A nice one to have for sure. I’m about to enter the nirvana of early retirement and in the enviable position of being able to finance a replacement for my very recently sold NC 2ltr. My lovely wife and I intend to use the car to tour, home and abroad, and club events. We have an Audi A3 for a daily runabout.
I’m leaning toward a 1.5 Sport Nav but have read the 1.5 requires to be worked through the gears a lot more to maintain forwards momentum. On the plus side I like the extra fuel economy and generally lower running costs, did I say my wife is Scottish! I have a list of what I want in terms of trim and I know it’s all subjective, but do any of you good folk have any input regarding the driving dynamics of both engine/version type that may help my decision?
All the best,
Jeff.
I have had short test drives in both engine types.
Think I’ve posted in wrong area ?? How do I get it moved?
You are buying a new car that drops say £3k to £4k a year and you are worried anout it getting say 39mpg rather than say 43mpg and maybe £20 a year saving on VED!!!
I drove the 1.5 SE and the 2.0 Sport Nav extensively before buying, and ended up with the 2.0. My findings were:
1.5 is more fun to rev out on B roads etc, 2.0 doesn’t reward high revs due to extra torque
The first 2.0 I drove felt jittery and horrible, the second one was fine (probably tyre pressures)
The cloth trim is a bit cheap looking/feeling
The tan leather trim is very smart
Sat nav is dreadful so don’t pay any extra for it
2.0 Sport Nav handles better on rapidly variable surfaces/bends due to upgraded dampers, both have a lot of body roll
In the end, as mine is my daily driver/long distance tourer, the annoyance at constant gear changes on slight inclines on motorways swung it for the 2.0. If it was a weekend car, I would have got the 1.5 Sport in whatever form you need to get the tan leather, and I would get one at around a year old to save a pile of money.
I have a 1.5 sport nav. Went to Denmark last week and after driving from Denmark through Germany and into Holland on Sunday found the Satnav worked fine and I got over 58 mpg. That included some spirted driving between hold ups through Germany.
Overall the car is superb a journey of over 11 hours to catch the ferry from the Hoek and I was still fresh on arrival.
I purchased an ex demo 2ltr Sport Nav with a few hundred miles on the clock and saved just over £3000 on the brand new price.
I chose the 2ltr for the extra torque and cruising ability. I had the Mazda lowering springs fitted (lowered the car by 30mm) to improve the handling and overall ride quality, also had a full 4 wheel alignment carried out after the car was lowered.
I found the car felt a little unsettled prior to lowering on poor road surfaces with the standard springs and the Bilstein shocks.
On a run the car returns around 44mpg, the extra torque and power makes overtaking very easy and cruising at motorway speeds is very relaxed.
My new 1.5 was bought as a fun car and is just that.Plenty enough power and very spirited. Maybe for long distance cruising the 2 litre is the better bet.However, I am not alone in believing the 1.5 seems to feel more nimble and connected than the 2 litre.I think the extra weight is the difference. Coming from a 2 litre Sport Tech I reckon the newer engine is a step up as my 1.5 is definitely as quick in general driving but I haven’t done a long run yet to compare.
I agree about non leather seats.Leather is much nicer and that is one of the reasons I got the Arctic as it has most of the Sport Nav features but at less money.
I dont agree that the nav is poor.Its not to the standard of the one in my BMW but then I didn’t expect it to be.Its perfectly useable and has a similar system of operation to the BM one using the wheel button behind the gear lever.
Good hunting.
A J.
2.0 for me after test driving them both. The extra urgency is appreciated when making progress. Both engines weigh the same so both cars weigh the same. With the 1.5 you get smaller wheels, smaller brakes, smaller tyres, no LSD all of which made the 2.0l the only option for me.
I have a spread sheet to show the gearing in all the gears at various rpm if you are interested. Both cars have the same gearing, the only difference is a small variance in tyre radius.
You must have a decent test drive in both cars, preferably over the same route and then only YOU can decide what is right for YOU.
2.0 sport for me. I test drove both on the Mazda test drive days, I liked the 1.5 engine but couldn’t live with the over soft suspension. Each to his own.
