What are some reasons you guys have why the MX3 never became

[Juans_93_MX3]

What are some reasons you guys have why the MX3 never became popular?

I think its mostly due to the fact that the V6 models were very slow. 130hp and 115ft torque is really awful espically for a V6.
I think Mazda should of went and used the same V6 2.5L engine that Probes use, that would of been awesome. I bet we would really have alot of aftermarket support if they did so.

[Famine]

Size, shape, looks and showroom price.

The car looks dinkier than it is - it's roughly 14 feet long, which is above the average on UK roads, but it looks a lot smaller. The shape makes it "cute", and blokes don't like to drive "cute" cars. The looks are like 'em or hate 'em - and it also doesn't look like a 4 seater with a decent boot (trunk), meaning many people would reject it summarily from the outside without getting in. The showroom price was nearly £18,000 in the UK - which is a bit bloody steep and hard to justify.

At the point in time the MX-3 was launched, European tastes, in particular, were leaning towards the hatchbacks. We had a plethora of hot hatches - mostly slower or poorer handling, but all cheaper to buy and run. £18,000 for a car which, from the outside, looks like it'd be impractical and returns only marginally over 30mpg (Imperial) combined doesn't stack up next to £13,000 for a hot hatch which, at a glance, looks more practical (it IS after all based on a lower model, which is primarily designed for practicality) and can get 40mpg (Imperial) combined. Especially as we were just climbing out of a global recession in the late-80s.

The sportscar enthusiasts would reject it too, for its FWD. "True sportscars", they say, "should be front-engined, RWD."

I suspect too many people saw it and thought "impractical" without getting in it or driving it - and coupe buyers saw the "FWD" column when poring over car magazines without bothering to drive it either.


But I'm glad. I'm glad it's rare-ish and exclusive-ish. Otherwise mine wouldn't be worth 40% more now than I paid for it 2 years ago. Their loss, my gain.

[nope-mx3]

Actually, I dont think the Mx3 GS is slow at all.

Damn quicker than most people believe.

nope-mx3

[cb mx3]

Why it never really became? I really don't know but personally I don't care. I can almost pin ponit where most MX-3's in my area live b/c there really aren't that many around. My silver color one is one of only 2 silver around in my area. And what I have planned for my car in the next year will almost make it the top one around my area but it will be far from the best. My mx-3 is only a 4 banger but when I'm driving it I know not alot of ppl don't know what it is and personally the looks I get in it would be the same I got in a brand new top of the line sports car. So b/c the mx never really caught on I'm thankful b/c it gives me a scarce car.

[Flashpoint2]

When i first saw them I hated them. Too cute. In truth, I only bought my first MX because I wanted a 5spd hatchback, and I didnt want a CRX. It was the only thing in my price range, and i had made up my mind to buy a car that day. I never even really looked at one before I bought it. I guess people just never realized how nimble these things can be.

[Selecta]

I think the initial impressio the car gives off may has been it's downfall (interms of becoming)...even when I was looking for a new car the Mx3 was not even on my radar of existing cars.

But when I saw it and it said V6, MTX and Two door...i said why not lets take it out for a drive and BAM...me bought it

[Grants]

Over here Mazda brought out a whole new brand - Eunos - and opened new dealerships. Mazda tried very hard to not associate itself with the new branding.

Obviously nobody had ever heard of "Eunos" so that was a big obstacle. They were regarded "luxury" cars and this reflected in the pricing... still does for used cars today.

[Juans_93_MX3]

Actually, I dont think the Mx3 GS is slow at all.

Damn quicker than most people believe.

nope-mx3

16.7 seconds at the at the 1/4 mile isnt slow to you? Isnt that what Neons and Civics also run?
Also, we have the V6 and they have inline 4cyl engines that can keep up with us.

[mitmaks]

maybe too expensive for some people, and people dont trust mazda as much for some reason as they do to honduhs

[Gro Harlem]

Its easy, mazda is retarded.


here are some reasons I know were why it failed:

1: it was the most expensive 2-door hatchback, only the more-luxo integra was more expensive. The saturn SC1/SC2, Geo Storm, CRX, Del Sol, NX2000 were all cheaper back then.

2: The shitty moronic choice of a 1.6 SOHC engine for a "sporty" car? I can't even imagine how slow it must be (ive never driven one, only a dohc), but good lord what a retarded choice for an engine for this car.

3: The shitty moronic choice of a fuel-thirsty & torqueless 1.8 V6? Adds unnecessary complexity to a car that could've just had a 1.8 BP engine in the first place (as the only engine choice...which would've made it cost WAY LESS to produce).

4: The love it, or hate it styling. The headlights look stupid IMO, the rest of the car looks good to me tho. Some will argue that the NX2000 looks better (I agree...cept for the a---end), and the newer 94 integra definitely takes the cake in terms of styling.

