vB Easy Archive - Brand New Mazda3 or 1999 BMW 528i ?

Pages: 1

Brand New Mazda3 or 1999 BMW 528i ?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: ice512

plannin to spend around 22K.

either a mazda3 (with the 2.0 engine)
or
1999 BMW Certified 528i w/ 74K.
or
2001 BMW Certified 3201 w/ 45K (this one actually got warranty till 160K) ... very attractive

any opinion ?
which one would u choose ?

Posted by: Zaku_4

wow 2 very different cars. anyways are you sure insurance works for both of them? lol meaning are you sure insurance is the same on both cars?

if i were u, and my insurance was the same basically for both cars, i would take the bmw. mainly cause its certified (presumably from bmw) so it shouldnt giv eu any problems. also cause its overall bigger and nicer car. lol i would trade my mazda3 for it cuase its just the fact its so much bigger interior wise.

anyways thats my opinion =D thats of course not saying the mazda3 is not a good choice.

good luck!

Posted by: ice512

insurance is an issue.. and so is gas...lolz~

Posted by: TrueEgg

get the BMW with the warranty. BMW -warranty = homeless

Mazda3 is decent but my friend purchased one a few months back and is genuinely disappointed with the quality of the car. BMW > mazda anyday.

Posted by: c^2

BMW

the 2.0l Mazda3 is crap

Posted by: Bonka

The models you've chosen for the BMWs have anemic engines. At least the 3.0L for the 5 series and the inline 6 for the 3.

I don't see the point of getting a highend base/bottom end model unless it's strictly to tell people that you drive a BMW.

If insurance and running costs are in question, I wouldn't have even considered BMW an option.

Mazda 3.

Posted by: phuviano

I vote for the 320 with warranty till 160k.

Posted by: mau108

agreed with the 320 with warranty (your gonna need it!) but none the less a great car...

Posted by: Zaku_4

Quote:

insurance is an issue.. and so is gas...lolz~

rofl then whats the piont of even having the bmw as an option? thats like me going "should i get the mazda3 or a m3?"

insurance is a problem? thats more important then gas, and looks like u answered your own question. mazda3 it is. but within the same price range u can get a ralliart/oz-rally if im not mistaken. more fuel efficient then the mazda3. hell why not get a civic or 1.7el?

Posted by: phuviano

Quote:

Originally posted by c^2
BMW

the 2.0l Mazda3 is crap

I don't think your car loves you anymore..

Posted by: Zaku_4

Quote:

I don't think your car loves you anymore..

his is the 2.3l

Posted by: Christopher15

As much as I like the Mazda 3 BMW all the way and certified too so shouldn't be a problem!

Posted by: ice512

what i am tryin to get here is best bang for the buck.
and surprisingly the BMW 3 has more warranty left than a brand new mazda3 which only goes till 100K ?
and no doubt the 3 is a way better car than mazda

Posted by: TrueEgg

this thread is over, if you go with the mazda3 you're an idiot

Insurance won't be THAT much worse.

Posted by: Skylinepilot

BMW... the reasons are already listed.

Posted by: phuviano

Quote:

Originally posted by TrueEgg
this thread is over, if you go with the mazda3 you're an idiot Insurance won't be THAT much worse.

Depends on your driving record, age, and many other factors.

Posted by: TrueEgg

well, I have a clean record and I'm 20, been driving for about 3 years and have my G license. I used to own an e36 325 convertible and I now own a 2004 accord i4 coupe. The insurance is basically the same. Either way, you get raped for insurance.

Posted by: c^2

Quote:

Originally posted by phuviano
I don't think your car loves you anymore..

I don't have the 2.0.
I have the 2.3.

Posted by: rovert

If you are concerned with safety then the 5 series would be a great option. Check with the dealership if you can purchase extended warranty for the car if you need. My dad's 1997 BMW 540i has 173,000kms on it and it still drives like it came off of the lot and there are no squeaks and rattles in it. There have been no major mechanical issues with the car. The 528i is a good car, it's a better handler than the 540i because is gets rack and pinion and the engine is lighter, I'm not sure why the 540i didn't have it. I believe the 528i you are looking at also has DSC on top of the standard ASC+T. DCS will help recover the vehicle from going into an uncontrolled oversteer or understeer should you push the chassis of the car a tiny bit past the laws of physics. But remember if you're being an "idiot" and going way too fast no traction control system will help you. Well if the inevitable happens, you are in a solidly built vehicle.

