Mazda 3


Debut: 2019
Maker: Mazda
Predecessor: Mazda 3 Mk3



 Published on 14 Mar 2020
All rights reserved. 


Mazda has built a stronger contender to the class laurel, and it is full of character.


I really want to put the 4th generation Mazda 3 at the top of its class. Yes, who doesn’t like its striking look? or its classy interior? or its innovative Skyactiv-X engine? or its persistence in pleasing keen drivers? In the increasingly familiar landscape of automotive industry, there are fewer and fewer players dare to explore different directions. Volkswagen group, for instance, used to chase engineering innovations and excellence under the direction of Dr. Ferdinand Piech. Before it, Mercedes had many world’s firsts. Even earlier, General Motors was the world's most creative car maker (a sigh...). In the 1980s, Nissan and Mitsubishi were the leaders of Japanese high-tech invasion. Oh, I nearly forget Honda for its countless of technological breakthroughs. Somehow, under the threat of climate change, hence the risk of complete melt down of the automotive industry, everybody turns to much the same solutions, i.e. lithium batteries, permanent magnet motors, skateboard architecture, electric torque vectoring… so boring to us. What distinguish a Porsche Taycan from an 8-year-old Tesla Model S are just the details. What separate a Mercedes A-class from BMW 1-Series from Volkswagen Golf are no longer mechanical layouts but the interior plastic textures or the software interfaces of their touchscreens. In the new world order, there is not much for car enthusiasts to talk about anymore, so bad! Fortunately, we still have Mazda left. From Wankel rotary engines to Skyactiv-X, it has never changed its adventurous heart. Yes, based on this reason alone, I really want to put the Mazda 3 above all the mainstream compact family cars.


It has a silhouette not unlike an Italian design masterpiece, Alfa Romeo Brera.


I even like the idea that killed its Axela name in Japan and unify its global nameplate, because a strong product never needs more than one name. Localization is meaningful only if the products are really different and tailored to different needs of the markets. Otherwise, globalization is the way to go. The only thing differing the Japanese market Mazda 3 from its European and American versions is the availability of an entry-level 1.5-liter Skyactiv-G engine, which qualifies for the country's lower tax band. It is even offered the same Skyactiv-D diesel engine as its European version.

This car is truly head-turning. Admittedly, its proportion is a bit exaggerated, but it is not bad to get a little wild sometimes. The Mazda 3 hatchback has a very long and pointy nose, a fast windscreen and a silhouette not unlike an Italian design masterpiece, Alfa Romeo Brera. It is the sports car in the family hatch class. By the way, the last Mazda compact car giving me the same visual excitement was the 1993 Astina. As you see, great designs always live in people’s hearts. I am not sure if the new car will be still remembered by today’s teenagers 30 years later, but we can safely say it is the most radical design among all family hatches at this moment. I especially like its front grille, whose semi-exposed ring is elegant. On the downside, the rear side windows look too small to me, and it certainly has negative effects on rear-quarter visibility and cabin ambience.

The sedan is also handsome. Its rear side windows are larger thus more balanced. Unfortunately, the proportion is not. The Mazda’s cab-rearward proportion means the front is long and the rear is extremely short. A bit cartoonish.


The 3-box sedan has a cartoonish proportion.


Size-wise, the hatchback does not differ much from the last generation. It keeps the same length and width while cutting 10mm height and boosting 25mm wheelbase – the latter is a class-leading 2725mm, although you know the cab-rearward proportion doesn't help interior space. Compared with a VW Golf, the Mazda is a massive 200mm longer, and its 3-box version adds another 200mm. It is also a little heavier than the class norm.

Inside, yes, it is not terribly spacious. In fact, a bit cramped. The front seats are fine. Rear seat legroom matches that of the Golf, if not the more spacious Ford Focus, but the problem is that sloping roof line eating into headroom, which is a massive 60mm less than the Golf. This means the rear seats are suitable to only shorter adults or children. Just as expected, the small windows and thick C-pillars result in a claustrophobic feeling and very poor rear-quarter visibility, making reverse or lane-changing uneasy. For a striking exterior design, the Mazda sacrifices some practicalities.