5: Kinda crappy press coverage. I have a bunch of articles aboutg the mx3, lots of them criticize how cheap the car feels. i don't think the interior is "cheap", at least it isn't hard plastic crap, but I heard a lot of complaints about the power seatbelts, and the clanky-cheap-a-- feel of the doors (i agree..they sound like my festivas doors!). Another gripe was the K8 engine...not quite as fast as the NX2000 or saturn SC, and more fuel thirsty. The one thing ALL magazines agreed on was the handling prowess..it supersceded every car (even the 94 integra when they did that comparo).

[Juans_93_MX3]

Its easy, mazda is retarded.


here are some reasons I know were why it failed:

1: it was the most expensive 2-door hatchback, only the more-luxo integra was more expensive. The saturn SC1/SC2, Geo Storm, CRX, Del Sol, NX2000 were all cheaper back then.

2: The shitty moronic choice of a 1.6 SOHC engine for a "sporty" car? I can't even imagine how slow it must be (ive never driven one, only a dohc), but good lord what a retarded choice for an engine for this car.

3: The shitty moronic choice of a fuel-thirsty & torqueless 1.8 V6? Adds unnecessary complexity to a car that could've just had a 1.8 BP engine in the first place (as the only engine choice...which would've made it cost WAY LESS to produce).

4: The love it, or hate it styling. The headlights look stupid IMO, the rest of the car looks good to me tho. Some will argue that the NX2000 looks better (I agree...cept for the a---end), and the newer 94 integra definitely takes the cake in terms of styling.

5: Kinda crappy press coverage. I have a bunch of articles aboutg the mx3, lots of them criticize how cheap the car feels. i don't think the interior is "cheap", at least it isn't hard plastic crap, but I heard a lot of complaints about the power seatbelts, and the clanky-cheap-a-- feel of the doors (i agree..they sound like my festivas doors!). Another gripe was the K8 engine...not quite as fast as the NX2000 or saturn SC, and more fuel thirsty. The one thing ALL magazines agreed on was the handling prowess..it supersceded every car (even the 94 integra when they did that comparo).

Very good reasons

[hgallegos915]

Its ok specially because not evenyone ahs one and they dont know what it is This car would have been a hit if it would come stock with the klze.

[PATDIESEL]

well we have lots of reasons why it didn't succeed, but lets look at some things from Mazda's perspective for a moment.
1. Mazda is not the "buy a beater and treat it that way" company. They sell sporty, cool looking, agile cars and the price is reflective of a car that has spent more time on the track testing and tuning to make it one of the more, if not most, agile cars in it's class.
2. the V6 option was a one of a kind in its class, and the reason I bought mine personally. They were marketing to me. a first time car buyer with an eye to style and performance over utility.
3. the reason that it didn't get hte 2.5 is cause that would have made the MX-6 rediculous. Why would you buy a car that costs almost 50% more for the same power and the MX-3 being quicker b/c of weight. If anything I think the MX-6 was the mistake.
4. Mazda has never and will never be a mainstream auto manufacturer. They cater to a different crowd than most and that is their life blood. If they built a Civic look alike like Toyota and Nissan then they would be ou of business. They can't compete with the stronger names. Yes the Protoge could be considered just that, but it is a bit differect in that it is the best selling USED car, not a high selling new one. We must also consider that Mazda did pretty well with the MS Protoge, that gave them the clue to start making more MS models and thus we now have the MS 6 Miata and soon the RX-8. They are a sport minded car with a bit of an edge over the stock model.
5. Most of the above knocks on the V6 are ignorant. (sorry if that offends you, but it is true) The V6 is 1.8L and that must be kept in account. It gave more torque and HP than almost every other 4 banger in its class. It did have a slighly lower MPG, but not bad. a 130 HP and 115 Tq is very respectable from a 1.8L and that is truely the way you have to look at it. The fact that it is a V6 only lends to a smoother power band and an increase in torque. Consider that most Ferraris are 12 cly, that doesn't mean that they can and should automatically make more power than a V8. In fact a similary tuned V8 will make way more power just b/c they are larger motors. However the V12 will be much smoother and have a better power and tq curve. that is why they use V12, it lends to their smooth, refined sports car market.
7. A 2.5L V6 with 160 HP would have put the Mx-3 in a much higher insurance class. It is important to remember that you also pay insurance on the car and Mazda was thoughtful enough to think about that for you. We with the V6 are already in a higher class regarless of power. The V6 alone makes it seem like alot more to the insurance industry. Also the added power to weight ratio would have driven the price through the roof. Think I'm joking ask your agent for a quote on a Protoge and a VR6 Golf, you be suprised what the difference is just because of the V6. I know they aren't comparable in power, but neither are the SOHC and the V6.