My dad's first 540i was owned for 2 weeks before it was written off in a black ice crash into a telephone poll at 60-70kph. The whole front end totalled itself and crumpled up saving my dad and his passenger from even needing to get checked up by the ambulance. The engine even shifted back and below the passenger cell, while shattering the block to absorb even more energy. Looking at the body of the car from the front of the front door, all the way to the trunk would look as if the car was never in a major crash. I can tell the body can handle a lot harder hit because there were no crinkles in the body. The front airbags didn't go off because the impact still wasn't major enough to threaten the passengers...only the driver side airbag went off. If you want a picture I have several pictures that i took of the vehicle in the wreckyard.

The 320i is an excellent vehicle as well, especially if you like a smaller car with super tight handling. Once you learn how the car reacts when you through it around turns and corners, you'll truly appreciate how stable and predictable the chassis is. It will be a bit better on gas because it is a smaller engine and it won't be as peppy as the strong 528i's engine. I believe the vehicle does not have DSC to correct oversteer and understeer as a standard option but it does have ASC+T which will only aid in wheel slip upon acceleration. The head protection airbag system has been awarded for the efficiency and safety to protect the front passengers' heads in a side impact or roll over. They actually stay inflated for 7 seconds after deployment to aid in a rollover type scenario instead of deflating and your head starts hitting the window or side pillar.

You should ask the dealer if you can try the car overnight to make sure that it will fit your needs and you can live with it in the longterm. If you like more convenience features and luxury the 528i will be a great car. For example the 5 has dual zone climate control system, more user friendly centre console and trip computer system, more leg space, and trunk space. The 5 series has awesome high speed stability espcially for the fast 401 in Toronto. When I'm on a long trip and I am up for some short lived excitement and a quick adrenaline rush, I can easily bump the 540i up to 200km/h on the straights and it doesn't feel scary at all. Wind noise is kept at a very low level even with the stock door seals from 1997. My dad can even feel comfortable enough to just talk normally on his mobile phone while "I'm" driving...haha. But I try not to push my luck and get caught by a police cruiser...that would suck. I have noticed only very minor brake fade from highspeed to just about stopped in the 540i. I'm not sure if I just held the brake a little too long and stopped too slow, but I believe the 528i will reacted better since it is a lighter car. My friend in his BMW Z4 was pulled over for doing 200km/h on the highway on a Sunday morning, but he was lucky and just got a excessive speed violation instead of handcuffed and brough to jail. The cop told him it took a while to catch up....LOL

For a more sportier, smaller, economical car, take the 320i. You won't regret any of them as they are both truly awesome cars. You'll learn that braking response is great in both cars with a lot of feedback from the road which is a good thing. The 3 does have more feedback than the 5 does so you can easily tell what kind of surface you are driving on. High speed stability is also great on the 3, even with the standard suspension setup. I remember once cruising at 180km/h in a very slight curve with a straight exit, and being able to squeeze on the brakes to bring the car down to 100km/h for a 70km/h curve. The car reacted with no fuss and no drama...you'll literally feel one with a 3 if you like to drive it in a spirited manner. I could just imagine what it'll be like to have 18" rims and the sports suspension on the car. I've never experienced brake fade in normal driving situations with a 3. I can't say the same for a track day though since I haven't been on a wide open high speed track with the 3.

I'm looking to find a 330i Performance Package and 6 speed manual tranny as it has the best of both 3 and 5 worlds as far as performance. Just about the same acceleration as a 540i, but with the nimbleness of an M3. Hope this helps a bit and let us know what you choose!

Posted by: INNOVA

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaku_4
his is the 2.3l

Lol if the 147 HP 2.0 is CRAP then the 160 HP 2.3 is mearly... ××××.

Posted by: Paolo

The mazda3 with the "PZEV" a.k.a. Duratec 2.3L engine is a good choice, Those of you who live in NY or CA and drive a Focus, will understand why its called PZEV, lol.

Posted by: Zaku_4

Quote:

Lol if the 147 HP 2.0 is CRAP then the 160 HP 2.3 is mearly... ××××.

lol its ok i guess. if i could turn back time i would definitely get another car though.

Posted by: c^2

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaku_4
lol its ok i guess. if i could turn back time i would definitely get another car though.

