2010 Mazda 3 S Hatchback 4-door 2.5l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1982 Mazda RX-7 GSL

The early Mazda RX-7 was one of the few bright spots for sports-car shoppers during the Malaise Era, a lightweight and simple rear-wheel-drive machine with a screaming Wankel engine under the hood. Even though it was designed mostly as a means of getting Japanese car buyers a loophole to keep their engine-displacement-based road taxes low, the early RX-7 sold well in North America. I still find these cars during my junkyard travels, but the 1981-1983 FB-series RX-7s have been getting scarce in recent years. Here's a very solid '82 that showed up in Denver during the winter. Japanese cars of this era tended to rust early and often, but this one appears to be absolutely corrosion-free. The odometer shows just a hair over 100,000 miles, so I'm guessing this car spent decades in covered storage. The seat leather shows a few rips, but the interior looks pretty good overall. The body has some dents and dings, nothing serious. It wouldn't have taken much to get this car back on the road and looking good. The GSL package got you four-wheel disc brakes, a limited-slip differential, and these cool-looking pillar badges.  The list price on a new 1982 Mazda RX-7 GSL came to $11,895, or about $32,350 in 2020 bucks. A new Datsun 280ZX coupe went for $14,499 that year, but was a much more powerful and prestigious car; the less opulent 200SX was just $7,739. If you wanted a new Celica Supra, the price tag was $14,598. The final year for the Fiat-badged 124 Spider (they were sold with Pininfarina badging for a few additional years) was 1982, and that car cost $12,290. Meanwhile, your Chevrolet dealer had new Z28 Camaros starting at $9,700 that year; the RX-7 would eat up the Camaro on a tight road course but would be blown away on the straights. The 12A rotary engine in this car made 100 horsepower from just 1.1 liters of displacement, putting smiles on the faces of those Japanese road-tax payers. Unfortunately, fuel consumption was scary, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Oil Crisis. Why did this car end up in a place like this? It was found in an office parking lot with a flat tire and expired registration tags and towed away. Then it failed to attract any bidder interest at the subsequent auction and U-Pull-&-Pay picked it up for next to nothing. So, if you ever wanted an early RX-7, buy the next cheap one you find before it meets a fate similar to that of today's Junkyard Gem. This content is hosted by a third party.

2019 Mazda3 First Drive Review | Defining the term 'fun to drive'

Fun to drive. The phrase gets blasted from seemingly every car commercial, magazine ad, and influencer account – overused that it has lost all meaning. So when Mazda, a small firm that actually does make cars that are fun to drive, talks about their most compelling trait it gets lost in the cacophony of ad spends. However, we're here to tell you that yes, while it's difficult to quantify, some cars are objectively more fun to drive than others, and the all-new 2019 Mazda3 is — and this is a very technical term — a freakin' blast. At Mazda's behest, we took a 2019 sedan up Angeles Crest Highway just outside of L.A. With plenty of yellow signs, tight sequences of banked curves and elevation changes, it's the platonic ideal of those serpentine mountain roads you see in car commercials. The instant the Mazda3 reaches the windy roads, it glides in like an otter diving into the sea. Lively and graceful, it dances along a ribbon of asphalt more naturally than any compact sedan we've driven since the advent of drive-by-wire. The steering is not only direct and true, but possesses an extraordinary ability to maintain trajectory. From the moment you turn in, you never need to make adjustments to the steering wheel until the front tires are straight again. The car goes exactly where you intend, always. That's not hyperbole, but an amazing feat of engineering. In nearly every other vehicle, even those that purport to be sports cars, unless you're incredibly familiar with the machine and know the road like the back of your hand, minor mid-corner corrections are an inevitability. With the 3, you get it right on the first try. Now imagine you're on strip of canyon pavement with lots of short switchbacks in varying radii coming up fast, one right after another. The 3 links them all together with pure ease, and soon you're developing a rhythm through the curves. While other cars charge, the Mazda flows. The car's poise is particularly evident as momentum shifts from one direction to another, what Mazda chassis engineer Dave Coleman termed "transience." In most cars passengers are tossed around the cabin like mannequins, but the 3 cuts out the turbulence, its body engineered to move in a smooth undulation. At the midpoint of the transition, there's even a moment of weightlessness before the car tucks into the next turn and the seat seems to scoop you up and carry you onward.

Mazda 3 Sedan and Hatchback Luggage Test | Trunk comparison

A major reason for buying a hatchback is for added cargo space and versatility, right? Seems logical enough. It's certainly a reason I've been fond of them over the years. And since so many SUVs these days are just glorified hatchbacks, it certainly stands to reason the buying public has reached this conclusion as well. To test this hypothesis and potentially bust this myth, Mazda kindly provided three vehicles that are virtually identical apart from their body style: the Mazda 3 sedan and hatchback, as well as the Mazda CX-30 crossover that's really just a raised and rebodied 3.  On paper, in descending order, the CX-30 is tops at 20.2 cubic feet of space behind the back seat, the Hatchback has 20.1 cubic feet and the sedan has 13.2. OK, let's see how the order turns out once luggage is used. Here is the 3 Hatchback on the left and 3 Sedan on the right. Immediately, the sedan doesn't look that much smaller than the Hatchback. Actually, doesn't it look bigger? Below is the CX-30.  Note that this CX-30 did not include its rigid cargo cover, but already, you can start to see the difference between 3 Hatch and CX-30. The crossover has more space above the back seat line than the Hatchback. So, even if the 3 Hatch has more cargo area length, the CX-30 has more height. That's why you have virtually equal cargo capacity numbers despite having different spaces.  To that point, let's bring in the bags. As in every luggage test I do, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). CX-30 for the win (above right) as all the bags fit. The fancy bag and smaller roller are slightly blocking the rearward view, but you can still see out and the bags won't fly forward. Importantly, they also fit when closing the CX-30's hatch. They won't if you attempted the same formation in the 3 Hatchback, which can't fit the fancy bag or one of the midsize rollers. And no, you can't fit the fancy bag in the middle there — the hatch wouldn't close on top of it. A smaller duffel will, however.  So, although the 3 Hatch has a slightly longer space, the difference doesn't matter as much as the CX-30's extra height in this usage case.