Find Reviews by Make:
For 2012, the Mazda3 does away with its grin-grille, by rounding off the corners of its front fascia and beefing up its front “bumper” element. The effect? The 3 looks less like it’s forcing a smile, less like it took a razor to the corners of its mouth in a twisted bid for affection. We’d call it an improvement. The funny part: between this, the death of the “Nagare” look, and the new “Shinari” direction, Mazda’s stylists are finally giving us something to smile about. Now, about that next-generation Mazda3…
42 Comments on “Why So Serious? Mazda3 Gets A Grin-ectomy...”
Read all comments
Is anybody else thinking, “big deal.” I don’t see that much of a difference, but then again I did think that the face of the car was ugly. There are certainly greater design sins in automotivedom. (Like the cheap black plastic triangles that seem to be appearing on cars everywhere now. Kudos to Hyundai for putting an actual glass widnow in that spot on their new Sonata.)
I agree there is not a real noticeable difference. I don’t think the 3 was a design sin to begin with. It does its job by appealing to younger crowds (i.e. me) with a sporty and reliable alternative to a corolla or civic.
I’m not really seeing it either – it’s still big grin mouth.
“Mazda” must be Japanese for “unfortunate looking”.
Anyone notice that Mazda sales are circling the toilet?
That front makes me think of the stoner’s spaceship in the ‘So beautiful and so dangerous’ story from the “Heavy Metal” movie. For those not in the know:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__oqV_kUSrws/TLMp4Q9I3vI/AAAAAAAAB8k/N9JFVk92uU0/s1600/8+spaceship.jpg
Definitely an improvement, now it’s not completely ugly. The sin is that the last generation was one of the best looking small car designs ever (IMO) and the new one was ghastly. Now it’s at least something you don’t mind looking at.
I grew to really like the old one, but I recall thinking it was a bit of a clunker when it first came out. Compared to what is available now, it seems like an easy choice. When it was released though, it replaced the much better handling Protege, which also weighed hundreds of pounds less. Initial reviews reflected that the GLC/323/Protege/3 had grown up, and lost most of its agility in the process.
As for the new one, it hasn’t grown on me at all. I didn’t like it at first glance, and I don’t like it now. Minimizing the grin just leaves its Renault-like beak in clearer focus, and nothing is as ugly as a Renault.
From “Ghastly Grin” to “Gaping Maw”.
It’s definitely better, but….
I agree. The braces may have been adjusted a bit, but you still can’t help but look at it and think “that poor homely little girl…”
I had to look hard to notice the difference. It was off-the-list goofy before, it’s off-the-list goofy now. Progress?
I agree I didn`t see much difference – have the Mazda US site up for comparison.
Noticed that Mazda tout the 3 as having upto 29mpg fuel economy – people complain about the Cruze but hell 29 is terrible. Even the GTi (with much more power) gets 31.
Sure that will improve for the next generation.
I drive the 2.3 liter 3s, saving gas is not one of it’s strong points, whatever I do, it will always go back to average of 23mpg, that is with mix of hwy and NYC driving.
It gets better if I drive hwy only, then I will get 29 to 31, it’s a shame that bigger cars get better mpg with the same size engine.
I’ll be honest, I knew that b-4 I bought it, but what else could I do, buy a Corolla???
The 2012 is getting the SkyG engine, which should make a difference. Whether it will make enough difference to bring it equal to the newer competition, remains to be seen.
It’s really odd that TTAC and most of its readers aim most of their ire at cars that take design risks. Instead of commenting about how bland a Corolla is and how it hasn’t changed much since the 90s, TTAC goes after car designs that dare to be different.
And then when all car designs look like some derivative of the Corolla, TTAC complains that all cars look generic and boring. Car company’s cant win. And with this kind of feedback their design departments will be under more pressure to stay within “comfortable” design language.
I would take the Mazda3 any day over an Audi whose clean yet BORING looks have been continuing for generations and Mercedes’ generic corporate identity look spread across their entire product line. Even the new SLK has lost its distinctive look.
The new Mazda3 “fix” looks terrible. It is out of sink with the rest of the car’s design elements and has a generic look to it. Just what TTAC and most of its readers want.
There is nothing odd about complaining more loudly about what we find more offensive.
