The Mazda3’s performance has always kept it a step ahead of the other economy cars on the market. However, as Mazda’s worked to differentiate their econobox from cookie-cutter Cobalts, Corollas and Civics visually, they’ve tweaked it from different to borderline bizarre. It is said beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bones. Has Mazda gone too far, or is the 2010 Mazda3s Sport still good enough underneath to make you overlook its sheet metal shortcomings?
Mazda says the front-end styling of the Mazda3 is borrowed from the RX-8. If that’s so, then they need to return it posthaste. Its grinning countenance brings to mind the pre-Heath Ledger Joker. And when you discover more than half the grill is blocked off and only a small portion of it functions to funnel air anywhere, you have to wonder what Animé-influenced acid trip the designers were on. 
Fortunately the inside is as good as the outside is bizarre. A dual pod instrument cluster sits right in front of the driver, displaying the electroluminescent speedometer and tach. You also get a bar-graph gas gauge but all indicators of the engine’s wellbeing are relegated to warning lights. The leather-wrapped steering wheel sports buttons for the cruise control, audio system, Bluetooth and nav system, and all of the other controls on the dash are well marked and easy to figure out.
The seats deserve special mention. They’re firm, well bolstered and one of the few seats I’ve been able to get comfortable in without an inordinate amount of fiddling and squirming. While power adjustment is standard in the top-line Touring model, the lesser models’ manually adjustable seats are so good you don’t miss the electronics. 
The only real ergonomic blunder is the optional nav system. The screen is above and to the right of the instrument cluster, almost at the base of the windshield. The tiny screen is hard to read and the steering-wheel-mounted controls are inaccessible to the passenger. That means the driver has to divert his attention from the road to locate local points of interest, restaurants, etc.—tasks best relegated to the passenger while the vehicle is in motion.
And you don’t want to divert your attention from the road, especially when that road is the infamous Tail of the Dragon. Mazda says the 3s has “zoom-zoom,” so to see if they’re right my son and I drove up to Tennessee to abuse put the 3s through its paces. 
Driving there showed it’s a capable freeway cruiser. It had no problems keeping up with (or leading) traffic. The 2.5L, 167HP engine has plenty oomph for passing and the 168 lb·ft of torque makes it quick off the line. The five-speed automatic shifts almost imperceptibly. Overall it’s fairly quiet on smooth pavement, and with a Cd of 0.29 there’s a minimum of wind noise (at least with the sunroof closed). However, if the surface is somewhat rough, quite a bit of tire and road noise filters through.
But where the Mazda3s shines is when the freeway ends and the twisties start. It had no problem exceeding the (ridiculously low) posted speed limit on the Cherohala Skyway (thanks, Trooper Allen, for cutting me a little slack!). I tried manually shifting the transmission but it seemed happiest when left to its own devices. Even at altitudes in excess of 5000 feet, the engine didn’t seem to be straining. 
The real test came once we hit the Tail of the Dragon. Mazda says they recalibrated the suspension for 2010. Whatever they did, it worked. This thing boogies like a Bollywood babe. There was a bit of understeer as you might expect, but the handling was totally predictable. The steering is light but never feels over-assisted and you get excellent feedback.
The P205/50R17 Yokohamas voiced their protest at times but the car never faltered as I hound-dogged a motorcycle the entire 11 miles. After alternating between the two pedals for all 318 curves, the 11.8-inch front and 11-inch rear disk brakes showed no sign of fading. This car has the type of handling performance you paid big bucks for in sports cars two decades ago. And it runs rings around other similarly-priced econoboxes. 
We returned home tired but I could have sworn I heard the car saying “more, please” as we got out. For all my heavy-footed driving it still returned a respectable 25 mpg (EPA rating is 22/29) My only misgiving was that it had the automatic instead of the six-speed manual. I guess it’s a good thing it didn’t have the third pedal, though. There’s only so much fun someone my age can handle in one day and the Mazda3 delivered in spades. Like an ugly puppy that grows into a faithful lifelong companion, the Mazda3’s goodness transcends its questionable looks.
[Mazda provided the vehicle, insurance and a tank of fuel for this review.]
