Mazda RX3 Reviews

1975 Mazda RX3 super deluxe 12A Extend turbo from Australia and New Zealand

Year of manufacture1975
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 12A Extend turbo Manual
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.5 / 10
Distance when acquired74000 miles
Most recent distance74000 miles
Previous carMazda 929

Summary:

The sickest car that never was!

Faults:

The car was beautiful, but the mechanic wasn't.

General Comments:

This car would have to be in the top ten for coupes in Australia.

Full original Mazda savanna front, rear and badges.

17 inch polished Simmons.

Full Recaro/momo interior.

Alcon calipers front and rear.

12A extend, Haltech, huge front mount intercooler, alloy radiator, custom throttle body and Trust roller bearing turbo.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th April, 2003

26th Apr 2006, 19:41

I'm planning on buying a RX3, my mates have all talked me into it. I don't know that much about rotary motors (I'm a chick), I was wondering if anyone could help me with the difference between 12a and 13b, I know 13b is better, but what is the power difference and gas mileage like. I have decided not to buy a WRX and go for a old school car.

27th Apr 2006, 12:55

If you don't know much about motors I would not advise getting any sort of 30 year old car!

28th Apr 2006, 10:04

Everything I've read, including reviews of the current RX-8, seems to indicate that any rotary engine is NOT a good engine for anyone not familiar with mechanics. A WRX is a more conventional engine and will give you less trouble, especially given it is upwards of 30 years younger depending on model you buy.

Mazda did not continually pursue rotary technology in every model for a reason.

1973 Mazda RX3 Rotary from North America

Year of manufacture1973
First year of ownership1993
Most recent year of ownership1995
Engine and transmission Rotary Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 3 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.3 / 10
Distance when acquired100000 miles
Most recent distance150000 miles

Summary:

Great first car

Faults:

I bought this car from a junkyard. 2 cars actually and combined them into one that worked... The question should really be, what wasn't already wrong with it. However, maybe this will help.

Carburetor damaged.

Starter inoperable.

Uneven tire wear.

That's all I can think of right now, but honestly, considering where it came from it was a decent first car for a highschool kid who enjoyed tinkering.

General Comments:

Total cost for vehicle at purchase (including missing parts bought at auto shop) $250.

Time required to completely refit two vehicles body and engine into one... 100 man hours (amateur).

Final result... A very powerful car that burned oil, backfired even more than a normal rotary, had to be started by pushing or rolling, and could beat a V8 muscle car in a drag race every time.

Rotaries are incredibly powerful and fun, but probably not very safe.

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

Review Date: 18th February, 2003

21st Apr 2003, 09:42

Probably not very safe?

10th May 2003, 09:43

Well, I've been in several old RX's and they have a lot of power, but are weak in the safety category. Mine had lap belts only front and back, and with rear wheel drive they don't handle well in adverse weather. That's only the beginning. I could go on, but is that really necessary? My point in the review was that if somebody was considering purchasing one of these, they should consider what kind of driving they'll be doing. I wouldn't recommend this as a family car with small children. Try Volvo. :)

Average review marks: 6.9 / 10, based on 2 reviews