|
Thanks for all the replies.
They've mostly supported what I thought and as with everything there's going to be a compromise made somewhere I guess.I hardly do any town driving - virtually all rural b roads or a-roads for me so having something which handles well would be good as the Golf's one downside was its wallowy handling. The reliability is a big draw as I like to keep my cars and look after them (which is why I'm scared of the 2.2d). Last two cars were deemed uneconomical to repair at 180k and 250k. Took a fiesta around the clock once so it looked like it had done 20k on the odometer at least. That said, I don't want to get bored of it if it's sluggish.
I did consider the lower-powered Mazda then heading for a remap (via my insurance company) but the problem is who to trust with my new (to me) engine as there seems to be a lot of people who've bought themselves a laptop and a cable and called themselves remappers out there.
The obvious next step is a test drive but that looks like it will have to wait until April.
Thanks again
Edited by freddieflintoff on 11/03/2021 at 07:45
|
|
I just checked autotrader and there are plenty of Mazda 3 with the more powerful engine (165hp) for you to choose from. All within budget, around £9k.
|
I just checked autotrader and there are plenty of Mazda 3 with the more powerful engine (165hp) for you to choose from. All within budget, around £9k.
I literally haven't found one yet within 100 miles of me.
|
I just checked autotrader and there are plenty of Mazda 3 with the more powerful engine (165hp) for you to choose from. All within budget, around £9k.
I literally haven't found one yet within 100 miles of me.
Indeed - the overwhelming majority of gen-3 Mazda3s sold are the standard 2.0 in either Sport or SE-L Nav form. They (pre-pandemic) popped up from time to time at main dealers, but the current lack of sales overall means they'll be even more difficult to source.
There are, on the other hand, far more 1.4TSI SEAT Leons and Golfs around, including the better higher output 140/150PS versions.
|
It’s not about the majority of cars, you only need one. There are 27 mazda 3 sport navs in the UK right now, all in budget. With covid, I imagine a dealer would deliver to sell something.
But that’s not the point. All I’m saying is if you want a mazda 3 with a more powerful engine, they’re there, available, they’re not gold dust.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a 1.6 turbo petrol Astra. This has 200 hp and is very quick in a straight line. Sub 7 sec 0.62. You could get a nice one from 2016-18 for £9k
They are the cheapest way to get a decent size (non supermini), fairly new, fairly quick car (sub 8 sec 0-60).
Mine has been reliable, has decent toys and is nice enough to drive.
|
|
|
|
There's a post here on the mazda3 forums from someone who had the BBR upgrade carried out. Might be of interest to you.
BBR - Super 170 SkyActive upgrade - my report - Mazda 3 Forums UK
|
|
|
|
|
We have a 2012 Mazda 3 1.6 and a 2018 Golf 1.4. Both are good to drive. I think the OP is looking at the next generation of Mazda 3 so the comparison isn’t fully appropriate. The later gen car has a bit more power and a better interior. A key difference is the Mazda is chain cam.
The Golf 1.4 engine is great even in the lower power most of them have. Skoda Octavia 1.4s are all 148hp so might be worth looking at. Economy is excellent, we do very few city miles so our long term 55mpg (computer reading) flatters it but it’s still very good.
The Mazda is less powerful but just as good a cruiser. The Golf has more grunt but I doubt we get anywhere any quicker on today’s roads.
I don’t know about the later car but our Mazda has stupidly expensive tyres. At 205/50 R17 they are not extreme but they are over £500 for a set of Michelin’s. The Golf (205/55 r16) is £200 less.
A final factor is that when we bought the Mazda in 2018 their Approved Used scheme went down to cars that were 6 years old. The prices and selection were good.
|
|
Of course, there is the option of the Mazda6 as well with the 165 engine but the extra power probably balanced out by the extra weight?
No offense to anyone intended but the Mrs has a thing about Vauxhall so Astras are out!
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies. Sadly that’s what I’d suspected. Don’t like the look of the Civic and 140 1.4 tsi engines are slightly over budget at the moment.
What is your budget?
realistically around 9k.
You should easily get a 1.4 Tsi for that money. We PX’s our 2013 leon in 2017, it went of the forecourt for £8500 with a low mileage, full Seat service history and 18 months of Seat Warranty. Move on 4 years and your £900 will buy a very nice more recent example that the one we had.
I'd go for a well-cared for Leon SC 1.4 TSI 140/150 (the earlier SE 140 [as Skidpan owned]
The SC was not worth the premium. It was smaller and less accessible than the 5 door hatch yet despite being sold as a “coupe” its sillouette was the same as the hatch. VW made an effort with the Scirocco, the Seat designers went to the pub with the budget they were given, welded 2 doors up and drank the rest.