I regret not getting the GLI I really wanted.

Posted by: Zaku_4

Quote:

I regret not getting the GLI I really wanted.

i regret not getting the 1.8t i really wanted. jettaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

i like sedans, i dunno why lol i just prefer them over hatchs. if only i waited, coulda gotten my tgm sedan =/, maybe even white!

Posted by: c^2

Why 1.8t and not GLI?

The GLI comes stock with 18" BBS RC rims.

Posted by: Zaku_4

lol i dunno =p, isnt the GLI like more? haha the 1.8t is pretty expensive i guess, but then with the deal i got on my 3 im pretty sure same thing could happen with the 1.8t, besides i like saying 1.8t then gli XD

Posted by: Demon_Twinz

320 ... great warrenty .. much better car

Posted by: JereReyn205

Id def. take a BMW over a 3. Even if its a few years old. Better quality.

Posted by: INNOVA

Quote:

Originally posted by c^2
I regret not getting the GLI I really wanted.

The GLI is an awesome car! Volkswagon has some pretty darn high quality stuff.

FYI my insurance on my STi is the same as my '05 Civic coupe!

Posted by: Skylinepilot

Quote:

Originally posted by INNOVA
FYI my insurance on my STi is the same as my '05 Civic coupe!

Well, is the civic insurance high or the STi insurance low?

Posted by: c^2

Quote:

Originally posted by INNOVA
The GLI is an awesome car! Volkswagon has some pretty darn high quality stuff.

Too bad they ruined it for 06.

I saw the MKV GLI at NAIAS and it was just...fugly.

The 2004.5 GLI is one of my favorite cars, especially at that price point.

Posted by: INNOVA

Yea it does take some getting use to.... the new one....

Skyline pilot... Insurance in Colorado is horrible! Bunch of drunk rednecks driving blind at night in the snow....

It's ~ $150/MO a car with a 500/500 deductable and full coverage.... oh how I need to move.

Posted by: Skylinepilot

I'd say your civic insurance is high and your STi insurance is low. I pay more with no tickets or accidents on record for a WRX. But then again I'm also younger than 25, got a couple more years before I get a break

Posted by: TrueEgg

Quote:

Originally posted by INNOVA
The GLI is an awesome car! Volkswagon has some pretty darn high quality stuff.

FYI my insurance on my STi is the same as my '05 Civic coupe!

according to what sources. Volkswagens were among the worst cars rated in terms of reliability in consumer reports 2004 reviews and they have a history of electrical problems, as do Audis.

I really don't see the infatuation with volkswagens.... they're so plain and bulky. I despise riding in my friend's Jetta.

Posted by: Bonka

CR gives you a terrible view of a vehicle's reliability. Take the ratings with a grain of salt.

The only reason VW's (Jetta/Golf specific) are rated terribly are because of their lousy coil packs and power window regulators. These issues are covered under warranty. Beyond that, they are rather reliable contrary to what people would make you believe.

Maximas have the same type of issues if not more than the Jetta/Golf yet CR gives the Maximas a recommeneded rating? Please...

Posted by: Skylinepilot

I think both VW and CR are rather inadequate. VW's I can't say anything great, but I guess if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say it all

Its just that a friend of mine works at a VW dealer and his brother is one of the managers, they have seen the other side of VWs.

As far as CR goes, well they are unsponsored/unbiased but their testing isn't all that great either... I believe they gave a faster quarter mile to the MPV over the RX8

oh well.

Posted by: TrueEgg

Quote:

Originally posted by Skylinepilot
I think both VW and CR are rather inadequate. VW's I can't say anything great, but I guess if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say it all Its just that a friend of mine works at a VW dealer and his brother is one of the managers, they have seen the other side of VWs.

As far as CR goes, well they are unsponsored/unbiased but their testing isn't all that great either... I believe they gave a faster quarter mile to the MPV over the RX8 oh well.

OK... I just think there is so much better one can do than a volkswagen.

I wouldn't be surprised about the MPV/RX8 thing anyway the RX8s are slugs...

Posted by: thegonagle

Quote:

Originally posted by Skylinepilot
I believe they gave a faster quarter mile to the MPV over the RX8 oh well.

They get sometimes better times with V-6 automatics because their test driving technique precludes clutch drops, brake stands, and generally "brutalizing the machinery," as they've put it in the past. With stick shifts (and autos), they always take off with the engine at idle, unlike the drivers at all the car magazines.

