http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_547/car_photo_273891_25.jpg


MORE HERE (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/225669/mazda_sharpens_up_its_act_on_new_3.html)
.

Are they really trying to compete with Acura for Most Bucktoothed Front Design? :confused:

Generally looks good except for the front grille.

I still like this^^ grille better than Acura's ......

3 > entire compact class

Peugeot mouth lol

They got to do something about that grill.

looks good....but then add the 4" wheel gap and plastic wheel covers and see how it looks.

I don't like it at all. The headlights are too swept/slanted (I prefer squarish or round ones), the roofline is too low and arched/humpback, the rear (from the angle the shot was taken) too Camry/Corolla-like, and the grossly-oversized grille looks like the plow front end of an old steam locomotive.

Here is my idea of a good-looking modern sedan: The 2008 Ford Taurus

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/chicago/2007/2008fordtaurusandfordtaurusx.fordtaurus340.img.jpg

My first thought was that it has a lot in common with the 2IS. But this isn't the first with similar design elements.

the previous 3 was based on the Volvo S40 correct....??

The new Mazda 3 has zoom-zoomed in – and it’s set to raise the bar in the family hatchback sector next year!

It’s off to a good start, too. The car is based on the class-leading Ford Focus, and blends these proven underpinnings with chassis expertise from the MX-5.

Refinement and cabin quality are high on the agenda for Mazda, so expect plenty of soft-touch cabin plastics and a layout inspired by the bigger 6. Launch engines will come from the Ford stable, with petrol units ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 litres and diesels from 1.6 to 2.2 litres.

As engineers made the latest 2 lighter than its predecessor, the new 3 is set to weigh less, too. Add in the liberal use of biodegradable materials, and it will be one of the greenest hatchbacks around.

Performance fans will be pleased to hear that an MPS model will feature the five-cylinder turbo from the Focus ST. In the Mazda, which is due in 2010, this will offer around 250bhp. And the discreet look of the current 3 MPS is set to be axed in favour of a more menacing design.

As our picture shows, even entry-level versions of the new car will look good, though. Teardrop headlamps curve down into a deep front grille and are flanked by wide wheelarches. A sharp crease runs through each door handle, and kinks above the side sills add drama.

3 > entire compact class

these days, it's almost 3 > most of the cars on the road



Here is my idea of a good-looking modern sedan: The 2008 Ford Taurus

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/chicago/2007/2008fordtaurusandfordtaurusx.fordtaurus340.img.jpg



i totally, utterly, disagree. I find the new "Taurus" really, really boring. Personally the Taurus from two generations ago is probably the best looking Taurus.

actually, I think I can get pretty cheeky and get away with

Mazda 3 > Acura's current lineup.

Here is my idea of a good-looking modern sedan: The 2008 Ford Taurus

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/chicago/2007/2008fordtaurusandfordtaurusx.fordtaurus340.img.jpg

boring.

the Fusion is much better.

Here is my idea of a good-looking modern sedan: The 2008 Ford Taurus

I would maybe agree with you if you take out the "modern" part...

actually, I think I can get pretty cheeky and get away with

Mazda 3 > Acura's current lineup.

x2

Only thing is this looks just like a small 6. Acura and Mazda have shared the 5 point grill for sometime now.

at least its interesting

i like how cars are looking different from one another rite now, i didn't like when they all just had the 'generic car' look

Here is my idea of a good-looking modern sedan: The 2008 Ford Taurus

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/chicago/2007/2008fordtaurusandfordtaurusx.fordtaurus340.img.jpg

ohhh boy...:uh:

Mazda is seriously stepping up it's game in their design language. I was slightly disappointed in the production 6 though but still better than many in it's class. Dare I say class leading?

ohhh boy...:uh:

Yes, I know there are those who disagree....and that my automotive tastes, except for bright paint colors, are somewhat more conservative than average, but I still find vehicles styled like the new Mazda3, with low, humpback-roofs, bullet-shaped bodies, and grossly oversized grilles to be distasteful. That is simply not my idea of automotive class....in my book, cars were not meant to look like bullets or spaceships.