The 140 PS engines with SE trim were short lived. They dropped that spec and replaced it with a 123 PS engine (still OK and better than the Mazda) but simply not outstanding like the 140. The 140 (and subsequently the 150 with ACT) lived on in FR spec which is fine if you are willing to pay extra for less comfy sports suspension, rubber band tyres and ½ plastic seat trim. Not for me, its one of the reasons we went for a Skoda after the Leon.
Same here, the 2019 6 165hp engine just pulls. And when you drop the clutch at 5000rpm, you have absolutely no issue keeping up with any “normal” car.
Seriously, who drives like that on public roads. In a 1.4 TSi just drive normally and give it some boot when required and surprise others on the roads with no showing off. Same applies to the 110PS TSi in the Fabia but you have to be a bit more realistic with who you decide is fair prey.
Edited by skidpan on 11/03/2021 at 16:32
|
|
One thing to count against the Leon 1.4TSI 140 in SE form is its availability - when I was looking around back in 2017, most of the Leons at various main dealers I was looking at were either SCs in either 1.4 140 and mainly 150PS form or the 1.8TSI variant. The SEs tended to be the 122PS version. Until you said you owned a 140PS version, I'd never seen one for sale - rather like the equivalent 3dr Golf GT in 1.4TSI 150 form, far rarer than its 5dr sister.
I think, from memory, that some of the pre-facelift ones had 17in tyres which were probably not so hard riding as the newer models on 18in rims and tyres.
Whether that was, as you say, the combo of the short lived 1.4TSI SC 140 before they went to the 150PS ACT could also mean not many are around in comparison. I saw LOADS of the 150PS version available with 18in rims.
It could be just general popularity, or, like with the Mazda3 Sport, owners were less than keen over the longer term with the harder ride on 18in tyres and PXed them back, unlike those on more sensible 16in tyres.
|
|
Of course, there is the option of the Mazda6 as well with the 165 engine but the extra power probably balanced out by the extra weight?
You can find a performance comparison of the 122ps 3 and the 165ps 6 (and many other car combinations) here and here . The data are real world averages compiled from many independent road tests, not manufacturer's claims.
At first sight the 165ps 6 seems to be miles ahead but if you look at the actual figures up to 120kph (75mph) you will see there is not that much difference between the two. As a Gen 4 Mazda 3 (122ps) owner my advice is to look elsewhere if you want turbo or diesel like flexibility. If you are content to make the most of the excellent manual gearbox the 122ps Mazda 3 performance is much the same as comparable petrol rivals with smaller turbo engines.
Edited by misar on 12/03/2021 at 18:56
|
|
I've considered the TSI but not convinced on their longevity. What will one be like at 150k +?
|
I've considered the TSI but not convinced on their longevity. What will one be like at 150k +?
Service it correctly, change the cambelt at the correct intervals (120,000 miles or 6 years) and you will be unlikely to have more issues than you would with any other engine. The engine is not highly stressed which is what many people think turbo engines are, You can drive it like any other engine but you don't need to use the revs to maintain excellent progress, like a diesel you simply use the low down torque.
But just like any engine, neglect it and it will cost you ££££££'s
|
|
|
|
I couldn’t comment on longevity but I think most engines are good for this with proper servicing (meaning changing the oil twice as often as the manufacturer claims necessary). What you would have to factor in is several timing belt replacements (at least 2, probably three or more depending on years passed, not sure what the intervals are, seem to vary depending on who you ask). I don’t know the job cost of a belt change nowadays but I’m sure it would pay for a lot of petrol.
The link I posted above give dyno plots for the 120 engine, before and after upgrading. You’ll note that the power curve for the 120 engine is very unnatural. It rises linearly until it hits the 120ps limit, then flat lines (torque drops off in tandem). The poster describes it as hitting a wall. A result of the electronic limiter. The 165 engine pulls all the way to the redline. I’ve noticed that superchips also seem to offer a chip tune as well (linky at bottom).
Something worth mentioning is that Mazda saw fit to install a sophisticated fully independent suspension system in this generation of 3, not something that you will find on all its closest rivals. If you value handling and road holding prowess, you will definitely come to appreciate this. The engine is only part of the package, not all of it.
Any further questions, please ask below and I will try and answer. I think your next port of call is to get a few test drives and see what tickles your fancy.
Best of luck.
