Toys4RJill

I have no real comments about Miatas.

Aron9000

I was just commenting about how you said Mazdas would not be as durable or reliable as a Toyota product. Their mainstream 4 cylinder offerings have proven to be great cars IMO. Things like the rotary engine and their turbocharged models, yeah I'd agree with you and wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole.

Toys4RJill

I said Mazda 3.

SW17LS

People over emphasize this "incredible reliability" of Toyotas and Hondas vs other vehicles. A Mazda 3 is going to be a very reliable vehicle, and to anybody that values a car as more than just an appliance the benefits of one of a Corolla would be worth a small reduction in reliability even if there were one.

Don't get me wrong, the reliability is great but even after having owned as many Toyota products as I have, I wouldn't purchase a Toyota over a competitors vehicle just because of anticipated reliability.

mmarshall

According to Consumer Reports, Honda, overall, in general, has taken a dip lately in reliability, though it still makes some reliable products.


I've owned three brand-new small Mazda sedans in my lifetime. All three were more reliable than average, though the first (1984) one had some teething problems, and the second one (1988) some cheap-grade parts on it. The third one (an early-90s Protege) held up and ran like clockwork, despite a transmission that could use a little more refinement.

I'm sure, though, that you are enjoying the reliability of your LS, which is a Toyota product.

SW17LS

But the reason why I have an LS is not because of that reliability. The only reason I have an LS and not an S550 is because of cost. If it weren't for that cost difference that's what I would have.

I think Toyota is coming out of a phase where they felt that reputation for reliability meant they could relax on making their cars as nice or as capable as their competitors. Luckily I'm seeing signs that they are coming around to understanding that they need to make cars that are excellent products too. So far though, the only Toyota I would even consider is the Highlander.

Sulu

Why do no premium vehicles use a torsion beam semi-independent rear suspension (other than the Buick Verano)? Premium vehicle buyers are willing to pay the premium that the independent rear suspension costs over the torsion beam suspension. Automakers will give you any feature that you are willing to pay for, if they can make money on the feature; they can make money by providing fully independent rear suspensions, so they offer it. It is difficult for automakers to make money by providing fully IRS on compact and smaller cars in North America, so they do not. It is, however, easier for automakers to make money by providing fully IRS on European compact cars, so they offer it.

It is my opinion that all automakers will make tradeoffs and some automakers' tradeoffs are more obvious than others'. One example is one I have used numerous times: it is my belief that Honda has learned how to hide its cost-cutting (and I do not necessarily mean it in a negative fashion), better than Toyota.

Toyota makes its cost-cutting highly visible with terrible-looking and terrible-feeling dashboard and door panel plastics. This has led (I believe) to many of the comments here that say that Toyota is resting on its laurels -- perception becomes reality. Hard interior plastics must mean that Toyota is no better than Kias of old.

Honda, however, as evident in my wife's 2013 Accord, hides its cost-cutting much better. Lower trim levels do not offer features that higher-level trims do, such as no LED daytime-running lights, no LED taillamps, no locking glovebox, no dual-screen with touch-sensitive infotainment system, no trunk-lid insulation pad (on older models). These deleted features are not that obvious so the cost-cutting is better hidden. But all trim levels offer some better-looking dashboard and door panel plastics than Toyota. People touch the Accord's interior plastics and think -- WOW! High quality! Perception becomes reality and Honda must be terrific.

Perception becomes reality: Mazda offers some snazzy interior designs and offers IRS on its compact cars, so they must be terrific cars. But if Mazda 3s and 6s are such great vehicles, why do they not sell in the numbers that the Corolla and Camry, and Civic and Accord do? Toyota and Honda must offer buyers more of what they want than Mazda does.

mmarshall

Frankly, If I like a vehicle's ride and handling (or at least minimally satisfied with it), I couldn't care less what kind of suspension or tires it has (I've owned and/or driven everything from beams to live axles to IRS to coils to torsion-bars to McPherson struts to leaf springs to multilinks to air-suspensions to you-name-it......same with all kinds of different tires. There are a number of notable exceptions, but, in general, I have found that yesterday's cars ride smoother, but today's cars handle better. Some, like the last-generation BMW 335i and some Mercedes E-Class models, manage to both ride and handle very well....a difficult achievement on the part of the engineers.

mmarshall

Several small Opel-based Buicks use the beam, not just Verano.