Even so, I still want to put it at the top of its class, because you’ll find the best interior design and build quality in the segment. Many talk about driver-focused interior design, but only Mazda takes it so seriously. Its dashboard design looks as if taken from a Porsche or Corvette. To keep you focused on driving, it refuses to use fancy TFT instrument, or even a touchscreen for the infotainment system. You access the latter through a BMW iDrive-like rotary dial on transmission tunnel, which is easier to control while the car is moving. The 8.8-inch display mounted above the center console is not terribly large or filled with fancy graphics, but it keeps your sight close to the road ahead. Moreover, head-up display is standard equipment.



For the first time a compact car’s interior can topple Volkswagen Golf for quality perception.


For the first time, a compact car’s interior can topple Volkswagen Golf for quality perception. The materials used are impossibly expensive for this class, with plenty of great-looking and good-touching leatherette, soft plastics and metallic trims. Not just that, all switchgears deliver a quality feel when you touch and operate them. All buttons are well damped and rotary knobs have consistent feel, something used to be reserved for Volkswagen. The infotainment system is well designed, intuitive and responsive. Equipment level is high, although the Mazda has a price tag as premium as Volkswagen.

Just a few years back, Mazda was often criticized for ignoring cabin design and quality. It has really listened to customer voices and worked hard to lift its game, from the bottom of to the top of the class. Great job!

Mazda has also worked hard on NVH suppression, resulting in a cabin that is well insulated from wind and road noises. A stiffer chassis by means of 30 percent ultra-high-strength steel is one of the reasons. The use of tires with softer sidewalls is another. Unfortunately, part of the work is offset by the decision to switch to torsion-beam rear axle... Yes, the 3 has abandoned the multi-link rear suspension that it has been persisting since its birth in 2003. That is a strange decision, considering most of its arch-rivals keep using multi-link setup (at least on more powerful models), such as Golf, Focus, Civic, A-class, 1-Series, A3, i30, Ceed and even the new Corolla! How come Mazda chose a backward step? Perhaps to offset the extra cost it spent on the interior?


If you drive the car on the smoother roads, you might swear that it has lost none of its driver appeal.


If you drive the car on the smoother roads that normally found in Japan, Germany or North America, you might swear that it has lost none of its driver appeal. This is still one of the best driving cars in the class. Like an MX-5, its suspension setup is relatively soft, resulting in a fair amount of body roll in corner, but the motion is progressive and predictable, thanks in part to locating the driver right at the center of the car. The steering is not very quick, lacking the sharpness and feel of Ford Focus, but it works precisely and loads up nicely in corner. The front-end bite is not as strong as Ford, too, but still it feels eager to turn, agile and well balanced in corner. Lift off the throttle will tuck in its nose a little, revealing a communicative chassis. All controls deliver satisfying weight and feedback. Overall, it is not as sporty as Ford, but very good nonetheless.

The downside is ride quality. On rougher roads, the torsion-beam axle and 215/45R18 tires reveal their limitations. Big bumps can be still dealt with satisfactorily, but smaller regularities on rough surfaces make it feel harsher and noisier than the multi-link camp rivals. That is a pity, because if not switching to the cheaper suspension, it could have matched or beat Focus as the driver's choice, or matches Golf for refinement. An opportunity lost.

Maybe the unique engines could claw back some points? The new 3 offers a choice of Skyactiv-G, Skyactiv-D and Skyactiv-X engines. Let’s see the diesel first. It is a new 1.8-liter unit, down from the last generation’s (admittedly oversized) 2.2-liter, and its turbocharging is simplified from sequential twin-turbo to a single VTG turbo setup. As a result, output is reduced from 150 to merely 116 horsepower, while torque sees an even larger reduction to 199 lbft. Generally speaking, this is an acceptable motor, offering good mid-range torque and satisfactory quietness, but its biggest problem is turbo lag – and a lot. Just about any rivals offer better diesel engines.