98 Comments on “Review: 2010 Mazda3s Sport...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
How can you not think WTF was going thru their heads when they slapped that clown face on?
I prefer the 1998 Chevron Tina Turbo. Still $5 on eBay.
Very nice.
And having driven both the i and s, I think spot on.
However, to me the looks are worse in pictures than live.
On the street, the new look is more lively than ugly.
And its strange that my teenage kids love it, the wife gags.
And one more thing, the whole design works better on the hatch than the sedan.
But over all, still THE top econo car.
To me the Civic looks boring.
I’ve already seen quite a few of these one the road, and I’m even starting to find the front end attractive. It certainly makes a statement…it says happy. I can appreciate what Mazda was trying to do.
My co-workers wife has an ‘04 3s and it had to have the automatic transmission replaced at 40,000 miles. Just thought I’d relay that.
Does anyone else find the mileage a bit low for an economy car? I get 25 mpg in my 350Z, easily.
Nice car, but I don’t like the front end. Said the same thing about Audi’s bass out of water look. But it’s growing on me. Think the A5 coupe is gorgeous.
As far as I’m concerned the 2.5 was really a mistake.
A car this size just doesn’t need that much metal under the hood. A slightly tuned up 2.0 would have done the job just fine, without the weight and MPG penalties.
Daydream as this is, it would have been more interesting to just wedge in a small <2.5 liter V6 from Mazda’s olden days.
I love the Cherohala Skyway . . . probably the best piece of pork our elected officials ever spent. Shame I’m 600 miles away from it.
matt: Yeah, 25 MPG is not great for an economy car. I can get better milage in my TSX, but in all fairness if you wanted economy you’d get the 3i with the 2.0L.
I test drove a 3 about 5 years ago and loved it. Wound up getting the 6 (only the 4-cyl) due to space considerations.
As with the 3, I like the looks of the older 6 compared to the new (even if the old front end looks cribbed from an Acura). I also particularly like the old tailight clusters; seems like every small car has the same “wedge”-shaped ones now.
May have to test drive the new 3 now that one kid will be off to college soon…
Aftermarket items could fix the front end (probably) and navigation (certainly), but the mileage is worrisome.
regardless of how good it is, i’d get nightmares from seeing that face lookin at me in the driveway, especially at night. And I thought nothing could possibly out-hideous the Acuras.
@ carguy: a new ATX was used from 2006 and on for the 2.3l models. It’s a 5-speed from JATCO. The reliability so far has been great for Mazda3 owners, especially compared to the 4-speed ATX. I have 60k miles on mine, no issues with shifting or any metal shavings (I replaced the fluid at 20k and just this past weekend).
Mazda was smart to not mess too much with the 3’s chassis when updating the car, it’s already a solid car with great handling and a pretty comfortable ride (there will always be a tradeoff at this price range). The biggest downfalls I’ve had with my 06 GT wagon has been paint chips from this new environmentally-friendly paint and excessive road noise on certain asphalt types.
Design wise, the front is a bit excessive but does look good in darker colors. Also, picture angles always tend to be at a lower POV than if you were looking at the car while standing in front. You see more of the design flow in person. There is a “bar” that goes along the top of the grill, if that was painted I think it might subdue the front a little bit.
Handling, road noise, and winter driving become much better when I replaced the OEM Goodyear Eagle RSA tires with Michelin Pilot Exalto A/S tires. Pads still have another 20k on them! And no motor mount issues so far, but this has been a common problem due to the design of having a rubber bladder taking so much vibration. It’s a cheap fix (~$150 at the dealer) and relatively easy for a DIY. I’ve been very pleased with the car, and it’s always enjoyable to drive…even loaded down with 3 adults, a toddler, and gear for a weekend to Glacier or Teton NP.
The mileage is similiar to what I get with…which is just fine with me. I didn’t buy the smaller engine, a Civic, Focus, Corolla, or Hybrid. I do get constantly better than the EPA rating. I average 30-32 MPG on highway trips (80 MPH, varying elevations), and about 24 MPG around town, Boise traffic tends to flow decently and some lights are timed well.
