• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sentra vs. Mazda 3

RedRooster

RedRooster

Diamond Member
I'm looking for a commuter, and after having driven everything in this class, I think I've narrowed it down to these two, as 2010 models.
Tried Focus, Civic, Forte, Corolla/Matrix also, none of those really struck me though.
Haven't actually driven the new Mazda yet, but have driven the last three years as rentals and quite liked them.
I know the answer might be obvious, but with that wierd front end of the new 3 and the coolness of the Sentra's CVT, its actually a lot tougher decision for me.
Not seeing any ihatemynissancvt.com websites, so there can't be too many issues with it?
Or should I just jump on the Mazda3 bandwagon(I wouldn't have a problem with that), and admit that Mazda owns the small car segment right now?
 
To be honest I don't believe I have ever driven the Sentra's CVT although I did have a rental ~2 years ago that was a sentra, but I think it was a normal auto and it was nothing special. I have heard that Nissan does the CVT the best...but mostly in their V6 cars. Still, I have not driven a CVT Nissan (or was not aware I was driving a CVT)...so I can't really comment specifically on the Nissan. I do know that I absolutely ABHORRED CVT's in other cars that I have driven them (specifically Audi's come to mind). There is no way I would purposely buy a CVT based on my current experience with them.

The last gen Mazda 3 was a pleasure to drive when compared to similar vehicles. The only other car I would take a look at is a Golf. Engine is not quite as nice (unless you get the TDI or GTI), but the driving experience is definitely nice. Really wish VW put the 1.6l in the US models. I really enjoyed driving a 1.6L with stick over in Europe as I had is several times as a rental.
 
Just admit that Mazda owns the small car segment with the most fun cars to drive.

What does "coolness of the Sentra's CVT" mean?

I love the front end of the newer mazda3. Everytime i see one, i smile. I own a 2009 Mazda3 Hatch.
 
I just mean the CVT is unique and the fact that it doesn't pound between four gears around town is quite refreshing. It just goes hard till you let off and then its just quiet as you cruise. Maybe the novelty would wear off quick, who knows.

I'd love to wait for the new Focus, but that's another year and we need something ths spring.

The VW is the only other one I didn't try, and hadn't really considered it, although it is fairly close to my price range.
 
i had the old sentra. it was a steaming pile. my mazda3 is such a much better car than that sentra was. the steering wheel and driver's seat are in alignment, for example.
 
PricklyPete said:
To be honest I don't believe I have ever driven the Sentra's CVT although I did have a rental ~2 years ago that was a sentra, but I think it was a normal auto and it was nothing special. I have heard that Nissan does the CVT the best...but mostly in their V6 cars. Still, I have not driven a CVT Nissan (or was not aware I was driving a CVT)...so I can't really comment specifically on the Nissan. I do know that I absolutely ABHORRED CVT's in other cars that I have driven them (specifically Audi's come to mind). There is no way I would purposely buy a CVT based on my current experience with them.

The last gen Mazda 3 was a pleasure to drive when compared to similar vehicles. The only other car I would take a look at is a Golf. Engine is not quite as nice (unless you get the TDI or GTI), but the driving experience is definitely nice. Really wish VW put the 1.6l in the US models. I really enjoyed driving a 1.6L with stick over in Europe as I had is several times as a rental.
Click to expand...


FWIW, my first experience w/ a CVT was when I drove a dodge caliber a few years ago as a rental and i thought the CVT feeling was hideous. I dont really know how to explain it, but it just didnt feel right.
then I drove an 2009 Altima in hawaii w/ the CVT and it wasn't bad at all. It even had a "manual" mode where you could change the ratios to make it seem like you're shifting i guess. I could live w/ it as a daily driver but i'm not so sold on CVTs yet
 
senseamp said:
Coolness of Sentra CVT?
Click to expand...

The only CVT I've driven was in a late, unlamented Ford 500 and I couldn't stand it -- unrelenting engine drone under all phases of acceleration. Maybe it was just a poor implementation, but it left me with a highly negative impression of CVT's.
 
I have driven a camry hybrid with CVT and 2008 altima 4 cylinder with CVT. I do like CVTs these days. I also drove an early 90's justy with CVT and it was crap.

I would not buy a new any of these cars but I hate new cars in general.

If you must, get the Mazda 3. Sentras are pretty damn blah.
i had the old sentra. it was a steaming pile. my mazda3 is such a much better car than that sentra was. the steering wheel and driver's seat are in alignment, for example.
Click to expand...
You had an SE-R, though! But yeah sentra has given up on even trying, I don't think a higher power version exists now. It's epically boring.

BTW the reason I like CVT (if you have to have auto) is that when you floor it you IMMEDIATELY get acceleration, even if it takes a moment to build to full. I am an extremely unpatient person and this just works for me.

