2016 Mazda2 | Mazdaspeed2 being considered?

[Keef]

Are we getting the new 2? Thought it was off the table now.

Why wouldn't we? Everybody else is expanding their offerings in the segment.

EDIT: Is the CX-3 literally just a lifted 2? Does Mazda not feel like competing with the Versa Note et. al. which I've been seeing all over the place?

I hope that's an overzealous intern and not true.

I'm seeing all sorts of articles saying the North American debut of the 2 has been delayed until 2016 to slot the CX-3 and Miata in front of it but nothing about the car being cancelled in this market.

 

[niky]

Yes, that applied to the ones I have driven.

The First Gen Mazda 3 was a terrible car with horrible dynamics.

While I was not head over heels for the first-gen 3, the only car (in non-European markets) that was comprehensively better in terms of dynamics was its platform-mate, the Focus.

Dynamically, the only real "dud" I've driven from Mazda has been a base-model first-gen 3 hatchback with 14" wheels, balloons for tires and a base engine with the autotragic. Everything else has been as much fun as a bucket of monkeys.

Okay, my 626 wasn't all that great, but it was still better than the Camcords of the time, in terms of driving fun.

 

[mustafur]

While I was not head over heels for the first-gen 3, the only car (in non-European markets) that was comprehensively better in terms of dynamics was its platform-mate, the Focus.

Dynamically, the only real "dud" I've driven from Mazda has been a base-model first-gen 3 hatchback with 14" wheels, balloons for tires and a base engine with the autotragic. Everything else has been as much fun as a bucket of monkeys.

Okay, my 626 wasn't all that great, but it was still better than the Camcords of the time, in terms of driving fun.

That's exactly what I drove.

as base models go it was far too understeery at the limit and the limit was far too early.

back in 2009 i borrowed my friends one for a few weeks and there was a few times that the front wheels wouldn't turn on a roundabout at mild speed and would just go straight with Wheel hop, My Corolla that i got afterwards could do the same corner easily.

 

[05XR8]

EDIT: Is the CX-3 literally just a lifted 2?

The CX-3 is based on the 2 platform. Basically yes. No doubt it gives Mazda use of the 2.0 and diesel.

I guess it's better to market a mini SUV than to market a high level city car.

 

[mustafur]

CX-3 is stretched about 200mm longer.

 

[Keef]

Apparently it's somewhat similar in size to the Versa Note, the Note being a couple inches wider than the new Fit and 4 inches longer, thought the Mazda is another 3 inches wider and 5 inches longer than the Note. It has a more SUV-like appearance and available AWD which will help sway the premium city-car crowd, for sure. Notes and Fits are alright but they're super basic.

It just looks so much bigger than it is and keeps throwing me off.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I do find it odd that there's so much confusion on the US even getting the 2. It's coming here, with the first ones arriving at dealers in a couple months. What's the problem?

Still not as strange as Chevy offering the Orlando up here but not in their own country, though.

 

[05XR8]

North America pricing being so low(not low enough for those on $9/hour wages), the argument would be why get the 2? The CX-3 has the handling, more power and higher specs than the 2. It does everything plus has AWD if one chooses. Someone would pretty much by the 2 on price, as the CX-3 has more rear passenger room.

 

[Grandea GTR]

North America pricing being so low(not low enough for those on $9/hour wages), the argument would be why get the 2? The CX-3 has the handling, more power and higher specs than the 2. It does everything plus has AWD if one chooses. Someone would pretty much by the 2 on price, as the CX-3 has more rear passenger room.

I would feel that the 2 would have better handling due to it being smaller and lower...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

North America pricing being so low(not low enough for those on $9/hour wages), the argument would be why get the 2? The CX-3 has the handling, more power and higher specs than the 2. It does everything plus has AWD if one chooses. Someone would pretty much by the 2 on price, as the CX-3 has more rear passenger room.

I'd vastly prefer the 2, because I don't need the AWD - it's a front-biased, soft-roader style anyway - and the lightness of the 2 is more my style. The previous-gen is a hoot, why would I want to add a couple hundred pounds, bump the centre of gravity a foot or so, and have more rear-passenger room for the rear-passengers I never have?

 

[YSSMAN]

I do find it odd that there's so much confusion on the US even getting the 2. It's coming here, with the first ones arriving at dealers in a couple months. What's the problem?

Still not as strange as Chevy offering the Orlando up here but not in their own country, though.

We'll, y'all get the Nissan Micra now, too. Its a rare occasion when the Americans have to be just a little jealous of the Canadians.

But Mexico gets Peugeots, Citroens, Renaults and Seats

Why wouldn't we? Everybody else is expanding their offerings in the segment...