As FWD cars go, the 3 handles superbly. But I just can’t get past that hideous face.
@Justin: I’d like to see a Club-Spec style sedan. Slip the 2.0l from the MX-5 into a base sedan, add brakes and suspension bits from the Mazdaspeed3 (if possible). That would be Zoom-Zoom.
If this is the best car in its segment, that face it has will send me to purchase the second-best. I don’t consider a car’s looks to be the most important thing, but I have limits.
Mazda should do an internal investigation into the exterior design team regarding sabotage.
How is the backseat, say compared to a Ford Fusion or the old Focus Hatch for ‘adult’ leg room?
I drove one of these a few months ago.
The handling was as described. But the styling–I couldn’t get over it.
I didn’t care much for the powertrain–the 2.5 felt rougher at high RPM than I remember the 2.3 feeling, and the automatic sapped all potential joy. Like the 2.3, the 2.5 doesn’t have the sort of midrange punch needed to enjoy an automatic powertrain. I’ve been meaning to drive another with the manual, and expect it to be considerably more fun.
Didn’t test MPG–it was just a test drive. But note that he was hammering this car. That’s going to have an impact. TrueDelta has a real-world gas mileage survey. The new 2.5 appears to get low 20s is true city driving, mid 20s in suburban driving, and about 30 in mostly highway driving.
TrueDelta will have an initial reliability stat in November. Additional participants always helpful.
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
Happy faces are for kids assignments. There’s a 5-door white one of these on my street and the styling is completely overwrought. Never mind the face, the rest of it is a design school dropouts dream. It reeks of desperation on Mazda’s part.
The previous Mazda 3 was the best poor man’s BMW to come along since the first-gen Sentra SE-R. Aside from disappointing fuel economy and some paint problems, it was a near-perfect product.
There was no need to slap a silly clown face on the new model, but it is what it is. At least Mazda didn’t screw up the dynamics like Nissan did. And I like the new interior, especially the dashboard which has an organic asymmetry to it.
Regarding engine harshness, in the world of motorcycles a single-cylinder 550cc engine is called a “thumper” for good reason. Not surprisingly, in the automotive sphere many fours which exceed 2.2 litres and sixes which exceed 3.3 are known to be NVH-challenged relative to their smaller brethren.
@ sc5i: the interior is slightly roomier than a Focus 5-door but smaller than a Fusion. Fusion is the next size up.
Also, the Fusion does get better mileage out of this 2.5l I-4. It has a 6-speed ATX and is geared higher throughout the range than the Mazda with the 5-speed ATX.
That navigation screen is hilariously terrible. How are you supposed to see that without binoculars?
Did Mazda just stuff a Tom Tom into some black plastic trim and call it a day?
Daydream as this is, it would have been more interesting to just wedge in a small <2.5 liter V6 from Mazda’s olden days.
I agree. Remember the 1.8L 6 pot in the old MX-3? What a ridiculous, wonderful little engine that was. It made no sense, and yet it was such a great idea at the same time.
If this is the best car in its segment, that face it has will send me to purchase the second-best. I don’t consider a car’s looks to be the most important thing, but I have limits.
+1.
Can’t believe I’m writing this, but I don’t care how good this car is dynamically. I would never get over the exterior. Absolute deal-breaker.
It makes the Acura TL seem normal and the Subaru Impreza look like an Aston Martin.
If that makes me a poseur or a bad enthusiast then so be it.
I don’t like the grill either, but damn people, it’s not THAT ugly. We’re not talk in Aztek ugly. I gave it a lot of thought and decided that the comfortable seats were _way_ more important than the grill. I spent most of my driving time on the inside of the car….
And for the record, not one single person that I’ve showed the car to has noticed the ’smiley face’ grill until it was pointed out to them. It just doesn’t stand out that much in person compared to the press pictures.
+1 on mileage. My 1998 BMW 328i sedan manual transmission gets 21 city and 33 highway.
Twotone
I saw a few of these on the road. It’s really growing on me. As usual, the hatch looks best.