Lacking some world-class engines undermines Mazda's effort to make this a great driver's car.


Anyway, most people are likely to opt for the Skyactiv-G petrol engines. These includes 1.5-liter, 2.0-liter and 2.5-liter units. The first one is restricted to Japan and the last one is reserved for America. The 1.5-liter produces 111hp, not bad for a naturally aspirated engine, but torque output is no match for rivals’ 1-liter turbo, so you will need to work harder on gearchange to compensate. Still, it is a joy to use the 6-speed manual gearbox, whose shift is accurate, short and offers a satisfying mechanical feel, if not as slick as Honda’s. The optional 6-speed automatic is also quite good a companion for less enthusiastic drivers.

The Skyactiv-G 2.0 engine has two states of tune. It is rated at 156hp and 147lbft in Japan, but in Europe the output drops to a laughable 122hp. Obviously this version runs more in Atkinson cycles to save fuel and meet the stringent CO2 target in Europe. Not only slow, the motor sounds unhappy to work at high rev, seriously hurting the car's sporting pretension.

Naturally, the largest 2.5-liter engine is the best if you don’t consider fuel economy. It runs the least aggressive fuel-saving strategy thus it is also the closest to a conventional naturally aspirated engine. 186 horsepower and pound-foot of torque lands 0-60 in a tad over 7 seconds, quick enough to warrant its driver’s car status. However, it still lacks the stronger mid-range torque as well as refinement of turbocharged motors, so in the real world it doesn't feel too quick or too relaxing. The Skyactiv-G has never been renowned for a sweet top end delivery or a great sound, so is this one.

Skyactive-X engine

As none of the above engines are exactly world-class, the novel 2.0 Skyactiv-X is the last chance for the Mazda 3 to win my favour – yes, I really want to rank it to the top of the class. Mazda invested heavily into its research and development. The Skyactiv-X is the closest thing to HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition) engine, which uses very high compression ratio instead of spark plugs to ignite air and fuel mixture into combustion. In other words, HCCI is the gasoline version of diesel engines. Since combustion is triggered by pressure rather than spark flames, it happens quickly and at the same moment throughout the combustion chambers, right when the piston reaches the top dead center. Therefore it can make use of the entire power stroke, producing more torque in each combustion. In contrast, conventional spark ignition engines take time for spark flames to propagate in the combustion chamber, so the combustion keeps happening when the piston is going down, wasting some work done. In addition, the higher compression ratio it uses also enhances thermal efficiency. Furthermore, eliminating the high temperature spark flames reduces the formation of NOx, making the engine easier to pass emission regulations. For decades, manufacturers like Mercedes and GM did a lot of research and experiment but still failed to bring HCCI to reality. Why? Because gasoline is more volatile than diesel, thus it is difficult to control the moment of self-combustion. Apart from pressure, temperature of air and combustion chambers can also influence. If combustion happens before or after the piston reaching the top, it becomes what we call “knock”, cancelling power, generating noise and vibration. 
 

Skyactiv-X engine is a technical breakthrough, but it is not matured enough to see real-world benefits.


Mazda’s breakthrough is to operate the engine just under the self-combustion threshold, and then use spark ignition to help triggering the combustion, so the firm calls it SPCCI (Spark Controlled Compression Ignition) instead of HCCI. The Skyactiv-X engine runs a compression ratio of 16.3:1, much higher than the 14:1 of Skyactiv-G but not high enough to trigger combustion or knock in all situations. Its main injection uses an ultra-lean air-fuel ratio of 37:1, compared with 14.6:1 on conventional gasoline engines and also leaner than the stratified mode of direct injection engines. When the piston reaches the top position, it adds a small jet of fuel around the spark plug, enriching the mixture of that area to 29:1. Then the spark plug ignites the mixture, causes a small-scale combustion at around the spark plug. Now the pressure increases immediately, exceeding the threshold and triggering the self-combustion to happen throughout the combustion chamber. It sounds easy, but the key is to control the ignition moment precisely, so Mazda adds a pressure sensor right at the center top of each combustion chamber to meter the pressure precisely.