M
+ 54.00 BHP power gain with Stage 1 ECU Remap on MazdaMazda3Sport Nav (1998cc, 118bhp) (superchips.co.uk)
(edit) I see Skidpan has beaten me to it. 120,000 miles it is then.
Edited by moward on 13/03/2021 at 13:12
|
(edit) I see Skidpan has beaten me to it. 120,000 miles it is then.
Read my post again, I said its 120,000 miles or every 6 years. Like all manufacturers VAG have a distance and time limit.
As for gaining 54 bhp from a normally aspirated petrol (in this case a 45% increase) that is simply not possible with only a chip. It may be possible for a turbo but not a N/A engine. To get extra power the basics are more fuel and more air to burn it in. The fuel bit is easy (longer injector opening/bigger injectors/increased fuel pressure) and on a turbo the air bit is not that difficult. But in a N/A engine you need extensive head work, exhaust work, inlet work to get that extra air in the engine and a chip will not do that.
Suoerchips used to be a respected company but it looks form that page they are having a laugh.
Just looked at the result for the Leon 1.4 150 PS TSi. On this model they are being a bit more realistic offering about a 19% increase (29 PS) which is feasible in a turbo engine.
Just don't expect one to do 150,000 trouble free miles after adding extra power.
|
|
I did read your post, I just didn’t see the need to repeat it in its entirety. 6 years is pretty poor to be honest when other manufactures can do 10+ years.
I’m guessing you didn’t read my previous posts or the link I posted previously, that explains that all skyactiv g engines are mechanically identical. The differences in power output (120, 145 and 165,) are all achieved by software programming. The 165 engine is the nominal design with all other variants detuned from it. It doesn’t take a degree in rocket science therefore to understand that removing the software lock allows for a lower powered variant to be returned to its nominal design power.
Therefore, if a 165 engine can do 150k trouble free miles, I see no reason why a upgraded 120 can’t either, seeing as they’re the same thing.
Regards,
M
|
all skyactiv g engines are mechanically identical. The differences in power output (120, 145 and 165,) are all achieved by software programming.
But is the transmission and other components in the lower powered examples the same? Take the Leon, the 123 PS version uses a weaker gearbox than the 140 and 150 PS versions. Up the power of the 123 to beyond that of the 150 (quite possible since its a turbo) and the weaker gearbox will not last long. Add to that the weaker gearbox has poor ratios, fine in the Ibiza, not much fun in a powerful Leon.
And what about the brakes, are they identical in all models, if not you could end up in a wall after exercising the 165 PS on 120 PSS brakes.
Don't forget the warranty, you will likely as not find you don't have one after modifying the car.
If you want the more powerful version simply buy it.
|
|
All good points, the gear ratio’s between the two are different. Lower gearing has the potential to drive higher stresses into the gears, the long term impact of which I would not want to try and predict. The 165 variant is lower geared than the 165, which I found surprising.
The brakes appear to be identical between the two, 295mm vented at front and 265 solid at rear. ECP serves up the same parts for both.
The seller is looking at cars with a budget of 9k. Most at this level will be outside manufacturers warranty.
If you want the more powerful version simply buy it.
I agree wholeheartedly, I only mentioned the potential of chip tuning as a way of opening up the number of potential candidates for the OP. Personally I’d buy the one I wanted up front, saves a lot of rigmarole down the line.
|
|
Another example. When we bought a 1 series we tried the 118D and the 120D. The 118D drove very well with 143 PS, the 120D was probably a bit better, it did have 180 PS but it was not £2000 better, we bought the 118D.
When you looked into the specs the 2 cars had different diff ratios, totally different internal gearbox ratios and different turbos, anyone thinking a £300 chip would turn a 118D into a 120D was deluded. Not sure about brakes to be honest but the wheel/tyres depended on trim at this level so probably the same.
More difference still on the 123D, that had twin turbos and bigger brakes before looking for other differences But many on the BMW forums were convinced a chip from a bloke in a shed would turn a 118D into a 123D for peanuts.
|
Another example. When we bought a 1 series we tried the 118D and the 120D. The 118D drove very well with 143 PS, the 120D was probably a bit better, it did have 180 PS but it was not £2000 better, we bought the 118D.
When you looked into the specs the 2 cars had different diff ratios, totally different internal gearbox ratios and different turbos, anyone thinking a £300 chip would turn a 118D into a 120D was deluded. Not sure about brakes to be honest but the wheel/tyres depended on trim at this level so probably the same.
More difference still on the 123D, that had twin turbos and bigger brakes before looking for other differences But many on the BMW forums were convinced a chip from a bloke in a shed would turn a 118D into a 123D for peanuts.
