2007 Mazda 3 MPS from UK and Ireland - Comments

None to date.

Once you have adapted your driving to take into account the amount of torque on tap (380Nm at 3,000 revs) and the fact that 260 bhp is being transferred to the front wheels, you realise what a great handling car it really is (even in the wet).

I have read some unkind reports by so-called motoring experts in which the gearbox has been criticised; the gearbox is close-ratio, but, once mastered, is an absolute peach.

The car has an electronically-limited top speed of 155 mph and a verified 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds and is therefore seriously quick. Not the sort of maniacal quick as with the type-R for example, but much more refined. I have read a report in which the tester commented that the car goes 20 mph faster than (a) he believed he was doing and (b) he thought possible and this kind of sums up my interpretation of the car.

In the past I have owned a Lancia Delta Integrale, a VW Corrado VR6, a Seat Leon Cupra R and Nissan 200sx and, with the possible exception of the Integrale, find the MPS more involving and definitely quicker.

The other good thing about the Mazda 3 MPS is that, if you should feel like taking things steady, the car is equally happy at low (ish) speeds.

With 4 doors, half-leather seats, a brilliant BOSE sound system and all the usual goodies you would expect from the Japanese, the car is very practical. The interior is superb, with nice touches like drilled aluminium pedals + scuff plates, supportive seats, recessed dials etc.

Before I bought this used car (2 months old and 1,200 miles on the clock from a dealer) I had previously been out in at an RX8, a new Seat Leon Cupra and a new Honda Civic type-R, but, having driven the Mazda the decision was made easy.

The car has also been criticised in certain motoring magazines for its 'bland' appearance. My car is cosmic blue mica and, I think, looks superb. Okay so it doesn't shout out loud, but at my age (40+) you don't particularly want 'Corsa boy' trying to play silly beggars. However you can be safe in the knowledge that, if necessary, you can leave a Golf GTi, Mini Cooper S etc in your wake.

I've also read somewhere that the car's acceleration from 60mph to 100mph is better than that of a Porsche 911.

Downsides?? Prefers super unleaded fuel (although this is not compulsory). Fuel consumption 25 to 27 mpg. Pushed really hard this can drop to 20 to 22 mpg. Tyre noise is a bit of an issue, possibly. Not much else, so far.

Thankfully the car is quite rare (I've only seen one other) and therefore people don't seem to know much about it; this avoids too much undesirable attention.

I own a 2005 golf gti stock and have raced the mazda 3 mps from the lights till about 100mph, nothing in it between the two in terms of acceleration, the gti might just have the edge till about 90mph then then the mps edges it. LOL "No way" will the mps get to 60mph in the 5sec bracket, its more like 6.9secand 0-100mph takes 17.6sec similar to my golf. Mps suffers from turbo lag and requires a 3rd gear change to reach 60mph, that's why it suffers from poor off the light acceleration.

There are many arguments why a Golf GTI might be a better choice than a Mazda 3 MPS, so its unfortunate that you pick performance, as this one is demonstrably untrue.

The Mazda comprehensively outperforms the VW by virtue of a 50 bhp power margin, and a 70kg lighter kerbweight.

Autocar print the raw facts from scientific testing:

Golf GTI - 0-60: 6.7 seconds (7.0 to 62) / 148 bhp per tonne

Mazda 3 MPS - 0-60: 5.9 seconds (6.1 to 62) / 184 bhp per tonne.

This is simply the laws of physics at work. Better power to weight ratio = better acceleration, and even the more powerful 227 bhp "Edition 30" version of the Golf can only manage 6.4 seconds.

Forget marketing claims or "feel". These are the hard facts. The gearing is too similar between the two cars to have any effect on a near 40 bhp per tonne deficit. The Mazda is simply more powerful, lighter and by a simple function of those two facts, a quicker car.

I no "first hand" that the golf gti is "quicker", as I have raced many mps and beat them on ALL occasions, and yes the driver of the 3 mps "WAS" booting it.

'I no "first hand" that the golf gti is "quicker", as I have raced many mps and beat them on ALL occasions, and yes the driver of the 3 mps "WAS" booting it.'

LOL, you've raced 'many' mps. I drive 60,000+ miles a year, yet I've only seen 3. So to say that you've raced many, in which they were all trying is extremely hard to believe.

I own a Mazda 3 MPS, which has now done 6,000 miles.

