I've only owned Hondas and Toyotas in my life, but I think the Mazda 3 will walk away with this one. It feels to me a bit larger, and I was disappointed by almost everything Corolla with the redesign. Actually, the Mr Peterman voiced commercials were good.
 
The advantages of the Toy and Civic like fuel economy and reliability won't be represented well in this test.
 
Can't wait to read it, though. I imagine if you had left the lancer in the test it would have won, not because it's a better car, but because of the added feature content. It's easy to say "yeah, I'd spend 2000 hypothetical dollars on this", not as easy to actually spend it. Not sure how much the 2.3 adds to the Mazda, but that would have won this all hands down (for probably 2 grand).

Too bad about the Lancer. The Lancer and Mazda seem to be the most interesting of the lot, and most to gain by being in the test. Mitsu lost a great opportunity here.

I'm dissapointed to see the Lancer gone. I think a lot of people have a negative opinion about the car, due to the initial 2.0L engine offering. While this engine wasn't like that in a Civic si or Mazdaspeed3, the car certainly did not hurt for power. I think that had the Mitsu been included, it would have scored well and improved people's opinions of this great value vehicle.

I'm really looking forward to read this one, Karl. Not so much to find out the "winner", but to read what people think about each of the cars.
 
My guess is the 3 has the best overall package, but it's also the oldest design of the group.

Can't wait to see the mileage of the 3 since both of my models have delivered horrible city mileage. It's fine on the highway (between 29-31mpg) but I'm averaging 16.7mpg on my current tank of all city driving. I also hate styling of the 3 sedan but love the 5 door- weird. It must have something to do with the super short trunklid.
  
I gave the Corolla a thorough look at the Phila Auto Show and it's full of hard black plastic on the interior. I do like the design though and it seemed to offer great space front/rear and a nice sized trunk. I even thought the exterior design was fresh even if it has a scaled down Carmy look to it- which is really a bad thing. The Camry is a nice looking car IMHO so the looks suites the Corolla quite well. I'd take both of these cars over the Civic which looks weird and ugly inside and out. I don't think I could honestly come to grips with it's dustbuster exterior styling nor the disgusting interior. I'd drive a Cobalt Sport over the Civic sedan.

I predict the 3 will win closely followed by the Civic with the Corolla well back.

It's going to be interesting IF the 3 wins, given that it's a four year old design. Then again, our '04 is absolutely loved and if we had to replace it tomorrow, it'd be with another 3.
 
Agree with chavis10 on the styling. I can't see why anyone would want the four door. Additional kudos for the five door: It's the easiest fit I've had in years for a trunk mounted bicycle rack.

A missed opportunity for Mitsubishi.....corporate won't be happy, a pink slip or two may be on the way. I think the Lancer might have won had it been in the mix (equipped the same).
 
I too am not crazy about the sedan version of the 3.....but I do like the 5 door quite a bit (actually am a pretty big fan of 5drs in general, for practicality but also for style - dig 'em).

I guess I'm one of the few who prefer the styling of the 3 sedan. I appreciate the fact that Mazda designed entirely different sheet metal (hood, front clip, fenders) for the sedan vs. the 5-door. All they share are doors. To me, the sedan has a bit more mature look to it.
 
I do like the looks and practicality of the 5-door though. The sedan has a surprisingly roomy trunk, I can fit my golf clubs back there with no trouble. But to have a 5-door and fold down the rear seat and put our bigger dog kennel back there occasionally would have been nice. I probably would have gotten the 5-door if I could have had it with the 2.0. As it is, the 5-door only comes in "3s" with the 2.3 engine, which costs more and gets worse gas mileage. LOTS of fun to drive, don't get me wrong, and the electroluminescent gauges are sure nifty. But purchase price and fuel economy were higher priorities for me this time around.
 
As far as predictions, I suspect the Civic may win if any of the testers are put off by the Mazda's tiny rear seat. If you have any testers 6' or taller, they'll quickly notice that there is virtually no rear seat leg room behind the driver. Not a problem for me as I'll probably never have adults back there, but it might be a stumbling block for anyone who plans to use the 3 as a family car. And I imagine many families of four or less will be taking trips in their most fuel efficient vehicle these days (i.e., dad's Mazda rather than mom's Yukon - might not be as comfortable, but I know I'd be perfectly willing to let the kids cram themselves back there if it could save me $100 round trip to see Granny).
 
Also, the 3i only has a 4-speed auto, and I believe the Civic and Corolla have 5-speeds, right? Mazda does have the manumatic feature going for it, not sure whether the others do. No matter to me, I'm a DIY stick shift guy.

Looks like y'all got the Mazda3i Touring Value Edition. Perhaps those couple of little extra touches (17" wheels, leather-wrapped steering wheel and shifter, fog lights, ABS/SAB/SAC) will impress enough to boost the Mazda's numbers. If you got a Civic LX, folks might be annoyed by a few obvious cheapskate items like plastic wheel covers and no lumbar adjustment.
 
Seems to me that in the last test of mid-sizers, the Malibu did well for itself by looking good, driving sporty, and offering value for the money. A couple of them mentioned Toyota's reputation for quality, but judging the cars individually on their own merits and features, the Mazda may just pull off a win.

