The cars I love are not for everyone. I don’t just mean obscure French wagons or micro Japanese off-roaders that fill my stray thoughts. I mean the kinds of sports cars and hatchbacks that were once common on America’s roads. It’s awkward to admit, but even the sportiest hatchbacks of yore were economy cars underneath and were therefore built on affordable bones. That doesn’t work anymore.
I’ve been putting off writing up a review of the 2025 Mazda3 2.5T Premium Plus AWD because I liked the car. It would be much easier if I didn’t. The problem is the price. Six months ago, when I tested it, the Mazda was $38,865. While that’s lower than the $50,000 average transaction price, it’s still a lot for a compact hatchback.
It being built in Japan creates more problems, which I’ll get into.
My first instinct was to complain. To point out that in 2005, a nice Mazda3 hatch cost around $20,130 on the high end, which is roughly $34,000 with inflation. This car is nicer, sure, and more advanced in many ways. Perhaps a closer analog would be the Mazdaspeed3, which cost around $23,000 in 2007 when it debuted.
This site is known for vigorously complaining about the lack of affordability in new cars, and I’ve written at length about it. That’s all still valid. New cars are too expensive, and while some of it can be attributed to things people want (safety, connectivity, performance, reliability), the pursuit of higher margins and over-featuring plays a role as well.
I’m of a different mind with this car. If you buy this specific vehicle, you are not just paying for the car. Your dollars are not solely going to the engineering, the marketing, the building, and the shipping. You are paying for this car to exist. You are paying for there to be a sufficient margin to offset the loss in volume.
Rather than review the car, I’m going to try and justify its existence.
Let’s Do A Little Math
The math can get complex, so I’ll simplify it using some very general numbers. In 2005, Mazda sold 97,388 Mazda3s in total (according to GoodCarBadCar.net). In 2024, Mazda sold 38,877. For the sake of math, I’ll assume a 5% margin; if the average price between all models was $17,500, those cars yielded a profit of about $85 million. Not bad.
Let’s look at today. If Mazda wanted to make $85 million in profit (and not the inflation-adjusted amount), it would need to make $2,200 a car, basically. The new car is between $25k-38k, so if we skew towards a lower average of $30k, that’s a 7.3% margin.
Other than the sales volume, these numbers are just rough estimates to demonstrate a point. I don’t know the specific margin Mazda made on these cars or how much discounting occurred, et cetera. But for the sake of hypothetical math, if Mazda wanted to make the same inflation-adjusted amount of money (so, roughly $163 million), then the company would need to make $4,193 per car, or a 14% margin on average.
In reality, Mazda is historically a much lower margin automaker, meaning that 14% is a stretch. Back in 2005, that number was maybe closer to 3%. My point is that as these cars sell in lower numbers, either they have to get cheaper to build or, to some degree, nicer and more expensive.
A good example is the Nissan Sentra. This is a cheap sedan meant to sell in volume. While there are nicer trims, Nissan has no real issue with positioning the Sentra as a good enough car at a good enough price. Yes, Mazda has a lower trim option (a FWD S sedan is about $26,000), but that’s not the one you want.
The hatch is the car to have, either in FWD spec with the manual (starting around $33,000) or loaded to the hilt in turbo premium trim.
What You Get For Your $38,000
Above is the window sticker for this car, just to give you a sense of all the stuff that’s in it. It’s a lot!
When spec’d above, the starting price is $36,950, because that comes with almost everything. The good power seats, the 227-horsepower turbo engine with 310 lb-ft of torque, the 18-inch black wheels, AWD, the nice leather-trimmed bits, and the adaptive lighting.
The only true option here is the $595 for the Soul Red Crystal paint. As discussed, there’s almost no better red on the planet, so it’s probably worthwhile. This is one of the best-looking cars being sold today. It feels great to drive, and it doesn’t have a lot of specific cars to compare to, as it exists in an interesting space in the market.
I would take one of these over a BMW X1 or Mercedes GLA, if you want something on the smaller end that’s luxurious and AWD. Those cars are both $43,000+ cars. If you don’t care about spinning all four wheels, a Golf GTI is $33,000 and has some advantages. A fairer comparison to that vehicle is the similarly-priced manual Mazda3.
There’s clearly still a market for these cars, as tens of thousands of people are lining up for one every year. The car isn’t the default choice, though, as that’s probably the Mazda CX-50 or Mazda CX-5. The Mazda3 in hatchback bodystyle is something you have to want, and if you want it, you’ll have to pay for it. If you want value, the value car for Mazda is now a crossover.
An interesting alternative will come in the form of the Kia K4 Hatch, which won’t be as nice or as powerful, but has the aesthetic down. I’d also entertain an argument that the Prius Prime XSE is in the conversation.
