.

That is why you should have a good test drive before you buy, making a mistake will cost huge £££££'s to sort.

Would suggest you try and cancel or drive one locally then decide.

At the time the Nissan had a 4 blob WhatCar rating, the Mazda only had 3 blobs.

For me, after testing one it just didn't feel that much better (despite having a 2L engine to my existing car's 1.6L), and I can attest to the firm ride for the (Sport) models shod on 18in rims.

Interior space has always been an issue on the post-Ford Mazdas as well. I think they've lost a LOT of business because they a) didn't go the small petrol-turbo route and b) prioritised the styling of the car over practicality. It's a shame, as the ergonomics (including seating comfort/driving position) have alawys been very good.

The latest one (gen-4) is a great looking car, but its long bonnet means space on the interior is not amongst the class leaders, nor is boot size or usefulness of the fastback (small boot opening, as my gen-1 car has, but without the annoying spare tyre issue).

They should be up there competing with the Focus (things were going that way with the gen-1 car) and Golf, and yet...

I don't think the way Mazda UK are set up helps either - a far more limited range of cars on offer than in North America and Down Under, patchy quality (highly variable) of their main dealer network despite years of negative feedback from owners. If you get the right car and have a decent dealer nearby (perfectly possible, as I did), then great, otherwise, I'd be wary.

Many Sport (18in low profile tyres - hard ride) and diesel models end up back on the forecourts within 2 years because owners just can't get on with them and their 'issues' (unless you do long trips most of time, DON'T ever buy a diesel Mazda).

The more sensible petrol SE-L mid range models rarely come back - most are either genuine PXes when upgrading to a newer model at 3yo or something bigger, or ex-demo cars etc. I suspect some generally do for the main reason you said - a lack of grunt for a 2.0 (SA-G) petrol - but then people should know that after a test drive.

Time will tell if the all-new SA-X petrol engine system will make the difference needed performance wise to up sales. I'm not convinced yet - it seems to be similar to a VTEC plus system - to get the performance, you need to give it a lot of gas.

More people these days seem to prefer the mid-range punch of the small-capacity turbo petrols like the VAG 1.4 TSI and the like, giving decent performance without the need to thrash the car at high revs (noisy).