Now that things have loosened up a bit, the acceleration has improved noticeably. I understand that a 'standard' car has been timed for 0-60 mph at 5.8 seconds. This I can well believe. However, that only tells half the story. The acceleration between 40 and 80 is phenomenal and will leave most 'sports hatches' for dead.

I've owned a Seat Leon Cupra R (old shape), a Lancia Delta Integrale and a Honda Civic type-R and can tell you that the Mazda is the quickest, by some margin.

The guy who reckons that his Golf GTI can 'see off' other Mazda 3 MPS's must have been dreaming or hallucinating!

Either that or they were Mazda 3 SPORTS (NOT MPS). I have only ever seen 1 other on the roads.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter!

"I no "first hand" that the golf gti is "quicker", as I have raced many mps and beat them on ALL occasions,"

Must be a special car the Golf GTI, if it can sidestep the laws of physics.

More weight, less power and still quicker. Impressive stuff. Sadly not one properly conducted, scientifically measured road test anywhere

Scientifically measured road tests do not back up your claims.

The golf gti does 0-60 in 7.2 seconds. that isn't fast. I've got an astra vxr chipped to 292bhp and yes it can be awkward in the wet, but in the dry their no wheel spin at all. I have raced two golf gti's and left them both for dead. Haven't raced one of these mazdas because I've never even seen one, would be a close one I bet. go on you tube and type in vxr vs golf gti and although clarkson doesn't like the vxr because of his own prejedice in the drag race the vxr leaves the gti for dead and in standard form the mazda is noticeably faster than the vxr, the vxr and the mazda are in a different league to the gti performance wise.

I think you mazda owners are getting a bit to carried away here. First off the 3 mps will NOT touch 60mph from standstill in under 6 seconds, and NO WAY will it leave the gti standing! Performance (0-60 and 0-100), wise there is not much difference between the two, except for the fact that the gti would leave the 3 mps for dead around a track!

There seem to be some rather oversensitive (and ridiculously optimistic) Golf GTi owners here. Firstly, the official MPS 0-62mph figure is 6.1secs, which equals 0-60mph in 5.9. Entirely possible (and lower figures have been recorded on test)

Secondly, how exactly do you convince yourselves that the additional 60bhp and 60lb/ft of torque (in a lighter car) somehow fails to translate into a faster car on the road. The 256 bhp MPS is convincingly quicker than a standard 197bhp Golf GTi in any performance increment you care to measure. Get over it.

As for leaving the MPS "for dead" on track, you *really* haven't done your research have you!!

I agree. I have yet to see any explanation from any of the Golf owners as to how they feel their car can shrug off a 40 bhp per tonne deficit, and match the more powerful AND lighter Mazda in a straight line.

I wonder how many of the cars they've met on the road were actually MPS's, and how many were Sports.

I have seen two MPS's since launch.

Golf gti 0-60 7.2.

Mazda 3 0-60 5.9.

That is a massive difference; two completely different worlds of performance. 0-60 in 7.2 doesn't qualify as a hot hatch (in MY opinion).

Mazda 3 mps 0-60 6.7sec.

Golf gti 0-60 6.9sec.

Nothing in it.

Where on earth are you getting your figures from? Check every website; they all give 5.9 for the Mazda. The Golf is an overrated, underpowered lardy tank. My Astra VXR eats the Golf GTI. P.S. its 7.2 for the Golf GTI; check www.whatcar.co.uk

The 197 BHP Golf GTi is one of the slowest Hot Hatches out even the smaller clio 197 is quicker to 60 mph. it is just golf GTI owners don't want to admit that the MPS is a lot quicker. the Mazda is quicker to 60 than the V6 Golf. I would save some money and buy the Mazda.

Just to add to this, the 3 MPS has lapped the Nurburgring in 8min 39sec in stock trim with a driver whom had only ever driven the track that day. That compares to a lap time of 8min 52sec in a standard MkV Golf GTi, and 8min 49sec for the MkV Golf R32. Or to put it into some more perspective, 1 sec slower than a Porsche 996 Carrera S. This is off the Supercars.net website, with the MPS time from a video that is available on the web. A local motoring magazine tested the 3MPS and Golf in a 'touge' race along a twisty mountain road with the comment, and I quote "the MPS was all over the Golf like a rash".

The Golf is easily the best all-rounder of the two and a much easier-to-live-with car. However, the 3MPS is an animal that you have to tame, and doing so gives you a huge grin every time you drive it. It is not the easiest car to drive fast, but when you master it, it is quicker than it has any right to be, and easily embarrasses sports cars costing lots more.