You Can Play This Game With All Sorts Of Cars
To some extent, the fun cars have always come with a bit of a price premium. Even in the late 1970s, when Camaro sales were at their peak, the muscle car was being outsold by the mediocre Malibu (which could be had as a coupe, wagon, or sedan). The volumes used to be much higher, though, and with smaller volumes must come a higher price.
It’s easier to justify this price, perhaps, when it’s a car like the Mustang GTD, where you can see all the work that went into making one specific car. It gets a little harder with something like a Volkswagen Golf R, which costs almost $50,000, or the price of a nicely-equipped Ford Mustang GT. When you compare it to regular cars, the number is even harder to comprehend. For the price of a Golf R, you can have a Woodland Edition Sienna and haul all of your friends.
The same goes for the Corolla GR or Subaru WRX, or just about any car you think is fun. Now that the base version of these cars is no longer the most popular vehicle in any specific lineup, the costs are going to have to go up to keep bringing them to market.
It’s not great. It’s not my preferred outcome. I wish more people were buying hatchbacks than crossovers because that’s what I like.
So, Is It Worth It?
Rather than complain about the high prices of enthusiast cars, I think the better question is: Is it worth the money? Do I get, as Matt Farah might ask, a $38,000 driving experience out of this car?
I’d say the answer is “yes” on this specific car. On aesthetics alone, there are few cars in any price range that can touch it. The rear seat is usable. Dynamically, it’s a modern Mazda, so it is incredibly composed even if you try to drive it like a wang. With the turbo motor and AWD, it leaps to 60 mph in under 6 seconds and keeps pulling until you’re already above the speed limit.
There’s a caveat, though. I drove this car, and then I drove my friend’s Mazda3. He’s a professional car designer and loves the look of the hatchback. Like any decent fellow, he wanted a stick, so he had to opt for the FWD non-turbo. This is a shortcoming in the lineup. If you’re already making me pay a high price for a car, I’d hope to be able to get it in the best spec.
At around $33,000, the non-turbo manual hatch is probably the best enthusiast version of this car, though even that feels like a lot of money to me. I guess this is me talking myself out of the premise of this whole post. I want these cars to exist, and I’m willing to pay for them. At the same time, I struggle with the notion of actually doing so.
This is the challenge of modern car enthusiasm, and I think it explains why, for instance, this 20-year-old Volvo wagon is already being bid up to $19,000 on Cars & Bids. Fewer and fewer of these cars will exist, so the options are to get the nice new version with a warranty now or pay out-the-nose for something older and, probably, less reliable.
I test drove that car in another color and loved it. Ended up in a GTI just because I’ve never owned one. Already had to take the VW in for a bad thermostat and often wonder if I made the wrong choice. I just love the lines on the Mazda. I sold my ND for this and my wife drives a CX-50, so I am definitely a Mazda fan. I hope they continue to exist, but that is a lot of money for a very old design. I am surprised these don’t get more love. I think they F-ed themselves by not going with independent rear suspension and a manual turbo.
The 3 is a car that has always seemed like it should make sense for me but has never quite gotten there. The looks of the prior gen were also good and it was better packaged space-wise.
The base trims of the 3 still look to be a better value buy than a Civic content-wise so long as you don’t need that space. Actually on the other end of the Civic platform, against a 1.5T Integra at $40k the Mazda seems like the much better buy, but that says more about the Acura.
The Mazda lineup alone makes it tricky as a -30 is priced right on top of it the whole way through. Mazda’s been shuffling a lot of trims around this year, last year’s Carbon Turbo below this was fairer at ~$33-34k but still feels pricey. Now $40k will buy you a CX-50 Turbo, but that has the advantage of US production.
The “price of entry” thing is a good point. Another part of my life makes music on instruments that can range in price from $150 to $50k. A lot of hobbyists get into arguments like “why would Harvey pay $15k for (low-volume, niche, made for me to my requirements) instrument x when I can buy (good, factory made, one size fits all) instrument y off the shelf for $2000?”
What those people don’t understand is that if you want the features of instrument x, then you pay instrument x prices, because instrument y is not instrument x and you don’t want instrument y. Maybe the material and labour costs for instrument x are higher than they should be considering instrument y can be built to a comparable level of fit and finish for a fraction of the price. But if that’s the instrument you want, or you have specific needs that are only possible with that instrument, then you pay the price, because 1) you get the right instrument and 2) you make it possible for the guy who makes it to make more in the future.