I'm seeing all sorts of articles saying the North American debut of the 2 has been delayed until 2016 to slot the CX-3 and Miata in front of it but nothing about the car being cancelled in this market.

I seem to remember Jalopnik reporting that we were absolutely not getting the 2 back 'round the time of NAIAS. But we are getting a version of the 2 as the Scion iA. Which doesn't make a ton of sense, because one would think, if they have to crash-test the iA, it can't be all that different than the 2, right?

...Checking through Jalopnik, I see that that page has mysteriously disappeared. Huh.

 

[mustafur]

North America pricing being so low(not low enough for those on $9/hour wages), the argument would be why get the 2? The CX-3 has the handling, more power and higher specs than the 2. It does everything plus has AWD if one chooses. Someone would pretty much by the 2 on price, as the CX-3 has more rear passenger room.

I haven't driven the CX-3 but I don't think it has the agility of the 2 just going by the extra size.

The 2 also has the progressive steering that makes the turning circle super small when travelling at low speed (only car I have driven that also has the feature is the CLS63).

Also @05XR8 do you work at Mazda?

 

[05XR8]

I'd vastly prefer the 2, because I don't need the AWD - it's a front-biased, soft-roader style anyway - and the lightness of the 2 is more my style. The previous-gen is a hoot, why would I want to add a couple hundred pounds, bump the centre of gravity a foot or so, and have more rear-passenger room for the rear-passengers I never have?

I can't wait to read your view on the car in the flesh. You're going to dig it. 👍
The CX-3 looks tough. I'd badge it an MX-3 if the tag wasn't used before.It's no where near as lofty as the CX-5.

 

[Keef]

I seem to remember Jalopnik reporting that we were absolutely not getting the 2 back 'round the time of NAIAS. But we are getting a version of the 2 as the Scion iA. Which doesn't make a ton of sense, because one would think, if they have to crash-test the iA, it can't be all that different than the 2, right?

...Checking through Jalopnik, I see that that page has mysteriously disappeared. Huh.

Jalopnik might be quick but I don't use them as a reliable source for anything besides irrelevant commentary anymore.

 

[05XR8]

Size difference on paper

MAZDA 2
Ground clearance laden (mm) 126
Overall height (mm) 1,495
Overall length (mm) 4,060
Overall width (mm) 1,695
Track (mm) front 1,495
Track (mm) rear 1,485
Wheelbase (mm) 2,570
Kerb weight (kg) 1,027

Gear ratio (1st) 3.583
Gear ratio (2nd) 1.904
Gear ratio (3rd) 1.290
Gear ratio (4th) 0.972
Gear ratio (5th) 0.795
Gear ratio (6th) 0.645
Gear ratio (final drive) 4.105
Gear ratio (reverse) 3.454
Maximum power (kW @ rpm) 79 @ 6,000
Maximum torque (Nm @ rpm) 139 @ 4,000

CX-3
Ground clearance with 75kg driver (mm) 155
Overall height (mm) 1,550
Overall length (mm) 4,275
Overall width (mm) 1,765
Track (mm) front 1,525
Track (mm) rear 1,520
Wheelbase (mm) 2,570
Kerb weight (kg) 1,193

Gear ratio (1st) 3.363
Gear ratio (2nd) 1.947
Gear ratio (3rd) 1.300
Gear ratio (4th) 1.029
Gear ratio (5th) 0.837
Gear ratio (6th) 0.680
Gear ratio (final drive) 4.105
Gear ratio (reverse) 3.385
Maximum power (kW @ rpm) 109 @ 6,000
Maximum torque (Nm @ rpm) 192 @ 2,800

It's only 2" taller with an inch more ground clearance. The 18" wheels complete the look. I can't wait to see what a Super Taikyu 2 looks like and a dropped CX-3 diesel on 16x9 stretchy tyres.

 

[SVPSkins]

i like it more so that mazda's are looking gorgeous of late. plus and this is not a bad thing by the way. it kinda has a volvo, alfa look about it and i like of those two as well as Mazda.

 

[niky]

That's exactly what I drove.

as base models go it was far too understeery at the limit and the limit was far too early.

back in 2009 i borrowed my friends one for a few weeks and there was a few times that the front wheels wouldn't turn on a roundabout at mild speed and would just go straight with Wheel hop, My Corolla that i got afterwards could do the same corner easily.

Your friend had crap tires.

There's not a single contemporary Corolla that handles as well as the 3, not unless the Corolla was on aftermarket tires and the 3 was on knackered retreads.

 

[mustafur]

Your friend had crap tires.

There's not a single contemporary Corolla that handles as well as the 3, not unless the Corolla was on aftermarket tires and the 3 was on knackered retreads.

But it was worse, I drove them both intensively.