Another problem is how to get so much air into the engine, as the ultra-lean mixture requires more air. Mazda’s solution is to add a small roots-type supercharger, which inevitably adds weight and cost to the engine. The third problem is how to deal with the demand of high power, because lean burn is efficient rather than powerful for a given engine size. The Skyactiv-X switches to conventional spark ignition combustion under higher loads and revs. To avoid the 16.3:1 compression causing knock, it retards the intake valve closing, so that some fresh air is drawn back to the intake manifold in the initial phase of compression stroke, resulting in a lower compression ratio. Yes, the same trick as what Skyactiv-G engine uses to switch between Otto and Atkinson cycles.

So much theories, but how does the Skyactiv-X 2-liter perform in the real world? Its numbers are okay, if not remarkable. Maximum power is 180 hp, while torque peaks at 165 lbft at 3000 rpm. As long as you see it as a naturally aspirated engine instead of a supercharged one, it is quite good, especially the peak torque arrives 1000 rpm or so lower than usual. Mazda claims good performance, too, with 0-60 mph quoted at 7.7 seconds. However, in the real world it hardly feels as quick. The extra torque is too subtle to feel. The Mazda 3 fitted with this engine is still short of performance compared with its turbocharged rivals – we are not talking about a Golf GTI but a Golf 1.5TSI, a Focus 1.5 Ecoboost or Civic 1.5T. Moreover, the Skyactiv-X engine lacks a sweet manner. Despite strong effort to mask its rough noises resulting from HCCI (see the photo, the engine is nearly encapsulated), it still sounds as coarse as a mediocre diesel engine, no matter at idle or under acceleration. It is also reluctant to visit its 6500 rpm limit.

Both the Skyactiv-X and Skyactiv-G 2.0 in Europe are equipped with 24V mild-hybrid system to save fuel. On 18-inch wheels (who wants the alternative 16-inch?), the Skyactiv-G emits 119 grams of CO2 each kilometer under NEDC cycles, while the more powerful Skyactiv-X beats it with an impressive 103 grams. That’s an improvement of 13 percent, accompanied with free horsepower. However, a Golf 1.5TSI 150hp is quicker and far more refined in the real world yet it emits only 6 grams more. Is the Skyactiv-X worth so much investment? At the moment, the answer seems negative. Keep developing the technology, 5 or 10 years later might be another story – assuming ICE cars are not dead by then.

Yes, I really want to put Mazda 3 at the top of its class (how many times I have said?), but unfortunately, its great looks, its good handling and its quality interior are bundled with weak engines, cramped rear seat and a slightly harsh ride due to downgraded suspension. Even if you are a hardcore driver, you might forgive the last 2 flaws but definitely not the first one. Give the car a world-class engine and it may easily get my vote. Right now, it is just one short of great.
Verdict: 
 Published on 25 Nov 2020
All rights reserved. 
Mazda 3 Turbo


Not a hot hatch, but a more powerful extension of the Mazda 3.


We have been waiting for this car too long. You know, Mazda 3 is one of the most driver-focused family hatchbacks on the market. However, the last generation skipped a high-performance model, which was available in the first and second generation under the badge “Mazdaspeed” or “MPS”. It was a strange decision, because we were sure it would have been a thrilling option for driving enthusiasts. Now Mazda finally responds to our prayers by introducing the Mazda 3 Turbo.

Expectation for this car is unquestionably high, especially when you know it packs a 2.5-liter turbo motor and AWD system. Those specifications sound like a Ford Focus RS or Subaru WRX STi, so you might expect something possessing 350 horsepower and 0-60 mph in 4.5 seconds, cornering as if on rails, and stopping as good as a rally car. Unfortunately, it turns out to be something else. Mazda calls it a premium compact, indicating a direct rival to Mercedes A-class, Audi A3 and BMW 2-Series Gran Coupe. Hey, premium is fine, but we thought it should have rivalled an AMG A35, S3 or M235i Gran Coupe instead of their cooking sisters, because it runs a 2.5-liter Turbo and all-wheel-drive. Otherwise, why would you waste money and fuel consumption for the extra mechanicals?