I also agree that the Mitsu may have done very well if it had arrived in the right configuration. You can get a very nicely equipped Lancer ES with alloys, trip computer, bluetooth, even keyless entry and start, for about the same price as a much less well equipped Civic LX. Ditto for the Nissan Sentra, lots of features for the money. Honda and Toyota are able to gouge a bit on the options.

Good points including the inclusion of the Sentra, Hightower.
 
Karl - was it said elsewhere before this why the Sentra wasn't included?
....not enough sales?

The Sentra could have been included, but we liked that the Lancer was just redesigned (and really improved) last year. As others have noted, when properly equipped it seemed like a good competitor -- for the price -- to the segment leaders. Bummer we couldn't get the right car.

Fair enough - thanks.

I wonder how a non-SYNC equipped Focus sedan would have fared?

Since the Lancer was excluded, I predict the Mazda 3 took the gold, Corolla took silver and Civic took third. At least thats the way I rank these cars.
 
It's a shame the Lancer wasnt included because I like it the best, and a Hyundai Elantra would have been good too from the value standpoint.

I'm surprized by the number of people who are hung-up about the Civic's short hood/long windshield. I do think the sedan looks kind of dowdy, but as a coupe it somehow looks futuristic. I think it has more to do with the rooflne, especially aft of the B pillar, than the front glass.

Mitsubishi really screwed themselves out of a great chance here because the Lancer is very competitive right now. Oh well.
 
I bet the Civic won now. I kinda like the spaceshipy feel of the gagues and all that. it's really solidly built and it'll run forever (even though you won't want it to at some point).
 
Really disappointed about the Lancer though. That would have been a really nice opportunityt o compare it and see how it stacks up to regular people who would clearly never give it a second look.

Why don't you use your long term Lancer?

The LT fleet GTS was probably too expensive. They appear to be aiming under $17K.

Why wasn't the Elantra included? It's at least as competitive as the Corolla and you guys had good things to say about it in its test drive.

No question about it, if the Elantra had been included it would have won, hands down, by a large margin. It is just as good a car as a Honda, Toyota, and Mazda and would have more amenities for the price. It isn't as sporty as the Mazda, but has a much more pleasant ride for daily driving (especially for the passengers) and isn't nearly as boring as the Corolla, and the styling doesn't leave many people cold like the Buck Rogers styling of the Civic.
 
I predict the 3 finished first, then the Civic, and Corolla last by a narrow margin. If the Lancer had been included it would have been last or next to it thanks to the lame 2.0 liter and CVT. A 2.4 L Lancer would have done better but would be too expensive for the comparison.

Mitsubishi might as well drop the CVT for Lancer models with the 2.0! They should just stick with the manual or install a proper automatic. I haven't driven it yet, but I have a feeling that the Lancer 2.0 is a very good/nice car when ordered with the manual. Of the cars listed here, the Lancer would be second on my list, with the 3 being the first.
 
Karl, was the Mazda 3 the 2.0 or the 2.3? Were the cars manual or automatic?
 
I think the Civic would win the test. The 3 is more stylish and more sporty but the Civic is more economical and the consumers are likely to consider the Mazda's sportiness as "harshness".
 
Karl, I also think the Elantra should have been included....unless it is perhaps not selling as well as the others??? (Coming to think of it, I don't remember the last time I saw a current-gen Elantra!)

Away from larger metropolitian markets, car shopping can quickly boil down to which dealership you live with. After 30 years of car ownership that includes VW, Saab, Honda, Nissan, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, and Mazda in a consumer environment with only single dealers for all of the above nameplates (except Chevy) the quality of the dealership ranks higher than 90% of what makes ink. Around here finding a good private mechanic to backup a faultering dealership's service department has been nearly impossible for any of the above brands. So in this non-competitive market my "automatic" choices are Corolla 1st, Honda 2nd, and Mazda a distant 3rd based primarily on available dealerships.
 
I know your comparison can't take this huge issue into account, but I do value these "real world" tests. While we can't "know" the testers as well as repeating "regulars" they live where we're at. They have to pay for, live with, insure, and maintain their own rides. And they're not macho race car drivers as regular reviewers tend to be.
 
While my aging Mazda 626 is solid, its been very dull (even with a V6), and a struggle to work through needed repairs to the point that I've sworn off going to the dealership again. Other Mazda dealerships within 60 miles have equally poor reputations. So while the 3 offers an attractive package, its crummy dealer and disappointing fuel economy keeps it off my list.
 
We drive 25,000+ miles per vehicle each year, so fuel economy is a very big deal. Overall depreciation (a measure of reliability, insurance coverage in case of a total loss, and useful lifespan) is my 3rd most important consideration and of course is where Honda and Toyota really shine. Most of those miles are done solo and we have a minivan, so rear seating/storage is quite secondary. A couple of friends own the current Civic and love them, but the Corolla XLE I sat in at the showroom was impressive. OTOH I test drove a Scion xD (for $6,000 less with the same engine) and thought it "fine" for what we need.
 
We're need a new car this year and the Civic/Corolla/xD choice is on our front burner. Looking forward to the test results.