new vios AT vs facelifted Mazda3 (entry level)

[niky]

The Mazda3 has a better suspension, better steering and more supportive seats than the Vios. More elbow room, too.

The new Vios has a bit more legroom (paradoxically), but it's narrower. It's faster and more economical than the Mazda3, but more so on the highway. In city traffic, it's not that far off (as per Orly)... simply because Toyota's automatics suck ass. Mazda's Activematic is more responsive, but the small engine versus the big body through the mediation of that auto? You can drive economically in a Mazda3, but only by not using too much power. And since it's so slow, you tend to use more power just to get back up to speed. Easy does it and you'll be fine.

I don't like the suspension and sound insulation of the Toyota as much, and the engine sounds thrashy. But it's a decent car, anyway... comfortable enough for city use and pretty roomy.

If you're going to buy a Vios, buy the 1.3 MT. Punchy enough for traffic duties and about as fuel efficient as a Honda City (we'll know when it comes out). The AT option is just a waste of money. Seriously, if you want an automatic vehicle, you can't beat Honda's CVT.

If you're buying the Mazda3, the 2.0R is the best choice, but the 1.6 ain't bad. It's not as fuel efficient as the current Honda Civic 1.8 AT or the Toyota Corolla 1.6 AT, but it's as good as most older 1.6 ATs, despite the extra weight. And it feels like an expensive car compared to the Toyota Vios... which, despite being dressed up... is still entry-level. Of course, with the Mazda3, you'll have to be a very patient driver. Every time you pull out to overtake, you can just imagine: "vroom-vroom... ten pesos of gas... vroom vroom... twenty pesos of gas..."