The spec. sheet confirms our disappointment. This large motor produces “only” 250 horsepower at a very unsporty 5000 rpm. Note that this is achieved with 93 Octane premium fuel. If you feed it with regular fuel, it will drop to 227 horses. On the plus side, its torque output is remarkable, peaking at 320 lbft (or 10 lbft less with regular fuel), although this arrives at a rather high, 2500 rpm. For comparison, the latest Volkswagen Golf R offers 320 horsepower and 310 lbft of torque from 2100 rpm, and it is achieved with a 2.0-liter engine. The Mazda engine is not very power-dense because it is not designed to be a high-performance engine. It comes straight from Mazda 6 and CX-9 SUV, so it is designed to pull heavier cars with torque rather than to rev and to produce high horsepower at the top end. Drivability and flexibility of the large four-pot engine is good, as it features “Dynamic Pressure Turbo” – the exhaust turbine is fed by a split intake duct which closes one path at lower rpms, speeding up the exhaust flow in another path, which is angled to hit the turbine blade at right angle – like the function of VTG turbine but without the complexity of variable vanes. Moreover, the system employs a 4-3-1 exhaust manifold to separate exhaust flows from different cylinders, reducing interference of pulses as if a twin-scroll turbocharger. Both improve the low-end response of the turbo.

Still, 250 horsepower is nothing these days. It needs close to 6 seconds to pull the Mazda 3 Turbo from rest to 60 mph. Moreover, although the engine is said to rev to 6300 rpm, it is not exactly willing to do so, as the power is heavily concentrated at the mid-range. The 2.5-liter also lacks an enthusiastic sound at the top end, not even an electronic synthesizer could compensate. In short, this motor feels too civilized, too grown up for a hot hatch.

The transmission fails to help either. Mazda makes an excellent 6-speed manual gearbox for the MX-5, but it is not strong enough for this engine, so the car is settled with a 6-speed automatic just like its Mazda 6 and CX-9 siblings. This tranny is fine for a family car, but it shifts too slow for a performance car, certainly no match for its rivals’ DCTs or more advanced 8-speed automatic. It robs driving excitement.

A similar story can be told for the chassis. Mazda relies heavily on the fine handling and ride combination of the lesser Mazda 3, but refuses to upgrade its chassis. What it did was only stiffened the front springs by 15 percent to cope with the heavier powertrain and tuned the dampers accordingly. There is no adaptive damper option, while the rear axle remains to be torsion-beam. Tires are kept in modest size of 215/45VR18, so grip level is unremarkable. Likewise, the brakes are just the same as other AWD Mazda 3, so they don’t withstand extended abuse. You still praise the balance of the car and the faithful steering, but it just feels soft in too many areas, most notably body control. Frankly, if Mazda stiffened its suspension, the semi-independent rear axle could have ruined ride comfort more than its rivals with multi-link setup.

In short, the Mazda 3 Turbo is not exactly a hot hatch. It is just a more powerful extension of the regular 3. I wonder how many people want such a combination.
Verdict:
Specifications





Year
Layout
Chassis
Body
Length / width / height
Wheelbase
Engine
Capacity
Valve gears
Induction
Other engine features
Max power
Max torque
Transmission
Suspension layout

Suspension features
Tires
Kerb weight
Top speed
0-60 mph (sec)
0-100 mph (sec)
Mazda 3 hatch Skyactiv-G 1.5
(Japan)

2019
Front-engined, FWD
Steel monocoque
Mainly steel
4460 / 1795 / 1440 mm
2725 mm
Inline-4
1496 cc
DOHC 16 valves, DVVT
-
DI
111 hp
108 lbft
6-speed manual
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
-
215/45VR18
1320 kg
118 mph (est)
10.5 (est)
-
Mazda 3 hatch Skyactiv-D 1.8
(Japan/Euro)