I also get 44mpg, 10 more than my previous NC 2.0 sport tech, over 25k miles.
Exactly what I did - 2.0 Sport Nav, with safety pack saved just over 3k and only had 673 miles on it! I bought it just after I left Perrys Mazda - the spiteful sods wouldn’t do me a deal on the demo I was driving at the time so went elsewhere! Saved loads!
Having spent a lot of time on both of the Mazda driver days locally and experiencing both engines, the 2.0 is the better choice IMO - the Bilstein suspension rides so much better, you get the option of safety pack and the biggest thing for me was that the upgrade wheels will ONLY fit the 2.0 models.
Fuel economy on the 2.0 is very good - i average 41mpg - and thats not driving like a grandma either.
Sat nav works perfectly for me - never had an issue - would say that if you go for a demo model the likelihood is it will have nav as dealers don’t sell many without the nav tbh!
As said above, the cloth is cheap looking on the SEL models as is the dash trim. You also lose the heated seats and keyless entry which are both nice things to have.
Drive both and make your mind up. Some of the points above are clearly wrong, I’m not sure why people make false statements?!
1.5 is 25kgs lighter than the 2.0l, so where does the weight come from? Brakes, wheels, LSD etc. All 16 and 17 inch wheels will fit either car +45 offset, you can buy any you like from the accessories catalog.
My dealer had also told me the 1.5 was lighter and thats confirmed in the brochure.
I am interested in the wheel size point though. Until I read the comment above that 17 inch wheels cannot be fitted to the 1.5 I was not aware of this. The Mazda website Accessory page states that 17 inch wheels applies to 2 litre models only but I cannot understand why. Surely they physically fit so is it something to do with the electronic mph/mpg readings.Larger wheel changes are common with Porsche and BMW so I assume this is not a problem generally.Probably won’t want to change mine but interested to know the reason.
A J.
Yes it does state that but other than a very slight radius change including the tyre from a speedometer reading pov. Any 4x100 16/17 will fit. ET is +45 on the OEM rims, some fit upto +25’s to fill the arches more. Some are running up to 9" wide rims on 245’s!
My dealer quoted me a price for fitting the darker 17’s when I bought it, but ended up preferring the 16’s with spacers fitted.
I apologise unreservedly for misleading you all over the weight of the two types. Yes there is an (unbelievably huge) 2.38% difference in the weight which will be all but indiscernible to us mere mortals. I was commenting on ‘the 1.5 seems to feel more nimble and connected than the 2 litre.I think the extra weight is the difference.’ but again I offer my body and soul for not making this clear in my post.
The difference in the weight of individual drivers and or passengers and their accoutrements can easily vary by 25kg. The amount of fuel on board could also vary by more than 25kg as well so any difference in ‘feel’ are unlikely to be as a result of the 2.38% additional base weight. ie they are the same weight in essence.
I hope the above as gone some way to answering your question (‘I’m not sure why people make false statements?!’) It is an unfortunate turn of phrase as I am sure we have ALL made ‘false statements’ at some time in our lives and indeed we will all continue to do so as long as we have the power of speech. (just to clarify ‘speech’ covers the spoken and the written)
Thank you to everyone that has replied to my opening post. The intention is to go for an ex demo car and forgo the financial implications of a brand new one. I am leaning toward a two litre sport nav. My previous five was two litre though five speed. I found I was constantly looking to change up when getting a move on and noisy/tiring on a long motorway journey, so a six speed is a must. The sport nav seems to have every conceivable extra, though lowering springs, wheel alignment is already on the list of to do’s.
Again thank you for your feedback and experiences of the cars.
1.5 - 975kgs without driver.
2.0 - 1000kgs without driver.
25kgs as a percentage of 975kgs is 2.56% of an increase.
0.18% difference to what you quoted, that’s at least a full English breakfast ??
Jeff, you’ll not go wrong with your choice. I fitted the Eibach springs from the Mazda accessories catalog. Happy with the improvements, H&R also do a good set for the ND, as do BBR.