The reason not to get these cars new is that in 3 years and 40k miles it's worth half what you paid. Might as well just flush your money.
 
The current gen Sentra has hands-down the worst handling of any compact car. They use a really cheap rear suspension setup that causes the car to 'handle on it's door handles' so to speak. Go somewhere where you can safely simulate an emergency two-step lane-change at ~50mph or so, and see what I mean. By this I mean a situation where you are on a two-line undivided highway and have to avoid a sudden obstacle and then return to your lane. It's a shame because the motor is decent, fuel economy is respectable, and it's reasonably comfortable for a compact.

The new Mazda3 is the same as the old Mazda3, it's a refresh on the same chassis with overall very minor changes. The biggest boost is the change from the 2.3L Duratec to a 2.5L version, offering both more power and better fuel economy at the same time.

The 5-speed auto w/manual shift is one of the better autos out there, particularly in this segment. If you must have an auto, this is better than the CVT. I drove a Rogue with 2.5L and CVT, and it was adequate but very very very bland.

The front-end smiley face is unfortunate, but it's 10 times the car the Sentra is.
 
Skoorb said:
The reason not to get these cars new is that in 3 years and 40k miles it's worth half what you paid. Might as well just flush your money.
Click to expand...

Not to get into a new vs. used argument...because used is basically always better financially...but that financial gap narrows considerably on cheaper econoboxes from high demand manufacturers. Buying a 3 year old Civic or Mazda 3 will not put you in the huge financial advantage like it does more expensive or less desirable cars (and when I say desirable...I mean to the masses).

If I were buying a Civic for instance (which I wouldn't' be...but lets say I am hypothetically), I would happily pay the $1K premium to get something completely new and not touched by someone else. My math? This is how I look at it. Lets say I'm a unusual American driver and keep my cars until it is 15 years old. If I buy a new car, I get all 15 years. If I buy a 3 year old car I get 12 years. Lets say a new civic costs me 20K and a comparable 3 year old Civic costs 15K.

Used scenario: $15k/12years = $1.25K a year
New scenario: $20k/15years = $1.33K a year

So that's a little less than $100 extra each year of ownership. Not much of an incentive to buy used Civic to me. Now if that car was a car that has a much lower resale value, this argument is crap. But if someone is stuck on buying a Civic or Mazda 3 that hold their value very well...buying them used does not have a huge financial benefit.
 
I'd go with the Sentra on looks alone. The new 3 is one of the dumbest looking cars to date

Also, I've driven the new Sentra.. nothing wrong with it, CVT feels good, nice little car.

The SE-R is sweet inside....
 
Sentra has a much roomier back seat and a damn big trunk for a compact.

the Mada is more sporting but gets worse mpg as a result.

I would assume the Sentra is a few $K cheaper due to big incentives by Nissan as well.
 
I think the new Sentra is a damn fine econobox, the "S" level is pretty well equipped - hell I considered buying one a couple of months ago. But if the prices are within $1K I'd recommend the Mazda. I'm a cheap bastard so price is big for me...and you'll probably get better fuel economy from the Sentra.

Nissan's CVTs are pretty good. There can be a slight droning but it's not a big distraction to me. My father and neighbor have new Altimas with the CVT and love them.
 
Correction to above, i didn't know the se-r and spec-v still existed honestly, I've just not paid attention to them.
 
get a mazdaspeed 3 🙂
i've had mine for 2.5year now, 25k miles, no issues.

i'm sure the regular mazda3 is even more reliable. they have no high end cars but all their cars are high in fun factor to drive.
 
My mom owns a 2010 Altima with the V6 and the CVT. I would not even THINK about owning a four-cylinder with the CVT.

A four cylinder simply does not have enough power to produce a "livable" combination with a CVT. The engine will sound like a chainsaw all the time and the CVT will have that rubber band feel. The V6/CVT combination is phenomenal not only because the engine has enough torque, but also because of the high-speed controller they have in the V6's CVT.

So from me, no way on the Sentra for that reason alone.

IMO, the Mazda 3 is simply a fantastic car in the 3s trim. Very punchy, handles well and feels like a very well-made sedan. My friend's 2010 3i does not have as much power nor does it handle as well as a 3s, but is still a very solid choice if you need something more fuel-efficient than a 3s.
 
Id go with a Mazda 3 between these 2 choices. I used to own a 2006? Mazda 3 but got rid of it because the A/C was horrible back then. Its a must in the midwest in summer. But having said that i had the Mazda 3s and the fuel economy sucked. I would stick with a 3i. The little bit of extra horse power is not THAT noticble on the 3s. The 3i gets good gasmilage compared to the 3s. Just my 2c.
 
Ya, I'm looking at the mid range ones, both the 2L engines. I don't need speed with the bigger motors, got other vehicles for that. Just need good mileage and room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top