Will Mazda ever sell a totally new platform/generation/new engine Mazda 3 or hell even a new CX-5 that isn't a rebadged toyota or are they just doomed?
The reviews I've read of their only actual new product - the larger SUVs are almost uniformly damning - not roomy enough, ride is flinty, transmission is balky.
Also anon here said apparently the car is really nanny-esque in the safety features.
If they made a totally new hatchback with a new more fuel efficient turbo 2.5 STANDARD - like make it available in two states of tune 220 hp and 270 hp - available AWD - roomier - should be hatchback only , and obviously NEW, the Mazda 3 is like 10+ years old at this point, I think it would really sell.

How about you just grow up and buy a truck?

>>28515944
inefficient, heavy, rough ride
kinda the point of a hatchback is its practical but you get a decent ride quality
and mazda was always about letting you have a fun turbo tbqh I think a turbo should be standard on all mazdas even if its low pressure for base models

>>28515967
What year do you think it is? I like how you think a 3500lb, 20mpg tiny hatchback on rubber bands is a better alternative.

>>28515967
>rough ride
>pickup truck
LOL

>>28515988
well, the biggest complaint about the current mazda 3 turbo is the crappy fuel economy - if they could get it to 30 mpgish with a mild hybrid and newer tech and still get 270 hp out of it they would sell a lot

>>28515991
yeah ladder frames are legendary for bouncy rides on paved roads...

>>28515940 (OP)
>ride is flinty, transmission is balky.
kill yourself you wrenchlet faggot nu-male

>>28515999
if you think a modern pickup truck has a rougher ride than a mazda 3 you are on crack and retarded.

>>28516014
I mean, car journalists can't all be wrong.

>>28516044
yes, it does

>>28515999
So you want to make a tiny hatchback 4000lbs just so you can achieve the same fuel economy as a Suburban? Yet you say trucks are heavy and inefficient?

>>28515944
lol
lmao

>>28516074
it shouldn't be that heavy
they should be able to get 30 mpg with a 2.5T and a battery

>>28515944
>buy a truck?
But i'm not gay.

>>28515999
>the biggest complaint about the current mazda 3 turbo is the crappy fuel economy
sounds pretty good to me desu

>>28516312
then where are your wife and kids?

>>28516044
Trucks do have worse drive than Mazda 3(and other brands hatchbacks, sedans). Trucks have poorer stability & handling at higher speeds and worse cornering abilities. Longer turning circle, require bigger parking space, more blind spots. Morons like you who think that majority of cars in America should be trucks, big SUV's need to be shot to death. You are making driving less fun and less safe for everyone. also making road repairs more expensive.

>>28516074
Its the stupid hybrid system, too many ADAS systems, too much sound insulation that made modern Mazda 3 so heavy. Just 10 years ago it used to be below 3000lb car even with the 2.5liter engine, 6-speed automatic transmission. Actually majority of Mazda cars including the 6 and CX-5 used to be below 3200lb cars.

The Mazda3 hatch looks like shit from every angle and I'm tired of the shilling it gets.

>>28516682
Looks better than most, but yeah the side view with that C-pillar is off-putting. The real appeal is how responsive it is for the price but maybe they've fucked that up over the years

>>28516670
The post screams feminine energy.

>>28516670
"Rougher ride" has nothing to do with steering feel or turn radius. It has to do with how comfortable it is when driven over bumps or potholes.
I agree with your points but you were talking about another thing entirely.

>>28516670
incel post

>>28516696
>>28516719
>Trucker gays copes against true arguments.
>>28516715
>he failed to see that he's replying to different poster and message.

>>28516682
Those narrow windows somehow give it almost cuckover proportions without it actually being a CUV.

>>28516730
I replied to the correct post. How a car drives != how rough the ride is.

>>28515940 (OP)
Yes, except the sedan looks superior to the hatch.