(If you want to call me Grandpa, then so be it) :D

I like Mazda as a company. Always willing to try new things and push the design envelope. I like the new 6 (better looking than either the Camry or Accord or Malibu) and this 3 looks more expensive than the class it will compete in. I like the design overall. there are things I think could look better (I agree that the grill is a bit much). And as for the "new" 500, er, I mean Taurus... to each their own. Mmarshal, I love your car reviews, but lets just agree to disagree on this one. ;)

Wow! I love it!! Waaay better than the '09 Maxda6. If this is what it's going to look like, then Mazda will own the compact class.

:thumbup:

So ... is this a rendering, or the real thing? If it's a real pic, are there any more pics?

Assuming this is real, I have my doubts North America will get this. Mazda has already begun to screw us by releasing in North America a new 6 that's different than the 6 being released in the rest of the world. Most parts of the world get the global 6, while we here in North America are getting a different variant. The new global 6 looks great, while the new North American 6 looks lumpy, frumpy, and awkward.

I feel that the new 3 in North America will differ from the 3 in the rest of the world, and I think it will differ for the worse, not the better.

3 > entire compact class

In terms of everything overall? Not so sure about that. In terms of performance and "fun to drive" factor, I agree. Styling is subjective, so no point arguing or discussing that. In terms of fuel economy, quality/reliability, or comfort, then no I don't agree.

IMHO, it's more like 3 ~ entire compact class. It's roughly (more or less) equal to the class leaders overall. The 3 is tops in some objective categories, but loses out in others. It all depends what an individual wants or is looking for in a compact car. If for example a well-rounded and economical car is what someone is looking for, the 3 loses out to some competition.

So ... is this a rendering, or the real thing? If it's a real pic, are there any more pics?

Assuming this is real, I have my doubts North America will get this. Mazda has already begun to screw us by releasing in North America a new 6 that's different than the 6 being released in the rest of the world. Most parts of the world get the global 6, while we here in North America are getting a different variant. The new global 6 looks great, while the new North American 6 looks lumpy, frumpy, and awkward.

I feel that the new 3 in North America will differ from the 3 in the rest of the world, and I think it will differ for the worse, not the better.

Because Americans need bigger frickin' cars! :rolleyes: I'm tired of this ongoing mentality that even the automakers are stuck with. Don't they know that we almost always prefer Japanese/European style cars??? Why do they feel the need to Americanize them?

Remember, this is just a rendering for anyone using it as a completely real basis for judging the car.

That looks great IMO.

Hopefully it'll get mileage on par or better than the rest of that class. That's the issue with the current 3. Compact car with the mileage of a bigger/sportier car.

Because Americans need bigger frickin' cars! :rolleyes: I'm tired of this ongoing mentality that even the automakers are stuck with. Don't they know that we almost always prefer Japanese/European style cars??? Why do they feel the need to Americanize them?

Canadians though always have, and still do like smaller cars. What frustrates me is that Canada is getting the bigger, frumpier-looking USDM 6, not the global 6. Mazda's excuse is that the Canadian market is "too small", and that it would be "too expensive" to adapt the global 6 for the Canadian market :thumbdn:. Also to no surprise, fuel economy figures for the new 6 are pretty bad.

You would think with all this focus on fuel economy and the environment, Mazda would have understood the reasoning behind giving North America the global 6.

That looks great IMO.

Hopefully it'll get mileage on par or better than the rest of that class. That's the issue with the current 3. Compact car with the mileage of a bigger/sportier car.

Doubtful. It's likely to use carryover engines from the current 3. Also, this is not just an issue with the current 3, it's been an issue for ALL Mazda cars for a LONG time now.

In the 1990s, Mazda hit a sales peak (especially here in Canada) with some of their cars. At one point cars like the Protege were quite popular during the 1990s. The 3 suffers from the same problems the Protege did. Just like the 3, the Protege had some different styling that set it apart from the rest of the class. It also had a fun-to-drive factor and some good performance, especially the Mazdaspeed Protege. The problem? Quality/reliability did not match the class leaders, fuel economy was quite poor for it's class, and the ride, as well as the car overall was not as comfortable or refined as the best-in-class in those criteria. The 3 pretty much has similar strengths and weaknesses as the Protege did.

Despite the talk of how Mazda has "revamped" it's lineup over the past few years, Mazda vehicles now are pretty much very similar to Mazdas in the 1990s, the only noticeable difference being styling (which of course is subjective).