I just want to grab red paint and put “lipstick” all around the front air vent. They I will grab a large red ball and stick it on the hood as the nose.
Nice review, Frank…well done.
Back in ‘05, when I bought my last car, this was a finalist, along with the Focus ST (with the 160-hp Mazda 2.3) and Corolla XRS. The 3 was definitely the best car, but Ford gave me a deal no sane human could ignore (almost 6 grand off).
Haven’t regretted buying the Focus – it’s actually been a wonderful car – but if money’s no object, the 3 is definitely the car I’d recommend…ugly nose and silly nav screen be damned.
Here’s my question, though…since the 3’s platform is shared with the Euro Focus, why the hell did they stick with a warmed-over version of the old-gen Focus platform for ‘08?
I’ve heard price is the culprit, but I think that’s bunk – they sell the new-gen Focus in Mexico, of all places, it can’t be that expensive to produce. Ford really dropped the ball on that one.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Civic does gear their autobox to enjoy revving the engine, while the Mazda 3 will often upshift on you to try to lower fuel consumption (during normal driving). So my 09 near base Civic does feel more zoomy than the Mazda’s I test drove.
@ FreedMike: I think the price of federalizing the C1 platform for Ford’s use in the States was the “price” culprit. Plus, the Mazda can be priced slightly higher than the Focus…even though the base sedans are pretty close in MSRP.
The C170 Focus is still a fun car to drive, although Ford has softened it a bit since the original hatchback.
So, to the people calling this car ugly (and I’ll admit, it took me some time)… is it 1986 Taurus ugly (as in, we haven’t warmed up to it yet) or Subaru Tribeca ugly (weird ugliness)?
25 MPG in hard ass mountain driving ain’t bad at all
I’ve never seen a review photo of the new 3 with an affixed North American license plate.
There’s good reason for this. It looks like a buck-toothed yokel off a 50s cartoon reel.
Can’t agree with some of the posters – the front end actually pisses me off more in real life than in pictures. Almost up there with the Buick Rendezvous.
I think if people are defending it by picking out very specific vehicles which are even MORE ugly…it’s sort of proving that it is, yes, very very ugly.
I like the difference in behavior between the designer out of Irvine versus the designer out of Hiroshima…
Vid 1
Vid 2 (Yes, the interviewer actually says the design gets him “rock hard”)
I think you can blame them both studios in some capacity for the wacky front clip on the Mazda3.
For years I’ve complained about the Jet Jaguar school of Japanese automobile design, but never in my wildest dreams did I think they’d graft Jet’s face into an actual production car. Even if this were the best car in the world, I’d walk away…I’d simply be too embarrassed to drive it.
Looks like the hallucinations that Lisa Simpson had when Marge put her on Ignoritall…
While the “whale tail” design elements in the last iteration of the 3 put me off from buying it, this silly crap (right up there with the “horse-collar” grill of the Edsel) makes me wonder if Mazda has lost their sanity.
Take a great car with “iffy” styling and ‘improve’ it by making it as friggin’ goofy-looking as possible.
I can’t wait until one is attacked by a pack of angry Dodge Chargers (wat r U smilng about, punk?) in a mall parking lot.
A nice car that is suffering from a poor choice of grills. True it does look like the Joker or maybe Philip IV displaying the prominent “Habsburg lip”. Mazda needs to go in a different direction or their sales will go zoom,zoom.
So, the 2010 has been available for a few months, right?
There are lots of Mazda 3’s in my area.
Do you know how many LSD Fish-Face 3’s I’ve seen on the road so far?
Zero. Nada. Not one.
I expect Mazda to design a retrofit, or the 2010’s will be rusting in lots all over North America.
Great car. Makes a repulsive statement about any purchaser, though.
Guys, I drive a nine-year-old Crown Vic, but I wouldn’t be seen in a new Mazda 3.
Yeah that front end is really bad. It’s surprising that so many people let it pass to production. They should have kept the original look. I wouldn’t buy it on look alone (and i saw some rust problem on earlier version)
This was an enjoyable review, and I loved the photos w/ comments, esp. the one of the car’s godforsaken front end. Mazda’s styling lately has become a real obstacle to potential buyers who prefer a simple, refined look.
