Japanese sport compact sedans

[CrzyMR2T]

is the mazda 3 2.0 version all aluminum? i know the 2.3 is.

the corolla looks funny, its too tall like the echo, makes it look like a cartoon. the lancer is probably the second worse looking to me.

the civic has no power compared to the others.

i dont like the sentras rear suspension, that beam axle only sorta acts like an independent suspension, not quite like the others.

so my choice is the 3. the imprezas awd wasnt enough to beat the 3s looks, gas mileage, and speed. i bet the subjective ratings on the 3 would be better also. of course this is stock, but if i had extra money to modify the car, then i would of gotten the turbocharged wrx.

[kman10587]

I actually liked the Lancer Ralliart more than the Mazda 3. The shifter was nicer, the handling was more communicative, and the pick-up was nicer down low (the Ralliart is SOHC as opposed to DOHC). But still, it's a Mitsubishi, and that's not a good thing to be right now.

[CrzyMR2T]

really? the ralliart lancer doesnt look as good as the 3 in my opinion though, and how much power does it have? the mazda 3 S has something like 160 hp.

[kman10587]

162 hp, 160 torque

I expected the 3 to be better after all I'd read about it, but the Ralliart felt like the better car in my opinion. Not that the Mazda 3 was bad at all, I just preferred the Ralliart.

[3000ways]

Good poll and thread, this is extremely difficult for me to decide. I like the Mazda 3s, I like the look, the interior, and I believe you get alot for the price, but I'm concerned about it's aftermarket potential, right now it seems alittle to early to decide on that aspect. The Senta SE-R is perhaps the best of these selections when it comes to performance, but I'm not sure on it's styling and interior, I mean I'm not sure if it's performance is enough for me to overlook other aspects. The Mitsubishi I also like, but it's aftermarket seems to be a mystery also. The Subaru is nice, but images of the WRX and WRX STI will keep popping in my head. So I guess the Mazda 3s is my choice, and I can only hope that the aftermarket for this car one day get's pretty big and I could start to mess around with some boost.

[aznxthuggie]

well when it comes to the se-r's looks.. im really dissapointed.. the 02/03 had the styling of a skyline in the front.. but the 04+ just looks nasty.. i gotta admit the mazda 3 is a good value.. but in my opinion performance wise it can't compete with the se-r

[kman10587]

The thing about the Sentra is that it hasn't been re-designed since 1999, so of course it's gonna have a lot of faults. However, the performance is definitely there, the price is great, and the aftermarket is growing quickly. I voted for the Corolla XRS, but I'm sure I'd be just as happy (if not happier) with an SE-R Spec V.

[aznxthuggie]

yea like in my sig.. im having a hard time deciding between those cars.. the xrs isn't #1 because of the lack of torque, and probably doesn't have the best handling, i also hear the spec v has horrible torque steer that even the stock differential doesn't help

[kman10587]

Check out the Scion tC, you might like it a lot. Be warned though, it's more of a mini-Lexus cruiser than a hot hatch. The XRS actually has pretty good handling, and it's fun as hell to rev it up to 7000 rpm. I haven't driven the Spec V, but yeah, I've heard about the horrible torque steer, the iffy transmission, and the lack of boostability. Maybe you should go for the Mazda 3, or maybe even the Lancer Ralliart.

[aznxthuggie]

yea i test drove the tc, the matrix and he xrs already i still havent' test drove the se-r tho, the tc is nice.. but it isn't that much of a step up from my 96 accord.. just a lil bit faster.. right now im either going for a really economical car.. or a kinda.. sporty car.. not sure if im going to go inbetween because my accord is kinda inbetween those already heh

[kman10587]

Yeah, the tC is pretty damn heavy, but that's because it has a Lexus-like standard features list...it's a tremendous value, just not to performance enthusiasts (although it isn't too bad in that department either).

[SabreKhan]

Gotta go with the Subaru. The SE-R is getting a lot of hype here, but it's still relatively old technology. The SE-R, while it can be upgraded from its current state a little bit, has nowhere near the potential of the Subaru motor.

Looks: Subaru 2.5RS. I can't defend that, it's just opinion. The RS just looks more muscular and aggressive to me than any of the others.

Someone on here mentioned the fact that the Subaru is unconventional, and used it as a negative factor. Actually, you're wrong on both counts. The boxer style engine is not anything newfangled or terribly unconventional. VWs have had them for ages, and Porsches currently run them beautifully. I'm sure there are other cars out there with horizontally-opposed motors that I'm not aware of, but generally speaking the motor layout is not all that unconventional. Think of it like a 180º V-4. Nor is it in any way detrimental to the performance of or maintenance on the motor. In fact, the boxer-style motor gives the car a lower center of gravity by placing all four cylinders (the heavy part of the motor) flat at the lowest possible part of the engine (the oil pan is lower, I guess).

As for functionality, the Subaru wins. AWD is useful both on tarmac and off, giving the car driveability in snow, rain, mud, or dry sunny days. The RS can go where all the other cars on the list fear to tread.

As for straight-line speed, the SE-R might win, but the Subaru isn't exactly bringing up the rear. The AWD system is built, however, for the twistys. Take these cars out on a mountain road and see who's faster. If I had to guess, I'd say the Subaru would win.

As for upgradeability, I think the Honda would actually win. After the Honda, though, would be the RS. There's SO much aftermarket for Subarus. They're the hot item of the moment, and thus manufacturers are putting out loads of parts for them. Some of those parts, as with many aftermarkets, are crap. But some of them are really spectacular.

Reliability: Subaru. Or Honda. But the Honda loses in other places. Somebody mentioned the transmission being unreliable on the RS, which just simply isn't true. Subarus have been making AWD transmissions for quite a while. I read somewhere that something like 80% of the Subarus ever built were still on the road. That could be total crap, but the bulletin board at my local Subaru dealership is filled with pictures of people's 400,000 mile-old Subarus of various sorts. And then again, I've never seen a Subaru in a junkyard, and I've been to lots of junkyards. And that dealership is in Temple, TX, so we're not even close to Vermont (Subaru capital of the USA).

Plus, a cat-back on a 2.5RS sounds WAY cooler than on any of those other cars. Boxers roar like an American V8, whereas inline fours tend to sound like angry bumblebees.

So, to make that long story short: Subaru 2.5RS.

[Sm00vEwRx99]

Subaru for sure......What else is there? no offence to the other cars they r all pretty nice but the Subaru Ripps em all......compare the Subaru with cars worthy of its preformance bro!

[producepeteSi]

I voted for the Subaru but its pretty close to the Mazda 3 for me. When asked to look at all the options, not just performance, I think the best choice is a Subaru. The Subaru has AWD, which is very good for handling, safety, and launching. Now, added, the AWD weighs it down a little more than the other cars and drinks more gas. So this is where the Conflict with the Subaru and The Mazda came into play. The Mazda will get much better gas mileage than the Subaru and is a big factor. But money aside, I would take the Subaru.