With a V6 auto, they can just floor it and it could immediately get the jump on a car with a relatively high-strung engine that doesn't have a lot of low-end torque (like the RX8's engine).

Their technique is understandable because they're testing/publishing for the masses, most of whom don't do clutch drops and brake stands in order to merge onto the highway; therefore, their numbers better reflect the way most people drive their cars on a day-to-day basis. (Remember, they're not trying to shave off every last 10th of a second off the times. They're not testing for the track, they're testing for the street.)

Posted by: Skylinepilot

I see, but I guess that idea would only help out those not interested in sportier cars. People buy those cars for those rare moments they push their car. If I'm in the market for an RX8 I want to know how it will really do on the track. But if that were the case why would you read CR. So, I guess CR does have some relevance, but its mostly for consumers that are more interested quality and assurance rather than performance.

Regarding RX8s being slow, I have to agree, they can't compete with the Z/G35, WRX/STi and anything else around there. I think they look real good and handling is pretty good, but not to many things to really put me behind the wheel of one.

Posted by: TrueEgg

Quote:

Originally posted by Skylinepilot
I see, but I guess that idea would only help out those not interested in sportier cars. People buy those cars for those rare moments they push their car. If I'm in the market for an RX8 I want to know how it will really do on the track. But if that were the case why would you read CR. So, I guess CR does have some relevance, but its mostly for consumers that are more interested quality and assurance rather than performance.

Regarding RX8s being slow, I have to agree, they can't compete with the Z/G35, WRX/STi and anything else around there. I think they look real good and handling is pretty good, but not to many things to really put me behind the wheel of one.

I still thinkt hat the G35/350Z and the STi/Evo styling is better than the RX8... not to mention that rotaries have been known to be very problematic in the long run, especially when pushed too hard. Give me a nice 4G63 anyday

Posted by: 22bsti

Quote:

i agree with you but to be fair the rotary engine's relaibility probems are a little overstated and not entirely deserved. many mazda owners were cheap and neglected maintiance not to mention the fact that when it came to tuning the microtech ecu's that most mazda owners were using were used/tuned improperly.

i hate to say it but the new renesis is... ...well a joke the 13b was way better imo at least

Posted by: INNOVA

Quote:

Originally posted by Skylinepilot

Regarding RX8s being slow, I have to agree, they can't compete with the Z/G35, WRX/STi and anything else around there. I think they look real good and handling is pretty good, but not to many things to really put me behind the wheel of one. [/B]

Not to mention a RX8 weighs 3800+ pounds and has only 230ish horses.... while the STi weighs 3260lbs and has 300 horsies.

To match them up you'd have to disable the STi's turbo and ride with a 600 pound in-law.

Posted by: Kremithefrog

3800lb??? I know it's not light, but I seriously doubt it's that heavy. Do you have a link to any solid info on its weight? Thanks.

Posted by: INNOVA

Dough! A review at edmunds.com where they compare a rx8 with a mustang GT states that....

But everywhere else I look says it is not much more than 3000lbs!

Posted by: Skylinepilot

Look at Mazda's official site:
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/dis...vehicleCode=RX8
The curb weight is 3,053 lbs... The GVW (Gross Vehicle weight) is 3,854 lbs., not what you will find in a test.

Whats the problem? I'm not an expert on this car but it either gets horrible driveline loss or the 230+ at the crank is still an overrating. A couple years ago when people were starting to tinker a little with car people were discovering that they were getting 170-180whp. For a 2wd, the average driveline loss is 15%. Well 247hp (Original crank hp rating) less 15% should give you 209.95 whp... 238 crank (current rating) should be about 202.3 whp. But for some reason the pioneers of dyno testing were getting even lower ratings than they thought they would: http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6890
That came up with 173.8 whp. I did a quick search with "dyno" as the only word in the title and someone came up with 184whp stock. Better but not good: http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...&highlight=dyno
Another mentions hitting 180whp with an exhaust in another thread.

So, either the motor is still over rated and crank hp should be about 210 if its around 180whp mark at 15% driveline loss. Otherwise, the car is experiencing about 25% driveline loss which is about as bad as an AWD car, but none of the advantages of an AWD car.

Posted by: Ianbiz

get a newer 325 or 330. so much better than any mazda.

my mom is getting a 330i, or my TL. She drives a lex.