The Mazdas 3 Grip on stock tyres is tragic to say the least and I can confirm this on 3 Mazda 3s I have driven or been a passenger in.

The Corolla in question was mine(2009 1.8L Sedan) and had similar size wheels using similar rubber so I can't say it's 100% tyre related, when it's same sort of issue in multiple cars.

 

[niky]

But it was worse, I drove them both intensively.

The Mazdas 3 Grip on stock tyres is tragic to say the least and I can confirm this on 3 Mazda 3s I have driven or been a passenger in.

The Corolla in question was mine(2009 1.8L Sedan) and had similar size wheels using similar rubber so I can't say it's 100% tyre related, when it's same sort of issue in multiple cars.

I've driven that generation of Corolla. And no, sorry... no. Absolutely no steering feel. Terrible rear axle location under load, leading to some very messy fishtailing under trail-braking, poor bushings, yada yada yada. I'll say this: They're light, which makes them pretty quick. I've seen stock ones do well on the racetrack due to the stiff, modern chassis... but they're not great cars.

The most I can say for any first-gen Mazda3 is: the shock absorbers lack rebound control.

Understeer in either case is assured by the stock suspension setting. With the Mazda3, much as with the Focus, you have extra camber built into the rear independent suspension, for safety's sake. This means you feel understeer, but when you really lean into it, you'll find the limits are higher, and inducing trail-braking oversteer is generally safe and progressive.

As opposed to the beam axle Corolla, which grips gamely, but feels much less sorted over the edge of adhesion. (Don't ask me why I've driven the Corolla over the edge of adhesion...)

 

[Stoop Solo]

They really need to make a new RX while they're using this design language. Would buy (if I wasn't a poor bastard).

Holy underwear! I would love to see an RX-8 done with their new design philosophy. The only trouble I'd have is persuading the wife that we need another one. "Hey honey, we wouldn't want our R3 to be lonely." Oh. And money, I guess. Then again, eating is overrated.

As for a new Mazdaspeed 2... that would be a hot hatch to be reckoned with.

 

[mustafur]

I've driven that generation of Corolla. And no, sorry... no. Absolutely no steering feel. Terrible rear axle location under load, leading to some very messy fishtailing under trail-braking, poor bushings, yada yada yada. I'll say this: They're light, which makes them pretty quick. I've seen stock ones do well on the racetrack due to the stiff, modern chassis... but they're not great cars.

The most I can say for any first-gen Mazda3 is: the shock absorbers lack rebound control.

Understeer in either case is assured by the stock suspension setting. With the Mazda3, much as with the Focus, you have extra camber built into the rear independent suspension, for safety's sake. This means you feel understeer, but when you really lean into it, you'll find the limits are higher, and inducing trail-braking oversteer is generally safe and progressive.

As opposed to the beam axle Corolla, which grips gamely, but feels much less sorted over the edge of adhesion. (Don't ask me why I've driven the Corolla over the edge of adhesion...)

What it feels like is it would require a much better tyre to get the best out of it because it's limit comes way too early, driving around a roundabout at non high speed shouldn't result its horrific understeer.

Steering feel is better yes but I can't associate that with handling that it just doesn't have, with atleast the rubber it has at stock.

 

[Keef]

Meaningless foreigner units

I don't know what language you're typing but I don't speak it.

 

[mustafur]

I don't know what language you're typing but I don't speak it.

Update to the metric system then.

 

[Grandea GTR]

Update to the metric system then.

Too bad we can't, because us Americans want to be different.

 

[mustafur]

The 2 really makes the 3 look outdated inside:

2:

3:

 

[05XR8]

The round vents make The 2 and CX-3 look upscale. And just turning the knob on the vents, shut them. Little details like that, make owning one easier.

 

[mustafur]

The round vents make The 2 and CX-3 look upscale. And just turning the knob on the vents, shut them. Little details like that, make owning one easier.

As well as leather on the dash and side wells.

 

[Keef]

The 2 really makes the 3 look outdated inside:

The 3 is Mazda's bread and butter. I think they wanted to go with a tried-and-true design rather than a new unproven one.

 

[Blackbird.]

For me I don't see a drastic difference to support the claim that the 3 looks terribly outdated. The vents in the 2 are nice and the little leather trim in the dash is nice. But why not compare it to a 3 with the leatherette at least?

 

[05XR8]

People looking at the 3, will be looking at the CX-3. The 2.5 is the only thing it has over the 3. A triple black(black on black w/black leather) 3 SP25GT hatch looks upscale. The diesel hatch with its red grill looks even more so. But the 2 nterior is just so right in the CX-3 with leather seats. Plus the theatre seating in the CX-3 is a definite plus over the 3.