The reason that I think that Mazda dumped the MX-3: It was trying to slim down it different drive trains to make manufacturing cheaper, the MX-3 is based on an old platform that was built in an old factory, it didn't sell well b/c of its higher price and it was too closly related to the Protoge and MX-6.

The saddest part about the whole thing is that ever since the MX-3 was dumped I haven't seen another car that I found similar and would buy. Think about it, has there ever been another car before or after the MX-3 that was truely in the same class??? v6, small, handeled best in class, was realtively cheap (ie, not a Lotus or some other exotic that could afford to sell only a few and charge a preium) that actually had funstion, but looked soooo good at the same time and was very relaible.... I don't think so.
I really don't like this topic, is making me really sad.

[Juans_93_MX3]

3. the reason that it didn't get hte 2.5 is cause that would have made the MX-6 rediculous. Why would you buy a car that costs almost 50% more for the same power and the MX-3 being quicker b/c of weight. If anything I think the MX-6 was the mistake.
Umm, not really. It worked out great for Ford. Remember, the 1994 Mustangs were slower then the 1993s. Why? Because the 93 and previous Mustangs (The FoxBodys) were lighter and had more torque. It wouldnt have really made the MX-6 rediculous. But to each holds his own right? I dont think any of the people looking for a MX6 would care that the MX3 is faster. Also, I am sure that once Mazda would see this, they would add a KLZE and a 4cyl option on their MX6s. Some of these people dont even like the look of the MX3s yet like the look of MX6s. It wouldnt have mattered really if the MX3 was faster even though it was older. Look at the RX8s, they are slower then the RX7s but so what? If I am a person who likes the RX8s looks over the RX7 and was willing to spend money to make it faster, I'd go for it.
Lets stop talking about the V6 for a second. Why didnt Mazda just use a more powerful 4cyl version as the one and only base model? Would of been cheaper and better then having a V6 that only made 130hp and 115ft torque
5. Most of the above knocks on the V6 are ignorant. (sorry if that offends you, but it is true) The V6 is 1.8L and that must be kept in account. It gave more torque and HP than almost every other 4 banger in its class. It did have a slighly lower MPG, but not bad. a 130 HP and 115 Tq is very respectable from a 1.8L and that is truely the way you have to look at it. The fact that it is a V6 only lends to a smoother power band and an increase in torque. Consider that most Ferraris are 12 cly, that doesn't mean that they can and should automatically make more power than a V8. In fact a similary tuned V8 will make way more power just b/c they are larger motors. However the V12 will be much smoother and have a better power and tq curve. that is why they use V12, it lends to their smooth, refined sports car market.
I got to disagree. If Mazda is going to list the MX3 as a "Sports Coupe" then it better have the power to be considered a Sports Coupe, not just the looks and a crappy V6. I know what you mean about Ferrari and there V12 engine and how there are V8s that can out run them. The truth is though, MX3s are not exotic cars. These cars should of had more power espically seeing how in 1995 Toyota had their Celica Sports Coupe at 140hp and 130ft torque. Mazda could of still kept the ride on the MX3 smooth even with a 2.5L V6. If its going to be a V6, it better have atleast some power. Most people who buy MX3s (now and then) are not millionares like Ferrari owners. Some want to get the bang for their buck. If they are going to waste a little more money on gas that a V6 guzzles, it better have performance to make up for it
7. A 2.5L V6 with 160 HP would have put the Mx-3 in a much higher insurance class. It is important to remember that you also pay insurance on the car and Mazda was thoughtful enough to think about that for you. We with the V6 are already in a higher class regarless of power. The V6 alone makes it seem like alot more to the insurance industry. Also the added power to weight ratio would have driven the price through the roof. Think I'm joking ask your agent for a quote on a Protoge and a VR6 Golf, you be suprised what the difference is just because of the V6. I know they aren't comparable in power, but neither are the SOHC and the V6.
Its true that insurance for the V6 model would of been higher but if you think about it, that is one of the reasons Mazda would bring in the lower powerd 4cyl version. Its like with the people with V6 Mustangs. They buy V6 Mustangs because they like the looks of the car, not because they think they are fast (which they are not). People buy the V8s for the power. Also, insurance wouldnt have been THAT high. Even with a KLDE the MX3s would be 15 second cars. I could name alot of cars that would cost more than a factory made MX3 with a KLDE.
Now, if we were talking about a factory made MX3 with a KLZE, that would be a big different story. Insurance then would be really high

Its just my taste and opinion but if the Mx3s came with KLDEs, more people would have bought them for the performance. Others who didnt want to pay too much for insurance and just wanted a nice car would go for the 4cyl version.

[Vanished]

Its just my taste and opinion but if the Mx3s came with KLDEs, more people would have bought them for the performance. Others who didnt want to pay too much for insurance and just wanted a nice car would go for the 4cyl version.

or instead of the 4 cyl, have the K8. And then have another model with a KLDE