HawthorneVillager.com

These have been in the market for a while now, so have they lived up to expectations? How much has the warranty been used and how have out of warranty repairs been? I'm retiring in a few years and thinking about reducing my gas consumption. I'm getting 11-12 L/100km in the summer and 13-14 in the winter. Currently driving a AWD 6 cyl Highlander. Would still be wanting more room than a Civic or Mazda3. Input and thoughts on a "retirement" car appreciated.

AB

I would never buy a Mazda 3. Go research rust issues, and have a look at a 5-7 year old one. Total rust buckets. Mechanically they are good, but have awful body integrity. As for a fun car, civic si.

Please don't make general comments about the Mazda 3, mine is from 2006 and it's far from "total rust bucket"

My wife's Mazda3 is almost 7 years old, no rust. My Mazda3 hatch is from 2010, no signs yet, but probably still early to tell. I love the car, the hatch is great, but with the 2.5l engine, it is far from what I would describe as a fuel efficient engine. I average about 120km a day and fill up far more often than I would've liked. I'm at 110,000km on this now, no rust proofing; fingers crossed. I know some of the older Mazda3's have had rust issues; I am hoping they got this sorted in new models.

My warranty was 3 year or 80,000 km. I obviously hit the mileage mark before the 3 years. No major issues really but I do find it to be a bit fussy with wheel alignment. Other than that I just take it for regular service and its usually very predictable. There have only been a few out of the ordinary expenditures which were service visits that cost a little bit more than normal (transmission fluid flush, wheel alignment) etc. Stock brakes are still good, and last time I checked in Nov there was still considerable life left on pads which was good to see.

Time to stop living in the past, yes this was an issue on 2004-2006 models, but newer ones have had no such issues. The new Mazda3 is a great car by all reports.

As far as the OP's question, first you asked about hybrids and electrics, but then you mentioned that you are looking for a "retirement car", which to me doesn't match up. The big benefit of getting a hybrid car is the reduced fuel consumption, but you pay a premium on the purchase price for this benefit. This benefit is only really worthwhile for people doing 30,000 km a year or more, which most retired people are not doing. Even if you plan to do road trips now that you are retired, most of those km's will be easy highway km's, which a hybrid doesn't offer as big a benefit on. Hybrids shine best in city stop and go traffic.

For vehicles similar (but slightly smaller) to what you drive now, check out a Subaru Forester, Toyota Rav4, Honda CR-V, Mazda CX-5. All have much better fuel economy than what you drive now, while not being too much of a downsize for you.

I've heard the new Forester XT (the one with the turbo) is wicked fun.

I drove an Altima Hybrid for several years (company vehicle) and noticed little in gas savings if i drove it "normally".
From what i can tell, the battery power functions only up to a certain rpm, and then only up to 60 km/h. Only really effective if you snail it off the line with minimal acceleration, otherwise the motor kicks in.

Also, the trunk space was attrocious. Could barely fit my golf bag in the trunk, even after pulling out my driver.

Electric cars are still unproven and we don't have the infra-structure to use them as daily drivers, but Hybrids have proven themselves, with Toyota/Lexus systems being the best since they are the most successful Hybrid makers.

I had a friend with a Lexus RX Hybrid that lasted over 200,000km, but I'm in agreement with a previous poster, you may find value in a compact gasoline car or small SUV.

_________________
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

Good points made by all, I do about 30k a year now and expect to increase on that, at least in the first 5 years with cross Canada trips, maybe wintering in Florida, cottage in the Laurentians so it looks like a downsized SUV would better meet my travel needs. What would the L/100km be for the one's mentioned above?

AB

The best tool for comparing fuel economy is the United States EPA fuel economy site: www.fueleconomy.gov
Their testing is much more realistic than the Canadian testing and can in fact be beaten if you drive with fuel economy in mind, plus this site has great comparison and customization tools. In order to compare properly it would be best to also compare against their rated fuel economy for your vehicle, rather than what you have measured. You didn't say what year your 6 cylinder Highlander is, but a 2006 Highlander V6 AWD is rated for 12.4 L/100 KM, while a 2009 also had a 12.4 rating.

Since fuel economy is a big concern, I'm only listing 4 cylinder models for now, also only listing automatics since you didn't make any comment in this regard, although new automatics often beat manuals in fuel economy anyways. You should test drive them and see if you can live with the decreased power for the better fuel economy.

2014 Subaru Forester AWD: 8.7
2014 Honda CR-V AWD: 9.4
2014 Toyota Rav4 AWD: 9.4
2014 Mazda CX-5 AWD 2.5L: 9.0

and just for fun,
2014 Toyota Highlander AWD 6 Cyl: 11.8

Thanks btimmis, looks like a cool site for this topic. My Highlander is a 2012 and my wife would kill me if I even considered a manual transmission.

AB

I've been a big fan of diesel engines for years, got my first Jetta Diesel in 2001.

Swapped it out for a Civic hybrid in 2007 and couldn't have been more disappointed. Hybrid drive is somewhat annoying switching in and out, grabbing at the brakes to regenerate and overall lacked the sort of power and torque I'd come to expect from my diesel. Add to that, it got *worse* fuel economy than a diesel. Traded it in for another diesel as soon as I could, there was a gap in the market there for a couple of years as they re-engineered all the diesel engines to meet new environmental standards.

I strongly recommend VW Diesel TDI engines. They're quiet, clean, powerful, and get better real world fuel economy than most hybrids. I've owned a 2011 Jetta and more recently a 2013 Passat which is a bit bigger. You can get larger cars as well in diesel from VW.

Chevy just jumped into the market with some diesel models as well, but not sure if I'd jump on a first-gen Chevy diesel though.

Give diesel a chance. I'm shocked that anyone would pay the hybrid premium when diesel is such a great no-compromise option these days.

-Pete

Completely agree with the above. My current daily driver is a 2011 TDI, great car.

Interesting, haven't thought about the diesel angle for a car. My brother has a Cummins turbo diesel Chrysler truck that sounds like a rolling pinball machine, that noise would get to me for sure, it would only be a matter of how long.. Are the cars much quieter?

The Passat would be the smallest practical size for us and even then I don't know if I could shoehorn in all my wife's luggage. I'd probably have to get one of those rooftop carriers and look like a Gumbymobile on the highway.

Is diesel access in urban an rural areas a non-issue these days?

AB

Mazda 3 wagon gives a lot of room. But any sedan is roomless.

Hybrid is North American manufacturers marketing scam.
They charge you much more for hybrid and total economy equals to zero.
They also gauging here for diesel cars.
It is proven in much more populated and more expensive for fuel costs Europe what if you want to cut your auto travel costs it must be nothing but diesel.
In Europe almost every car manufacturer have entry level specifications for cars and SUVs with diesel engines to match this demand. Which is in less expensive car with most fuel sufficient engine.
What same auto companies doing here?
Want diesel - pay for top of the line model, which is like 10K is more expensive or even more.
$10K price difference is a lot of gas to burn over many years.

_________________
Let me know if you need a picture or two