Mazdas have never been known for comfort, refinement, quality/reliability, or fuel economy. I doubt this will change much in the future.

Mazdas have never been known for comfort, refinement, quality/reliability, or fuel economy. I doubt this will change much in the future.

I dunno... the refinement and comfort of the 3 and 6 that I drove were very good. The CX series of SUVs has gotten rave reviews in those areas as well, and of course all of them score high marks in driving fun. As far as quality goes - build quality has appeared to be good though long term durability and reliability remains to be seen and very well not be any better than average.

Fuel economy could use some improvement but 10-12% would have them right on par with the base 3 engine. That's possible in this revision even without the actual engine changing... transmission, weight, aerodynamics are enough to make that improvement.

I dunno... the refinement and comfort of the 3 and 6 that I drove were very good. The CX series of SUVs has gotten rave reviews in those areas as well, and of course all of them score high marks in driving fun. As far as quality goes - build quality has appeared to be good though long term durability and reliability remains to be seen and very well not be any better than average.

Fuel economy could use some improvement but 10-12% would have them right on par with the base 3 engine. That's possible in this revision even without the actual engine changing... transmission, weight, aerodynamics are enough to make that improvement.

I've driven the current 3 and 6, and while refinement/comfort can be called "good" compared to Honda, it certainly was not up to Toyota levels. Mazdas in the 1990s had good build quality as well, but that did not translate into long-term quality/reliability as that was average at best.

While the 3 is a good choice for those wanting a small car that's fun to drive or that looks stylish, a problem might arise in the future. The Impreza may increasingly invade the 3's turf, and IMHO the Impreza is a better car overall than the 3. Then there is also the small RWD sports car coming from the Toyota/Subaru joint project. This sports car could be inexpensive enough to invade 3 sales, and could potentially offer fuel economy similar to that of the 3. Of course, the sports car won't have the same practicality as the 3, but it will likely have more performance as well as more appeal to enthusiasts.

Most non-enthusiasts that I see or personally know that own a 3 are doing it because it's a "cool car" currently. But that can change at any moment and 3 sales could deflate by quite a bit, which is exactly what happened with the Protege, the predecessor to the 3.

Here is my idea of a good-looking modern sedan: The 2008 Ford Taurus

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/chicago/2007/2008fordtaurusandfordtaurusx.fordtaurus340.img.jpg


Wow, looks certainly are subjective. Its design hasnt advanced since the original 1985 Taurus and Sable!!


http://freshbait.com/carma/uploaded_images/89.ford.taurus.f3-4.350-730997.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/3/2031487629222391091im1mup3.jpg

I find it interesting that this Mazda 3 grill is so similar to the Acura grill, yet this looks so much better. The 3 is easily IMO still the best compact out there. They just need to improve on the engines IMO and they are golden.

Wow, looks certainly are subjective. Its design hasnt advanced since the original 1985 Taurus and Sable!!


http://freshbait.com/carma/uploaded_images/89.ford.taurus.f3-4.350-730997.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/3/2031487629222391091im1mup3.jpg

:mad: Don't ever post those again or I'll report you. HIDEOUS :mad:

Are they really trying to compete with Acura for Most Bucktoothed Front Design? :confused:

Sure looks like they really are competing for the "most ridiculously over done" front grill award.

I still like this^^ grille better than Acura's ......

......................by about 0.04%

....in my book, cars were not meant to look like bullets or spaceships....

i love bullet/spaceship strange looking cars!

what about when Caddys had the tail fins? ... are you againt those too?

http://www.rossgrahamphotography.co.uk/pics/hotrods/59CadillacFins.jpg

now i'm not saying new cars should have tail fins (or am i ...) but i think stuff like this is neat

In some ways I like this 3 even more than I like the new 6. If it gets good MPG then I could see myself rolling in this.

:mad: Don't ever post those again or I'll report you. HIDEOUS :mad:

The thing about it is that back in 1986 those cars were viewed as radically swoopy for family sedans. The new Taurus/500 is slightly blockier but still, if it had been done in the early 80's it would be considered bullet-like.

The envelope is always being pushed, as it should be.

+1.... front grill is disgusting. Everything else looks nice.