Styling is the most subjective element for a car. But for me there is a continuum:
1) Cars so beautiful, it makes me want to own them more. (Attractive)
2) Cars either average,boring, or indifferent (they neither attract, nor repel)
3) Cars so ugly or Silly, it makes me not want to own them. (Repellent)
I think it makes perfect sense that people are going to complain more about cars that they find repellent in category 3) than cars that are merely bland in Category 2.
For me there are only two cars that come to mind recently as being really repellent. The Nissan Juke and the Grinning idiot Mazda 3. I would take bland/boring any day, over these repellent cars.
BTW I thought the old SLK was an Attractive car, the new one is borderline Repellent.
Is there really anyone that thinks a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO is ugly? How about a 1965 Ford Mustang? How about a 1975 VW Golf? How about a 1984 BMW 318i? How about a 1985 Honda Civic? If anyone gets serious about making an attractive car again, I for one will praise it without reservation.
How about a 1975 VW Golf? How about a 1984 BMW 318i? How about a 1985 Honda Civic?
How about all three? Depressing little poverty pods.
Looks like Mazda unintentionally designed a Rorschach test. Some see a sinister joker grin, some see pokemon, and some see a homely girl. I see a playful car that’s fun to drive.
I agree with you buzzyrpm. It’s a big world with lots of different tastes and I’m glad Mazda (and Acura) took some design chances. That Mazda softened the corners of the grin at least shows they are listening.
The “fix” is not that bad, but I wonder what it does for aerodynamics. The sedan has a 0.29 cd (I think the hatch has a 0.31 cd). Here’s a cool youtube animation that partly explains the grin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbGgjSBkZ3A
depressing little poverty pods
Compared to what?
I would still only buy one in black to hide that grinning maw.
The real story is the new engine.
Hey, where do the fog lights go on the new bumper?
The first gen Mazda 3 was pretty boring and non-descript. I didn’t even notice it. The second gen MZ3 I noticed, liked, and bought. It’s incredibly fun to drive and balances comfort, fuel economy, and value very well. But yes, the grille is polarizing. Agreed, the engine is the real story of this update.
This is an improvement but IMO still doesn’t look as good as the model before the hideous grinning grill.
Not sure what else they changed on the original grinning grill from the prior model but I test drove the pre grinning grill model and would have leased one but unfortunately at the time Mazda had no lease deals (2007). Loved the car. I testdrove the grinning grill version and thought the car was loud (excessive road noise) and had a harsh ride. Drove it right after testdriving the Jetta and the Jetta had far superior ride quality and nowhere near the road noise. I was so dissapointed with the grinning grill 3 I wouldn’t even consider it even though Mazda did have a very competitive lease deal.
If the new 3 drives like the pre grinning grill 3 I would consider it.
I have a history of relatively noisy cars, so this MZ3 was a step up! :)
Absolutely, VW has a quieter and smoother ride. But keep in mind that if you test drive the MZ3 right after the VW, the MZ3 will sound extraordinarily loud. At least on paper, the 2nd gen MZ3 (grinning grille) is supposed to be quieter than the 1st gen MZ3 (plain grille).
As for the “harsh” ride, I like the firm sporty suspension and road feel. I know, not everyone’s cup of tea.
I loved the design. It looked nicer than anything in the class – with a lot of more expensive molding, etc.
I clicked on the other pics to see the new look and compare it to the old one in the main pic, but they contained the same car. In other words, it still looks like the same ugly car to me!
I enjoy the “smile” look very much, I don’t see why it is so ugly by some. I think it adds character where many cars have none. The new look isn’t really much of a change to me.
Nice! They went from slack jawed goof with braces to slack jawed goof with a full on retainer with a mouth guard.
Still looks goofy to me, but at least they are trying. I’d love to print and then paste a picture of the Joker on the front door of their office in Irvine.
They’re not trying nearly hard enough. Reminds me of the ‘fix’ Pontiac went with on the Aztek by removing the grey lower body cladding and painting the vehicle one solid color. It was better, but it was still a homely Aztek.
Likewise, a Joker-grin Mazda that’s not as maniacal is still a Joker-grin Mazda.
