Gf's commute - Page 2

equ · 03-05-2014, 12:09 PM

One other point for the CRZ, the interior... Just as the suspension is not boggo standard econobox bargain basement, neither is the interior. It just barely makes it to feeling special. So this is another way it beats Fit's, Fiat's and other econoboxes. I'd put the Mini in the same "better" category.

JST · 03-05-2014, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by equ

Re: FC's car (wasn't that JST's earlier?)... I'd guess it's way out of warranty at this point. Also the 2007+ MCS seems to get better with time, earlier cars are showing a lot of engine/timing issues.

Yeah, that was my old car. I liked it a lot but it's seven years old by now, so not what I'd really want to use as a "you can count on me" mileage-master.

I haven't driven a CR-Z, so take my comments as just ill-informed speculation. I remember when they debuted lining them up against Mini Cooper non-S and thinking that the specs looked awfully similar (even fuel economy), which suggests that the hybrid system in the CR-Z isn't particularly useful.

equ · 03-05-2014, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JST

Yeah, that was my old car. I liked it a lot but it's seven years old by now, so not what I'd really want to use as a "you can count on me" mileage-master.

I haven't driven a CR-Z, so take my comments as just ill-informed speculation. I remember when they debuted lining them up against Mini Cooper non-S and thinking that the specs looked awfully similar (even fuel economy), which suggests that the hybrid system in the CR-Z isn't particularly useful.

The hybrid system on it near completely useless in providing an extra kick. If there was one, I couldn't discern it. May help with city mileage. But despite the hybrid system, there is still a fun car under there with a nice interior (not my style but she likes Honda's, still misses her Si).

We really need to test drive it again.

Jeff_DML · 03-05-2014, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by equ

The Mazda3 2.5 is rated 20/28 by the EPA. Even if it beats that, that's piss poor, hardly better than the 'ole 528i. Just the regular over premium advantage. The 2.0 is more acceptable but still not great at 25/33. The better Mazda's seem to be 2013 with the DI engine showing 38mpg highway.

My prev gen has skyactiv engine, 2012 on. 27/38 for MT hatchback, sedan and auto get a bit better. My bluebook trade in is low teens.

lupinsea · 03-05-2014, 02:26 PM

Mazda 2?

Can you hold out for the next generation? I think it's due out as a 2015 model.

.

equ · 03-05-2014, 02:32 PM

I see, 2012 is a confusing MY for Mazda 3's. s, i, skyactiv, there are at least 3 engines and not all listings are clear. There is perhaps one manual hatchback in our radius. We might check it out.

equ · 03-05-2014, 02:33 PM

I don't know if we can hold out, I'm spending a couple of hours this week just on one noise from the e39. The mazda 3 is a touch too big, the 2 is an ideal size, has a minimal backseat. The new one looks good, too bad the current one looks like a POS (as do the Yaris and Nissan offerings).

Quote:

Originally Posted by lupinsea

Mazda 2?

Can you hold out for the next generation? I think it's due out as a 2015 model.

.

equ · 03-05-2014, 02:38 PM

Also, there are ZERO manual, low mileage Fit Sport's on the market. A five year old Fit Sport costs as much as a three year old CR-Z with break-in miles.

Jeff_DML · 03-05-2014, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by equ

I see, 2012 is a confusing MY for Mazda 3's. s, i, skyactiv, there are at least 3 engines and not all listings are clear. There is perhaps one manual hatchback in our radius. We might check it out.

yeah don't get the non-skyactiv 2.0l, dog and bad gas mileage.

btw, 2012+ hatchbacks are only skyactive 2.0l or 2.5l

Rob · 03-05-2014, 04:09 PM

I looked into the CRZ when I bought the Z4. I really like the way they look and thought that a hybrid for the commute I had at the time would be cool (before I realized the hybrid part didn't seem to do anything), I loved the CRX when it was around and thought maybe I could break the RWD rule. Plus, it comes in manual.

Then I drove one. I thought it was dog slow, handled like a small pig, and I didn't get the benefit of all the hybrid bits at the mileage it puts out at its size. To be fair, I went in expecting something similar to the old CRX for handling ability and it just isn't that car. Then I went and test drove a Z4 which is really a different animal.

Hmm. On the other hand, you can find a mildly used Z4 for about that price ($17 - 19?), get 32 on the highway, have a car that will run forever as long as you don't mind replacing cooling systems every so often, and so on. It's a convertible and not a hatchback though, so probably not on your list. Plus, to avoid the hard top mechanism, you have to go back to 2008 and that's getting kind of old for what you are envisioning.

The CRZ is built on the fit platform with extra hybrid weight. How much better than a fit can it be? It sure looks a lot better though. I think they are great for what they are, but what they are is a two seater appliance type care that has some cool looking body parts. (imo)

03-05-2014, 02:26 PM	#15
lupinsea Jeeped Join Date: Sep 2005 Carmudgeonly Ride: Modified Jeep Tj and '07 Miata Location: Seattle Posts: 10,214	Mazda 2? Can you hold out for the next generation? I think it's due out as a 2015 model. . __________________ . My website "Jeep is the only true American sports car" - Enzo Ferrari Or something to that effect.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Good Commute	lupinsea	Car Talk	16	05-09-2007 04:57 PM

03-05-2014, 12:09 PM	#11
equ Alphanumeric Join Date: Aug 2005 Carmudgeonly Ride: 981S, 340i Posts: 9,584	One other point for the CRZ, the interior... Just as the suspension is not boggo standard econobox bargain basement, neither is the interior. It just barely makes it to feeling special. So this is another way it beats Fit's, Fiat's and other econoboxes. I'd put the Mini in the same "better" category.

03-05-2014, 02:32 PM	#16
equ Alphanumeric Join Date: Aug 2005 Carmudgeonly Ride: 981S, 340i Posts: 9,584	I see, 2012 is a confusing MY for Mazda 3's. s, i, skyactiv, there are at least 3 engines and not all listings are clear. There is perhaps one manual hatchback in our radius. We might check it out.

03-05-2014, 02:38 PM	#18
equ Alphanumeric Join Date: Aug 2005 Carmudgeonly Ride: 981S, 340i Posts: 9,584	Also, there are ZERO manual, low mileage Fit Sport's on the market. A five year old Fit Sport costs as much as a three year old CR-Z with break-in miles.

03-05-2014, 04:09 PM	#20
Rob The user formerly known as rwg Join Date: Oct 2003 Carmudgeonly Ride: Z4 Location: Vegas baby! Posts: 8,261	I looked into the CRZ when I bought the Z4. I really like the way they look and thought that a hybrid for the commute I had at the time would be cool (before I realized the hybrid part didn't seem to do anything), I loved the CRX when it was around and thought maybe I could break the RWD rule. Plus, it comes in manual. Then I drove one. I thought it was dog slow, handled like a small pig, and I didn't get the benefit of all the hybrid bits at the mileage it puts out at its size. To be fair, I went in expecting something similar to the old CRX for handling ability and it just isn't that car. Then I went and test drove a Z4 which is really a different animal. Hmm. On the other hand, you can find a mildly used Z4 for about that price ($17 - 19?), get 32 on the highway, have a car that will run forever as long as you don't mind replacing cooling systems every so often, and so on. It's a convertible and not a hatchback though, so probably not on your list. Plus, to avoid the hard top mechanism, you have to go back to 2008 and that's getting kind of old for what you are envisioning. The CRZ is built on the fit platform with extra hybrid weight. How much better than a fit can it be? It sure looks a lot better though. I think they are great for what they are, but what they are is a two seater appliance type care that has some cool looking body parts. (imo)