I used to drive an ‘03 Corolla, and I’ve driven more recent ones as rentals. I think for a driver who’s focused on practical design and comfort, the Mazda suffers in comparison.
I used to easily get 29 mpg on a mix of mostly city/some hwy driving in that 4-speed automatic Corolla. The Mazda, with newer technology, should get better mileage – maybe it does need a smaller engine.
Also, why do designers insist on putting the speedometer and tach in separate pods? It’s distracting and makes it harder to scan the instruments quickly. I’ve noticed this same problem in my wife’s ‘05 Rav4 – Toyota does this too, on some models it wants to make seem “sportier”.
I know the Corolla may not drive as well or have the refined transmission or suspension of the Mazda 3. But its instrument panel and controls are a model of simplicity and common sense in comparison.
On a related note, I’ve driven this car’s other main competition, the Honda Civic, extensively, and that car’s much-maligned instrument panel (2-level digital instruments) works amazingly well – you never have to take your eyes off the road in order to check the key instruments (speed, fuel level, and engine temp).
One good thing: From the driver’s seat, you can’t see the grille.
The 3 has been the poor man’s BMW for a few years now, as has already been said.
Since my old Alfa doesn’t have power steering, our last couple club excursions to the ToftheD have been nice workouts. Probably one of the best roads in the world. Watch out for the kamikaze bikers, and you’ll be OK
Corolla XRS with the 2.4L and TRD springs will smoke this Mazda. Plus, Corolla is a much more refined car, and looks awesome, what can’t be said of the Mazda here.
Tidbit I picked up from an instructor at Skip Barber.
NEVER buy a used red Mazda 3 ;-)
Someone needs to make some aftermarket “teeth” to put in that grill. That would be hilarious.
Maybe glue a beard on?
amcadoo
Someone needs to make some aftermarket “teeth” to put in that grill. That would be hilarious.?
Do you mean like this
@The Comedian: Oops.
The new face is slightly obnoxious but really doesn’t bug me at all. I’d still buy a 2010 hatch in a heartbeat.
@ Frank Williams:
How titillating – but then I have a somewhat embarrassing gap fetish.
Rada :
Corolla XRS with the 2.4L and TRD springs will smoke this Mazda. Plus, Corolla is a much more refined car, and looks awesome, what can’t be said of the Mazda here.
TTAC isn’t the ToyotaNation forum.
@ FreedMike: I think the price of federalizing the C1 platform for Ford’s use in the States was the “price” culprit. Plus, the Mazda can be priced slightly higher than the Focus…even though the base sedans are pretty close in MSRP.
I think this is a total cop-out for Ford… they say the platform was too expensive to federalize? BS. The S40 Volvo, and the Mazda 3 are on the same platform as the Euro Focus… IT IS ALREADY FEDERALIZED!
What it comes down to is the fact that American’s are not sophisticated enough to spend real money on these “economy” cars… therefore Ford needs to squeak as much profit as they can out of the Focus by using an outdated platform.
Of course, when you really break it down the US Focus, Volvo, Mazda, AND the Euro-Focus still share the suspension (control blade rear)…
Test drove one of these a couple of months back… a few observations:
1. The Sport with no options in a darker color would be my pick – you really don’t need any of the options and the dark masks the ugly black plastic “mouth” more effectively.
2. The cloth seats are fantastic… and it has been quite a while since I’ve said that about cloth seats. The fabric is high quality (no mouse fur!), the bolstering is just right for a daily driven sporty car.
3. The clutch/shifter is ridiculously easy to modulate. I don’t think I could get a rough shift/stall if I tried. Best front-drive transmission I’ve used in a while.
4. Handling is very good considering the ride/handling balance, although I felt the whole thing was a bit numb and uninvolving. Of course, I feel that way about most modern cars.
5. Power and torque are good, especially for this segment, but as mentioned it doesn’t feel eager to rev. For how 95% of people drive, and especially with the automatic the emphasis on low-end and midrange flexibility is probably the right call.
5. Quality overall seemed very good and improved from the previous generation.