Couldn’t agree more. There are usually other enhancements beyond a simple remap when you step up the range. I’ve had this debate many a time with people seeking cheap power, the latest being a co-worker with a 535d BMW. I advised him not to boost the power, especially on an older car but it seems like an 150mph twin turbo 6cyl motor wasn’t enough for him. The car is now putting out plumes of blue smoke in between gear changes and is heading for an Mot fail shortly.
Another is thinking about chipping his 330d Touring to match a 335d. I explained that the 335 has a dramatically reworked engine with twin turbos and why would BMW go to such expense if a simple remap was all that was required to reliably boost power? Answer, they wouldn’t.
Remapping cars should be banned as 99% of them neglect to inform their insurers and are thus driving illegally. Anyone who needs to boost the power of a performance car such as a 247bhp Ford Focus ST (rare to find a used one that hasn’t been messed with) for road use needs to be removed from the highway.
|
|
I think a 2.0 mazda engine can do more than 150k miles... much more. It’s the most reliable brand in the world, come on. A dacia can do around 500k miles if maintained properly.
|
I think a 2.0 mazda engine can do more than 150k miles... much more. It’s the most reliable brand in the world, come on.
Try telling that to owners of troublesome Mazda diesels.
In recent times we have owned 3 Fords, 3 Nissans (all built up north), 4 VW's, a BMW and more recently 4 Skodas and all have been reliable, reliability is not just a Mazda thing if you didn't know.
|
I think a 2.0 mazda engine can do more than 150k miles... much more. It’s the most reliable brand in the world, come on. A dacia can do around 500k miles if maintained properly.
Sorry Chris, but Mazda isn't the most reliable make in the world - and I'm a satisfied owner of a Mazda3 for 15 years (though it has only covered around 70k miles).
Non-rotary Mazda petrol engines are reliable and long-lasting, but the diesels have been problematic when not used for predominantly longer trips. Older Mazdas were also known for less than adequate rust resistance, something that I believe they've addressed over the last 10 years or so.
Everyone knows that Toyota/Lexus is the most reliable brand. That's why they tend to be on the dull side in terms of performance and handling, as they put more of the cost into making them reliable, hardy and long lasting.
|
|
Mazda also went through a bad period for rust. I remember seeing a couple of years ago either a 2005/6 Mazda 6 with rotten wheel arches like I've not seen since cars in the 1970s. This may well have been resolved on the newer models, I don't know.
|
Everyone knows that Toyota/Lexus is the most reliable brand.
They may be reliable but like I said above after 3 Fords, 3 Nissans (all built up north), 4 VW's, a BMW and more recently 4 Skodas and all have been totally reliable over the past 25 years its not just a Toyota thing.
|
But they are... www.motorbiscuit.com/how-mazda-outranked-toyota-an.../
A US website looking at cars sold in the US.
Did Mazda sell cars with the 2.2 diesel in the US?.
|
But they are... www.motorbiscuit.com/how-mazda-outranked-toyota-an.../
A US website looking at cars sold in the US.
Did Mazda sell cars with the 2.2 diesel in the US?.
Not many, I bet.
Over here, I'd say at least a third of all Mazda3s and a majority of Mazda 6s and CX-5s sold over the past decade up until 2018/19 are diesels. Note also that the 1.6TD/1.5TD variant (Ford/PSA) also feastured in the Mazda2, 3 and CX-3, in addition to the 2.0TD in the cars from 2002 - 2010 era and the 2.2TD replacement.
I still see LOADS of diesels for sale on the website of dealerships in my region - people presumably offloading them before REALLY big problems occur because of them (at some point in their lives) being driven for lots of short trips from cold.
Other makes (including VAG) diesels seem to be more resilient to that sort of driving pattern, if perhaps rather polluting in the process.
|
|
Please don’t talk about VAG diesels being less polluting, you must have a very short memory...
Edited by chris87 on 13/03/2021 at 19:54
|
No, but they are phasing out diesels in the UK too. Let’s look at the current situation, rather than a few years back. If they’re number one by a healthy margin in the US based on their petrol engines, they will be the same in the UK. Were there problems with their diesels being used for deiving in town? Yes. Was there a rust problem about 15 years ago? Yes. Were they uniuque in these problems? No!
Either way, the point I’m trying to make is that according to the latest data, Mazda IS the most reliable brand in the world and that regardless of a reliability index, their engines should last longer than 150k miles.
The definition of reliability in Britain is fundamentally different than the definition of reliability in the rest of the world. The UK is based on consumption, finance, short-term ownership. Talk to those countries were 20 year opd cars are still running, see what they have to say about reliability.