I agree that Toyota has had a problem with some basic interior materials. But that seems to be (finally) improving on some of the very latest designs. But some of the interior plastic pieces on the latest Avalon (their sedan flagship) feel almost paper-thin and flimsy.

Though not many outside of sports-cars still row their own gears any more, Honda also puts a lot of time and attention into manual-transmission shift-linkage and easy clutch action. They (still) do what is arguably the best FWD manual transmissions on the market. Problem is......fewer and fewer new cars are still sold with them.

Mazdas, in general, appeal to those who want (more or less) the handling/steering feel of a BMW at a much cheaper price. They somehow manage to do it, even with FWD.

SW17LS

Because the volume cars you speak of have incredibly high customer retention rates, people buy them because they are Camrys and Corollas. The vast majority of people that by such cars are simply buying an appliance to drive from point A to point B, and thats something the Camry and Corolla do very well. They're aggressively mediocre. My issue is, why style them in such a dramatic way when the car underneath its skin is anything but dramatic?

Nobody who actually cares about a car as something other than an appliance would drive a Mazda 6 or 3 and a Camry or Corolla and say the Toyota is a better car.

Just because something sells the most units doesn't mean its the best product. Americans like to buy mediocre stuff.

mmarshall

I tend to have the same issue. But that seems to be they way that automotive marketing and design works nowadays. Why actually provide rear head room when you can do something that looks like a humpback whale? Why let you actually SEE out the rear of the car when a camera is doing everything for you? And why use twist-***** when you can use a video-screen with 27 different functions and a joy-stick?

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

toyota does this as well. the highlander dash for example, looks and feels really good. then i noticed, when looking at a '15/'16 (some of these may be finally addressed for the '17 refresh), not only on low end trims but high end, there was no led lights front or back and you couldn't get front parking sensors on any trim level. then, if you look beyond the front seats, the second row and (ick) cargo/third row area, were just uber cheap trim. the fold up tray between the higher end trim (limited) 2nd row captain's chairs looks like it came out of a yugo.

amen to that. gm proved that for a decade of two. and on this board we've seen many try to correlate high sales with greatness of product, and then of course have it the other way when sales are low stating it dosen't matter or consumers are stupid, or it's great to be 'exclusive' (meaning low sales).

Aron9000

People are creatures of habit as well, some people will buy the same brand of car their whole life. They don't want to venture out of their "safe zone" and try something different, even if a Mazda is a superior car. They'll keep on buying the mediocre product. I think this mentality alone kept the big 3 in business back in the 1980's when they were making garbage products.


Also I don't think Mazda is very well marketed in the US. For whatever reason(maybe a small marketing budget) they just do not have that name recognition like Subaru, which 15 years ago was kind of like Mazda, nobody really knew anything about them.

situman

Subaru has a halo product in the WRX and STi that brought a lot of attention to them. Secondly, Subbie also has a standout feature in their AWD system and its also known for reliability and safety. When one thinks about Mazda, I think people will think of the Miata and...RX7 if you are in the know. There isn't one standout product or feature that identifies them or brings them to people's minds. Nothing for them to build on basically. Corollas are different creatures since they have history behind the nameplate and it doesnt hurt for them to have the all time most sold car in history title, at least in Toyota's history. So as mediocre as the current Corolla is, its reputation and general reliability is keeping it afloat. Let's see what the next gen brings.

SW17LS

I think Mazda's issue is lack of dealers and that leads to difficulty accessing the product.

BUT, Mazda is a small carmaker and they only have so much capacity, they're actually quite happy with their level of success...