I honestly can’t see a difference…
I have a 2008 GTI and we just bought a 2010 Mazda 3 for my daughter, same blue coloras in the pics in this article. After driving both, detailing both and buying gas for both ( yeah – you’re welcome sweetie) I like both. It wouldn’t bother me to trade with her one bit, it has nice leather as opposed to my plaid cloth, better stereo, bluetooth, sunroof. Sure, mine is faster, and I’d take a corner harder but most of the time I’m stuck on a 2 lane behind some twit driving 10 under the posted speed while they text, eat, apply make-up and God knows what else..
Get rid of the grin altogether Mazda, then we’ll talk.
The Mazda3 is a big seller in Europe. And for its segment its front end looks are sedate in comparison to other European brands. Its just a fact that buyers in the US as well as the magazine editors are biased against cars showing too much design flare or originality.
Its unfortunate and curses us with boring cars. Just look at the latest US only VW jetta and passat to see how bland is designed to sell big in the US.
I agree that the engine (and transmission) are the big news here. Is anyone willing to risk an educated guess as to whether the high compression ratio in these ‘Sky’ engines (14:1 in some reports) will pose a problem for long term reliability? I only have a lay person’s understanding of the processes and stresses involved in what Mazda is trying to do here, and while it strikes me as a very promising on one level, it also sounds like it might demand an extremely fine level of tuning with small margins of error among engine components, something that might be hard to maintain for long engine life. I ask because I might actually consider looking at a vehicle with this new engine series when it finally hits the market.
That is why they have engineers. Diesels have higher compression than that without related reliability issues. I would be more concerned that they might face additional emission control issues.
A high compression ratio doesn’t inherently mean long-term reliability problems. For example, diesel engines have higher compression ratios than that, and they are turbocharged on top of that, and it isn’t a problem. As long as the rest of the engine is designed to handle it, it’s no problem. Direct injection controls the detonation issues that you would have with a traditional spark-ignition engine, so that isn’t a problem, either.
Direct-injection engines from other manufacturers have had a few teething problems of their own (but not because of the compression ratio). Waiting for the second model year, to give them some time for any problems to surface and get ironed out, would not be an unreasonable thing to do.
@ Brian P Thanks for the reply.
@ Bytor I realize “that’s why they have engineers,” but that doesn’t entail that they are all equally reliable over the long haul. Experience seems to show that some engine designs are more reliable over time than others, so the fact that they all have engineers doesn’t really address my question.
Unfortunately, the US spec of this engine is going to be set up for low octane, because of the stigma attached to fuel that costs 20 cents more in this country. In Europe/Japan it will make more power and get better fuel economy.
Diesel engines are much heavier than gas engines to accommodate the high compression ratios.
Fascinating. I learned that while a compression ratio of 14:1 for a gas engine is insanely high, for a diesel engine, it is on the low end. Typical gas engine compression ratios are 8:1 to 12:1. Typical numbers for diesels are 14:1 to 25:1!
So Mazda is really pushing the envelope for the Sky-G rather than the Sky-D. I suppose this is where gas direct injection comes into play. And sharing the bore/stroke/cylinder between the two engines saves them manufacturing costs. Wow.
As for the current Mazda 3’s general looks it’s never been bad, although looking at the 2004-2006 iteration, it’s pretty pedestrian looking these days about the front clip but back then, it was quite the stylish vehicle in its own way
However, that said, this current front clip with the oversized grin is just too much and kind of reminds me of Pokemon. The bit smaller version wasn’t bad as it was more in the proper scale of the rest of the car, but not this big grin which just looks out of place.
I’ve noticed the taillight treatment in the back is a common design language used by Mazda on most models in some variant, even the Miata. I find the Miata not as nice looking as some of the earlier iterations, especially the first generation and the second.
The concept linked to here for the new design direction, Um, I”m not sure I like this new potential direction AT ALL.
It
Inside line has specs:
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/02/2012-mazda-3-gets-158-hp-sky-g-engine-on-sale-this-fall.html
“Said engine will make 158 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 151 pound-feet of torque at 4,000 rpm while running on North American-grade 87 octane. That’s with a 13:1 compression ratio.”
I know some will complain about it being detuned a bit, but really we are talking about a few HP. I would much rather have the savings from running on cheaper fuel. Lower compression may even increase longevity as the block will be engineered for higher compression.
One thing I am not happy about is the initial lack of manual transmission.