2019
Front-engined, FWD
Steel monocoque
Mainly steel
4460 / 1795 / 1440 mm
2725 mm
Inline-4 diesel
1756 cc
DOHC 16 valves
VTG turbo
CDI
116 hp
199 lbft
6-speed manual
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
-
215/45VR18
1410 kg
120 mph (c)
9.7 (c)
-
Mazda 3 hatch Skyactiv-G 2.0
(Euro)

2019
Front-engined, FWD
Steel monocoque
Mainly steel
4460 / 1795 / 1435 mm
2725 mm
Inline-4, Otto/Atkinson-cycle
1997 cc
DOHC 16 valves, DVVT
-
DI, mild hybrid
122 hp
157 lbft
6-speed manual
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
-
215/45VR18
1364 kg
122 mph (c)
9.8 (c)
-




Performance tested by: -





Year
Layout
Chassis
Body
Length / width / height
Wheelbase
Engine
Capacity
Valve gears
Induction
Other engine features
Max power
Max torque
Transmission
Suspension layout

Suspension features
Tires
Kerb weight
Top speed
0-60 mph (sec)
0-100 mph (sec)
Mazda 3 hatch Skyactiv-G 2.0
(Japan)

2019
Front-engined, FWD
Steel monocoque
Mainly steel
4460 / 1795 / 1440 mm
2725 mm
Inline-4, Otto/Atkinson-cycle
1997 cc
DOHC 16 valves, DVVT
-
DI
156 hp
147 lbft
6-speed automatic
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
-
215/45VR18
1360 kg
130 mph (est)
8.5 (est)
-
Mazda 3 hatch Skyactiv-X 2.0
(Japan/Euro)

2019
Front-engined, FWD
Steel monocoque
Mainly steel
4460 / 1795 / 1440 mm
2725 mm
Inline-4, SPCCI
1997 cc
DOHC 16 valves, DVVT
Supercharger
DI, mild hybrid
180 hp
165 lbft
6-speed manual
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
-
215/45VR18
1420 kg
134 mph (c)
7.7 (c)
-
Mazda 3 hatch Skyactiv-G 2.5
(US)

2019
Front-engined, FWD
Steel monocoque
Mainly steel
4460 / 1795 / 1440 mm
2725 mm
Inline-4, Otto/Atkinson-cycle
2488 cc
DOHC 16 valves, DVVT
-
DI
186 hp
186 lbft
6-speed manual
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
-
215/45VR18
1365 kg
135 mph (est)
7.3*
18.9*




Performance tested by: *C&D





Year
Layout
Chassis
Body
Length / width / height
Wheelbase
Engine
Capacity
Valve gears
Induction
Other engine features
Max power
Max torque
Transmission
Suspension layout

Suspension features
Tires
Kerb weight
Top speed
0-60 mph (sec)
0-100 mph (sec)
Mazda 3 sedan Skyactiv-G 2.5
(US)

2019
Front-engined, FWD
Steel monocoque
Mainly steel
4660 / 1795 / 1445 mm
2725 mm
Inline-4, Otto/Atkinson-cycle
2488 cc
DOHC 16 valves, DVVT
-
DI
186 hp
186 lbft
6-speed automatic
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
-
215/45VR18
1410 kg
135 mph (est)
7.0*
18.7*
Mazda 3 hatch 2.5 Turbo
2020
Front-engined, 4WD
Steel monocoque
Mainly steel
4460 / 1795 / 1440 mm
2725 mm
Inline-4, Otto/Miller-cycle
2488 cc
DOHC 16 valves, DVVT
Turbo
DI
250 hp / 5000 rpm
320 lbft / 2500 rpm
6-speed automatic
F: strut
R: torsion-beam
-
215/45VR18
1534 kg
149 mph (est)
5.6*
14.3*



























Performance tested by: *C&D





AutoZine Rating

General models


2.5 Turbo



    Copyright© 1997-2020 by Mark Wan @ AutoZine