I don’t blame the hobbyists for not perceiving or valuing the difference between those two options. Instrument x is niche, my needs are highly specific, and most people don’t have enough skills or hearing left to justify the price difference, or to care if the instrument maker can eat tomorrow.
Same deal with niche hot hatches or manual transmissions. Niche, low volume, most people don’t care about the form factor or driving feel. But if you do, you take your lumps and pay the extra price, because if you don’t, they won’t make any more.
TL;DR that’s just what certain things cost if you want them to be available
This and the other Mazda article from the other day make me wish that Mazda would just throw in the towel with independence and become a full-on subsidiary of Toyota. They could be the Pontiac/Mercury to Toyota’s Chevrolet/Ford. I know they pride themselves on being Japan’s only independent car maker, but if the only soul in their lineup besides one two-seat roadster is a paint color maybe it simply isn’t worth it anymore.
Competition is good. Consolidation is always bad. Do not wish for mergers.
That would be the death of the Mazda we know. If you think the paint color is the only thing Mazda has going for it, you haven’t driven any of their current vehicles.
I’m leasing a current-gen 3 sedan, thanks. While in comparison to my old 2010 3 it has more sophistication, it lacks the earlier model’s character.
The Mazda I grew up loving pretty much already died when they traded their old “zoom-zoom” persona for their modern quasi-lux vibe to justify charging more for their vehicles. I know all of the other Autopians would be totally cool with them going all crossover if that’s what it took to keep your beloved Miata in production, but unlike the rest of you who want a car for each of your needs and desires, I prefer having one that fulfills both. I have a long commute that involves sitting in slow traffic a good bit of the way and I gig in a band. Miata is not the answer for me, though I am happy it exists for those it is the answer for.
Look at Mazda’s lineup of the early 90s. Four different enthusiast-friendly models (RX-7, Miata, MX-6 and MX-3) and a full-on luxury model (the 929) plus their more mainstream 626/323-types of cars. Under Toyota’s wing they could have have something like that again instead of catering nearly-exclusively to Suzie Soccer Mom to pay for one sports car.
I won’t say I don’t feel any pride at all in driving a car that was made by an independent company or that I would celebrate a full-on merger between Mazda and Toyota. But that may be necessary for them to avoid turning into the Japanese Buick. And if they really do pull the plug on the 3 after this generation as some rumors suggest, I’m done.
So I was thinking about this today when considering the rising price of new cars and people who just keep buying a new car either every 3 or so years, equity be damned, or just get the itch the moment their current car is paid off.
It would be a very Autopian move of y’all to do reviews on the current best options for used cars for the average person and not just focus on the new cars that manufacturers send you for free to market for them. Keep doing that, sure, but there has been much discussion in articles and the comments the past few months here about how the focus on having the latest and greatest blinds so many average, questionably financially literate people. So maybe give it a shot, see what Galpin or other friendly dealers have on the lot in a given price range, or different price ranges, and give the world a review of how those cars have aged and which are the top choices for someone looking for something new to them, but maybe not new.
I drive a manual Mazda2 and I can never get rid of it because there really isn’t anything like it anymore.
I wish my manual Mazda3 was a Mazda2 SOOOOOO bad!
Coping with loss.
I drive a 2015 Mazda3 sedan, rental specification. Purchased it off a dealer lot after it had lived a life as a rental for a year. Purchased it in cash too, classic Autopian style. Drove well enough to keep me moderately entertained, inexpensive enough to subject to the endless grind of daily driver duty in the salt belt. Nine years later, it’s still holding catastrophic entropy at bay reasonably well.
I am part of the problem. Well, Mazda’s problem, I suppose.
My value-seeking side is at direct odds with Mazda’s profit making mission. Mazda does not care about selling cars to me, like airlines do not particularly like selling airline tickets to me.
I want Mazda to make more Mazda3s, because I may eventually want to purchase a lightly used Mazda3 at some point to drive for another decade after the current one expires. This is insane market to cater to for an automaker, even if it an eminently logical one for me.
The people who purchase new vehicles want Mazda CX-(insert digit here)s. They give Mazda more of their money for the thing they want fresh from the factory. An automaker wants these people to buy their cars. I am not one of those people. Those people do not want Mazda3s and doubly do not want them with a manual transmission. This is why Mazda now sells less than 40,000 per year of the 3 when it used to sell >100,000 of them a decade prior, despite being at the affordable end of the market.
Right now, the question for Mazda is this: Does it make sense to invest the capital to redesign a vehicle – even if it shares a platform and engine – that has done a swan dive over the last decade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda3#Sales
…and I will have (indirectly) contributed to it. I likely will have to cope with this loss, even if I do end up scoring an end-of-the-line Mazda3 that’s a couple of years off-lease.
