Each uses a torque converter auto and both very reliable cars in all respect (including the auto box). The Civic has a more spacious cabin and a bigger boot. The Mazda is most commonly found with the 120bhp 2.0 (there is a 165bhp version, but not many about), the Civic will have a 138bhp 1.8 so a bit livelier. Both n/a engines though, so if you are coming from a turbo (petrol or diesel) you will have to get used to giving it some revs to get the best out of it.

I currently drive a 2013 Merc A-class Sport that I have owned for 6.5 years - the longest I have ever owned a car, but now looking to switch back to Japanese, having previously had two Accords and SHMBO is on her third Civic (2005 plate with over 108k and still going strong)..

We may drop to just 1 car and ideally Honda HRV but at our budget £14k they are like rocking horse do-da and mainly blue. No offense to anyone with a blue car but blue just doesn't do it for me. My leanings are to a 2016/2017 civic EX or 2018 Mazda 3 Sport Nav.. I'm 75 and Mrs is 10 years behind me. I'm thinking automatic this time.

Opinions on the Civic and Mazda auto's please. Is there anything I should be aware of with either box?

I appreciate that I (we) will need to test drive both so I'm not asking for specific recommendations, but would want to avoid buying something with potential similar issues to certain VW boxes for example.

Thanks in advance.

Whilst you may be looking to get the 'Sport' spec model of the Mazda3 for the additional gizmos and possibly (not all have it) the optional extra leather seats, I personally would go for the mid-spec SE-L Nav updated version of the gen-3 Mazda3 and get the newest one you can find. Whether that would stretch to an early gen-4 Skyactiv-X (180PS) SE-L or SE-L Lux, I'm not sure. Definitely worth finding out though.

The spec is very good value for money, but the ride will be better due to them being shod on 16in rims and higher sidewall tyres (which still handle well), plus they have the added bonus of lasting longer, being better on mpg, cheaper to replace (by far) and less susceptible to damage than the 18in low profile tyres fitted to the Sport models.

The 2L Skayactiv-G 120PS engine is not exactly sporty, but is fine as an everyday driver one, and the TC auto box is smooth. Obviously the mating of the two means that the car's acceleration is just average (0-60 in about 10.3 sec).

I test drove the manual version (in SE-L Nav form) and a CX-3 (based on the Mazda2) 2.0 Sport Auto (same gearbox as the 3) back in early 2017 and found them both fine to drive - excellent handling, comfortable seats, nice interior (the gen-4 Mazda3 is a significant step-up in interior quality and styling in general), but the performance was a slight let down, as I was looking for a reasonable step up from my own 2006 (gen-1) Mazda 1.6 petrol.

Note also the that the 2L SA-G engine is the gen-4 (latest) car has been downrated from the gen-3 - same power/torque output, but for some reason, slower to 60 by some margin. The difference isn't as much for the auto version for some reason (10.9sec).

Note also that Mazdas now (gen-3 and 4 mazda3s) do NOT come with spare wheels/tyres fitted in the under boot area as standard, and likely the Sport models use that area to fit extra in-car entertainment equipement, meaning you have to rely on the OEM 'tube of goo' to temporarily seal minor holes in a punctured tyre (which will likely have to be replaced) - but not major ones.

Lower spec models like the SE-L and SE will have that spacae available - some people would have bought the spare wheel/tyre set, tool kit (jack etc) and odd-shapped polystyrene cut-out to house them, but many don't, and the overall kit costs £395 (last time I looked) from dealerships. You may be able to use the fitment of the spare as a bargaining tool with the dealership. I would get one. Note that it's fitment WILL mean the boot floor is raised up to accommodate it, so check to see if the boot is still adequate for your needs before buying the car.

Not sure what the situation is with the Honda Civic of that era. Decent engine, performance and mpg but not exactly a looker (especially on the inside) and they are more expensive to buy. Also not sure what the situation is on specs and tyre sizes available/standard on each spec.

Definitely get a decent length test drive for both, covering different types of road, including those which are poorly surfaced or bumpy. - for noise and comfort.