Mazda3 Forums banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
Go with another insurance company, you are getting ripped off. I have 2 speeding tickets and two not at fault accidents in the past 3 years and I pay $1200 a year on the Mazda3.

I have a friend with a horrible driving record. 1 ticket a year for the past eight years and a two year old at fault accident on his record with a 2002 maxima he only pays $2200 a year.

My rule, don't pay more for insurance than you did the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
mnemonicj said:
Go with another insurance company, you are getting ripped off. I have 2 speeding tickets and two not at fault accidents in the past 3 years and I pay $1200 a year on the Mazda3.

I have a friend with a horrible driving record. 1 ticket a year for the past eight years and a two year old at fault accident on his record with a 2002 maxima he only pays $2200 a year.

My rule, don't pay more for insurance than you did the car.
there is no other insurance company here.. it's Vancouver, Canada.. =(
so price I posted are in Cdn.. but still...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
Man I pay $1050cdn roughly a year for my Mazda 3 and I'm in Calgary. :O

In BC you should be able to go through Canadian Direct they are one of the few alternatives to ICBC. They are who I go through here, not the be all end all but overall pretty good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
cowtown said:
Man I pay $1050cdn roughly a year for my Mazda 3 and I'm in Calgary. :O

In BC you should be able to go through Canadian Direct they are one of the few alternatives to ICBC. They are who I go through here, not the be all end all but overall pretty good.
grr.. I m such a dumbass.. I didn't know there were alternatives .. I thought ICBC was the only insurance company here.. anyways... anyone here buy insurance from company other than ICBC? any downside of buying insurance other then ICBC? any input would be appreciated=)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
daibachin said:
anyone knows how much is the insurance gonna be for the m3?
ICBC dings me 1620 a year. But that's with pleasure only, 40% discount and 10 years driving I would think you'd be just over 2,000. Not great, but a big improvement.

That's another plus to the 3, lots of performance without the performance rates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
daibachin said:
mnemonicj said:
Go with another insurance company, you are getting ripped off. I have 2 speeding tickets and two not at fault accidents in the past 3 years and I pay $1200 a year on the Mazda3.

I have a friend with a horrible driving record. 1 ticket a year for the past eight years and a two year old at fault accident on his record with a 2002 maxima he only pays $2200 a year.

My rule, don't pay more for insurance than you did the car.
there is no other insurance company here.. it's Vancouver, Canada.. =(
so price I posted are in Cdn.. but still...
If you put a location on your profile it might help with people being able to answer questions specific to your location.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
vaBooM said:
TellyDSP said:
Supposedly, the Passats are a lot more reliable, mainly because they're built in Germany and not Mexico.

Craig
You are absolutely right. All Jettas and GTIs are manufactured in Mexico, hence why there was so many rattles. Some of the early GTIs that came fomr Wolfsburg were better, in the sense of electrical, but the rattles were worse.
Not all Jettas and GTIs are made in Mexico. I have a Brazil made GTI. I used to have a Germany made GTI and it sits in the shop more than in my garage, so Germany made =/= better built :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
mnemonicj said:
According to www.vw.com the VW Jetta 1.8t with manual transmission goes from 0-60 mph in 7.7 seconds. According to Car and Driver's tests of the Mazda3 2.3L hatchback, it goes from 0-60 mph in 7.4 seconds.

For those of you interested in the performance of the VW Jetta 2.8L VR6 with manual transmission, 0-60 mph in 7.9 seconds. I hope the older ones had a better track record cause that is pathetic...
If you check the 0-60 time for the 1.8Ts in Car and Driver, you should see that it is a lot lower than 7.7. I think I saw a 6.8 or something near that for a Beetle 1.8T in Road and Track. Having said that, I think 6.8 is a bit too low.


And about the VR6...the new 24V is much more powerful than the 12V from what I have heard. VW tends to put inaccurate times on their website for some strange reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
BitBit said:
mnemonicj said:
According to www.vw.com the VW Jetta 1.8t with manual transmission goes from 0-60 mph in 7.7 seconds. According to Car and Driver's tests of the Mazda3 2.3L hatchback, it goes from 0-60 mph in 7.4 seconds.

