1992 Mazda MX3 Reviews - Page 3 of 12

1992 Mazda MX3 1.8 V6 from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.8 V6
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 1 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10
Distance when acquired123800 miles
Most recent distance123904 miles

Summary:

The car is very very fast for being small

Faults:

When I first got the car, it sat for a little bit, then when I drove it for the first time, the CV joints went out. That is all that has gone wrong with the car since I have had it.

General Comments:

If anyone wants to get an MX-3, they need to get the 1.8 V6. Seriously, it's a quick car. When I was coming home from school, an MX-3 pulled up to me, he had the 1.6 4, and he was revving up his engine, so when the light went green, I put the pedal down, and just looked as his car began to get smaller and smaller.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th March, 2006

1992 Mazda MX3 mazda mx-3 1.8 V6 from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 1.8 V6 Manual
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.5 / 10
Previous carn/a n/a

Summary:

I think the car is great

Faults:

When I first got the car it run good, but then my cv joint went out that is all that happen.

General Comments:

The car is fast I got the 1.8 V6 and it gets up and goes when you need it two it is a 5 speed and very fast.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 10th March, 2006

1992 Mazda MX3 GS 1.8 V6 from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.8 V6 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired10500 miles
Most recent distance10500 miles
Previous carChevrolet Blazer

Summary:

I love this car!

Faults:

I had to rebuild the transmission when I got the car ($475. it didn't move when I got it, it turned out that is was overfilled with fluid, and that is what killed it).

General Comments:

After I fixed the tranny, this car was a blast! After that I converted it to a standard, and it got really fun. I still own it, and have no intention of getting rid of it.I'm actually converting it right now to compete in SCCA GT lite class (road racing).

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 6th March, 2006

1992 Mazda MX3 1.6L 4 cl from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.6L 4 cl Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.3 / 10
Distance when acquired120000 miles
Most recent distance137000 miles

Summary:

Love it!!!

Faults:

The only problems I've had with me car was the serpentine belt and the alternator went out, but I use my car to drive from Wisconsin to Michigan atleast once a month!

General Comments:

I love this car, it is excellent on gas mileage, always runs great!

The outside isn't the greatest because of the owner before me didn't keep up with the things that had to be done!

But I couldnt of asked for a better car!!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 18th February, 2006

26th Apr 2006, 04:44

How many miles per gallon did you get?

1992 Mazda MX3 GS 1.8L V6 from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 1.8L V6 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.3 / 10
Distance when acquired207000 kilometres
Most recent distance222400 kilometres
Previous carFord Contour

Summary:

Relatively quick, but not worth the complication of a V-6

Faults:

New battery needed @ 208,000kms.

Distrubutor died @ 212,000kms.

Front cylinder bank valve cover gasket had to be resealed @ 215,000kms because it was shorting out two front sparkplugs.

One new spark plug wire @ 215,000kms.

Three new sparkplugs for front cylinder bank @ 215,000kms.

Driver side CV axle @ 218,000kms.

Passenger side CV axle @ 222,000kms.

Driver seat belt not retracting quickly.

One or two new wheel bearings will be needed soon.

Both front ball joints may be needed soon.

Left rear shock is almost gone, others are still good.

Has started consuming oil lately, up to 1L every 800kms.

General Comments:

This car accelerates relatively quickly for a 1.8L. Reviews I've read seem to peg it around 8.7 to 8.9 seconds to 60mph. That feels about right. I think that the car feels quicker than it is because its low and the engine revs quite quickly. I normally drive pretty calmly and shift @ 3,000 rpm. The motor is fairly torquey even though it's a twin cam 24 valve engine. However when I feel like a spirited drive, this engine obliges. It revs smoothly all the way up to the 8,000 rpm fuel cutoff and makes a great sound all the way up. Mazda put a V-6 in this car purely because it would idle and rev smoothly. V-6s are inherently smooth whereas four cylinders are not. The exhaust is low and has good bass. I think it actually sounds better being driven between 2 and 3,000 rpm. Power is decent with 130hp @ 6,500rpm and torque is 115 lb-ft @ 4,500rpm.

Handling is great for a front drive car with a relatively heavy V-6 up front. The engine block is actually the same code (KL-Z) as the 2.5L V-6 in the Ford Probe/Mazda MX-6 twins. Its been de-stroked and maybe even de-bored in this application.

I should preface my evaluation of the handling by saying that I am running snow tires up front (came that way) and cheap all-seasons in back, both of which are 60 series tires. They should be 55 series sidewall.

As far as handling is concerned the way I got the car, corner turn-in is crisp and its easy to stay to a given line through a corner. It almost turns in too quickly and it feels like the rear suspension is changing toe-in by a few degrees and helping "steer". That wouldn't be surprising since this was common for cars in the '90s as engineers wanted to tune out understeer. I love it, you can actually feel the rear "steer" when you turn in and take a set in a turn.

However, I put in lowering coil-over springs. The car was slammed and looked great. However, since the shocks were not valved to operate within the lower range of their motion, the ride was horrible and there was very bad rebound damping on bumps. The stock ride at the stock ride height was pretty good and body lean was minimal. The lowering spring didn't really help handling (even with the lower center of gravity) and actually made it worse on uneven surfaces since the tire would not stay in good contact with the road. I can't wait to see how the car will handle when I put the stock springs back in and put on performance tires in the proper 55 series sidewall height.

Inside, the front buckets are comfortable and really hold you in turns, but they do seem to lack a bit of lower lumbar support for long drives. the steering is communicative and has great feel. It is relatively heavy, but gives great feel, you know exactly what the tires are doing and their slip angle. The backseat is surpisingly room (this is a small car afterall) and I have had 4 people in the car, two of whom are 6' or taller. I wouldn't want to ride in the back for 6 hours, but its not terrible. As well, the back seat folds flat and opens to a huge trunk. I can carry 170cm long skis no problem. They aren't 60/40 split though. Overall, the car is fairly loud on the freeway with tire noise (probably because they are snow tires), wind noise, mainly around the side-mirrors and exhaust noise. As well, I don't think there is a lot of sound insulation. The car only weighs 1,100 kgs according to the door sticker.

Overall, I bought this car used and have had to fix things. I think it drives great and gets good fuel economy (8-9L/100kms city, 7L/100kms highway, about 8L/100kms combined). The ride is okay in stock form too. It wouldn't be the best long-hauler since the seats aren't that great, the noise on the highway gets tiring (especially the exhaust note) and it revs high too. At 100kms/hour, the engine is reving at around 3300 rpm and at 120kms/hr, its revving at 4,000...yikes. I wouldn't want to run that for 8 hours.

However, the positives are outweighed by the complication and difficult access to the crammed-in V-6, relatively expensive parts (compared to say a Civic) and only okay reliability. The car has made me take a walk twice. I think a car like a Civic Si, older Integra, or Celica would provide as much fun and fuel economy without (hopefully) the questionable reliability. You know its bad when my mechanic tells me to sell this car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 2nd January, 2006

Average review marks: 7.0 / 10, based on 45 reviews