Edited by chris87 on 13/03/2021 at 19:55
|
But they are... www.motorbiscuit.com/how-mazda-outranked-toyota-an.../
That report is just about the US, where I suspect most of their cars (not trucks) sold are petrol-engined (especially Mazdas). Whilst their pickup trucks will likely be diesel-powered, they are likely to be used as intended, rather than repeated shop trips to the shops or work, as many diesel cars are here in the UK.
Mazda are now transitioning from having a large number of diesel engines in their overall lineup to relatively few (as was the case before their Ford tie-up), with a growing number of mild hybrids and EVs/EVs+range extender petrol engines.
This may help to move them back up the reliability and overall customer satisfaction stakes worldwide. To help further, they'll have to improve the post-sales dealership experience, both in the UK and around the world generally.
They appear to have a better reputation for post-sales customer service in the US than in the UK, where it is (IMHO and seemingly of many Mazda3 owners on our own forum) rather patchy at best. Some dealers are good, quite a few a VERY poor.
Even in Australia, which until 2020 Mazda had a good reputation for customer care (and they were the second best on sales numbers to Toyota), they had a big PR disaster when systemic failings were uncovered and the government's regulator came down on them like the proverbial tonne of bricks.
|
|
Blimey! Left this for a day and there's plenty to catch up on. Thanks for your in-depth opinions.
I'm in agreement on:
- Regular maintenance of engines. The TDI got 10k changes (DIY) through its life and the Pug before it was even more regular IIRC. Got through 4 timing belt changes I think on the Golf too. Not yet (touch wood) had an engine give up on me - always been the bits around it.
- Not really wanting to go down the tuning route for all the above reasons. If I did then 100% would be insured as such - I've declared upgraded alloys, debadged rear and seat swap from a 150PD so no worries there.
The longevity engine question was aimed at the 1.4 TSI - have no concerns over the Mazda petrol unit if well maintained. Doesn't seem to be many 1.4TSI with high miles for sale which is the only concern.
Hopefully I can get out there and test drive some in April and I'll make my mind up then but thanks for the considerations.
|
“ Not really wanting to go down the tuning route for all the above reasons. If I did then 100% would be insured as such - I've declared upgraded alloys, debadged rear and seat swap from a 150PD so no worries there.”
Insurers will add a small premium for upgraded alloys etc but performance upgrades such as remap are deeply frowned upon and anyone who fits them is regarded as high risk which means substantial rises in prices to deter it and thus most don’t declare what they think is undetectable.
As a salesman for a large dealer with our own insurance approved body shop I often accompanied the insurance assessors up to the impound where cars which were potential write-offs were stored before appraisal in order to get first crack at flogging them another. He carried a laptop which allowed him to test for a remap or chip upgrade plus he was looking for undeclared upgrades, everything from spoilers and alloys down to an upgraded stereo. Any undeclared components would often mean the insurance being voided or any payout significantly downgraded. Any performance and executive cars that are commonly remapped were tested as they sought to avoid paying out.
|
As a salesman for a large dealer with our own insurance approved body shop I often accompanied the insurance assessors up to the impound where cars which were potential write-offs were stored before appraisal in order to get first crack at flogging them another.
Last time I had an an accident, not my fault, an out of control motorcyclist rattled down the side of my car damaging every panel, the assessor came to where I worked and I could not believe how closely he looked all over the car. Must have spent about an hour noting every small detail most of which were totally irreverent to the accident and in areas of the car that were undamaged.
After he had finished I asked him what it was about and he basically said they look for any small detail to give them a get out of jail free card regardless of the fact the accident was not my fault. This was before the days of laptops and chips/tuning boxes/remaps but I suspect undeclared Carlos Fandango wheels, a huge boom box in the boot, a wicked stereo or even a loud exhaust would have worked against me despite none making the car faster.
|
|
Don't know if anyone is interested but quick update...
Went for a 2017 120 flavour Mazda3 as could get a newer car in better condition than if I'd tried to get the 165 version. Happy with the performance so far. Needs a spirited drive in terms of the revs but enjoying that combined with the handling after years of diesel power and boat-like Golf handling.
Time will tell if I yearn for more power but on today's roads it's feeling plenty fast enough. Sprint to sixty is around 9 seconds which is quicker than the Golf and I've not had problems sensibly overtaking.
Plus it looks lovely in machine grey
Edited by freddieflintoff on 15/08/2021 at 22:02
|
|
A very good car, one of my favourite used buys. Enjoy it and long may it serve you well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