For those of you interested in the performance of the VW Jetta 2.8L VR6 with manual transmission, 0-60 mph in 7.9 seconds. I hope the older ones had a better track record cause that is pathetic...
If you check the 0-60 time for the 1.8Ts in Car and Driver, you should see that it is a lot lower than 7.7. I think I saw a 6.8 or something near that for a Beetle 1.8T in Road and Track. Having said that, I think 6.8 is a bit too low.


And about the VR6...the new 24V is much more powerful than the 12V from what I have heard. VW tends to put inaccurate times on their website for some strange reason.
I was speaking specifically of the Jetta. If a car company can make a small coupe go from 0-60 faster than a four-door, I see that as no great accomplishment.

You might have been right about the VW 0-60 times though. The VR6 still does really crappy 7.7 seconds according to C&D. The 1.8L turbo was rated at 7.2 seconds, 0-60, which seems a little more realistic, but with any other manufacturer that would be easy to do with that amount of turbo. Think of what the Mazda3 could do with a nice 8-10 pound boost of turbo. (I can only imagine...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
i'm glad to hear that the 1.8t beetle is very comparable.


as for the claimed times of the 1.8t, w/i the vw community the high times posted on vw are pretty much scoffed. as others have said car and driver has gotten various 1.8t's below 7 seconds and this is fairly well documented. In order to acheive something like 6.5 you have to drive the thing REALLY HARD. you have to have your launch dialed and most likely launch at super high rpms and shift like a wizzard.

from my really lame inaccurate stop watch tests... i can get somewhere below 8 :) and it feels quite fast. there is no need to drive your car in this manner on public roads.

cars getting sub 8 second 0-60's are commonly referred to as being "pretty darn zippy" in the magazines.

obviously there is more to a car than 0-60 and... lag is a drag.


-------
side note:
the 1.8t milks an amazing 100HP PER LITER (180/1.8)
and it still has room to go a good deal higher.
not bad for a common and efficient production car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
88MX6-220k said:
-------
side note:
the 1.8t milks an amazing 100HP PER LITER (180/1.8)
and it still has room to go a good deal higher.
not bad for a common and efficient production car.
...because it is a turbo. The Subaru Impreza WRX has a 2.0L engine and gets 113.5 hp/L. The Subaru WRX Sti has a 2.5L engine and gets 120 hp/L. Or how about the Mazda RX, uses a 1.3L engine and gets 190 hp/L.

If you want to get comparable in price range the Mini Cooper S has a 1.6L engine and gets 101.8 hp/L and has an available upgrade for $4000 more that bumps it up to 125 hp/L.

Most of these engines are turbo or supercharged, that is the reason for the high horsepower numbers.

For anyone that wants to see how any part of a car works, from the Wankel Rotary Engine to a manual transmission to a turbo charger, check out http://www.howstuffworks.com. They have a really cool diagram of the rotary engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
mnemonicj said:
...because it is a turbo. The Subaru Impreza WRX has a 2.0L engine and gets 113.5 hp/L. The Subaru WRX Sti has a 2.5L engine and gets 120 hp/L. Or how about the Mazda RX, uses a 1.3L engine and gets 190 hp/L.

Yes, 1.8T has a turbo but it's just a K03. That's a really really small turbo mind you. :) I got to agree VW's are no drag racer but they are fine cars. And with just a computer chip, they can haul some ass (probably all turbo cars can do that) :idea:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
BitBit said:
mnemonicj said:
...because it is a turbo. The Subaru Impreza WRX has a 2.0L engine and gets 113.5 hp/L. The Subaru WRX Sti has a 2.5L engine and gets 120 hp/L. Or how about the Mazda RX, uses a 1.3L engine and gets 190 hp/L.

Yes, 1.8T has a turbo but it's just a K03. That's a really really small turbo mind you. :) I got to agree VW's are no drag racer but they are fine cars. And with just a computer chip, they can haul some ass (probably all turbo cars can do that) :idea:
Do you know how many pounds of boost it uses?
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top