(I also like the looks of the current gen sedan better than the hatch)
I’m in that same boat. After buying a 2010 Mazda6 new (only manual 6 they had and had been sitting sitting on the lot for half a year), when that got totaled in 2019, I eventually came down to 3 vehicles: A new Fiesta ST, a new base manual 2018 6 or a cert pre-owned manual 3 Touring (mid level). I went with the pre-owned 3. I absolutely love my car and plan on keeping it until my 4 year old can drive.
But that means I didn’t buy a new car (at least it was from a Mazda dealership…) and won’t be buying a new car for a long time. So like you, I am also part of the problem. I LOVE my car, but it’s so good that I don’t plan on replacing it, therefore, no upcoming sales for Mazda from me. From a lot of the comments, there’s a lot of similar sentiment.
I need to propose a new way of thinking. New cars are at $50k. Cars are losing significant value just driving off the lot. Would it be cheaper to take in a 3 year old car with a 40% depreciation and restore it like a cellphone and sell it as like new for $20k less?
I noticed that Volvo wagon a couple days ago and it has an interesting color combo but that is wild pricing.
The Mazda 3 is an interesting car because it has a lot of enthusiast features/traits but is also highly compromised. It’s not a great commuter, electric easily wins there, it is not a purist car like the Miata, it is not a great family car. It is this car for a couple that can only have one car and has one or at most two kids. And is decent but not high income (or is really set on stick or really financially disciplined that they are not leasing BMW/Audi/Mercedes). Super niche. I’m guessing this eventually becomes a Corolla with “Mazda” traits.
Hi, I’m that niche.
That’s a pretty fair assessment. I’d have a Miata if it had more space, but due to logistics, I’m limited to one car. It wasn’t until two months ago I had space for a second and with a move coming up again in December, I’ll be down to space for one again. I have a 2022 turbo AWD 3 and it is barely big enough for my needs, but I also tend to buy the smallest car I can that serves them.
While I’d struggle to call myself financially responsible, my budget was set at half what I could afford so I still had spending money and could build my emergency fund back up that a hurricane and car accident a month later wiped out.
All that said, I do adore the thing. Sometimes it infuriates me (walked out of work to another dead battery this morning and a bolt snapped off in the valve cover when trying to remove a spark plug a few weeks ago) but I still turn around and look at it when I walk away. It’s a joy to drive with better tires and a couple minor suspension mods. And as my issues with dailying a manual are well-documented, I got a magnetic paddle shifter kit and it lives in M mode unless I’m on a long drive. I get the same mental engagement from that as I would with a real manual, so it works.
Heh, 2025 manual non-turbo, soul red. Traded my 2023 Mx-5 RF manual for it, as I needed a better seat. Isn’t as sexy driving (i had entirely forgotten about torque steer), still fun, gizmos all work slightly better, plus carry stuff.
I tried a couple of the turbo models and it just didn’t make it that much more fun.
I had a 1st gen 3 and tested a Speed3 and felt the same—worse mileage, worse ride, more power, sure, but not much more fun for a decent chunk of change. I expected the same of the Focus ST vs SE, but the ST was a big bump in fun.
I generally miss the RWD the most, that part totally sucks.
I’m one of maybe 1,000 people in the US who was crazy enough to buy this car this year. Mazda3’s of all sorts are struggling to sell in 2025. September sales were especially weak, with only 1,500 total Mazda3’s sold, with 457 of them being hatchbacks (even the MX-5 sold more than the 3 hatch!) Only 22,837 3’s have been sold through September. This is a car that saw about 100,000 sales per year in its heyday, with a double-digit percentage of sales being manuals, and about a third of sales being hatchbacks despite the hatch only being available with the more expensive and less fuel-efficient engine.
There were many reasons for me choosing my turbo hatch, with one of them simply being that I don’t want to see the Mazda3 die, so thanks to The Autopian for this article! This is my 3rd Mazda3 (never owned anything else) and this may very well be my one and only new car purchase, unless some crazy market reversal happens resulting in at least one sporty EV hatchback with lightweight batteries and physical controls on the steering wheel and console.
I was able to get something like a deal from my local normally stoic Mazda dealership, I don’t think they had a lot of nibbles on it, 12 mos old and a stick.
When I was buying last June, there was a 2024 turbo premium plus in polymetal grey on a used lot with 8k miles for 26k. Had I not been sick and dragged myself out of bed, it would have been mine. It sold later that same day, sadly. Still happy with my 2022 AWD turbo in white, though. It was at the same dealer and they lost money selling it to me at what I paid for it. The salesman had no idea what it was, but after going for a ride in it with me, he bought the last of the three they had on the lot. Couldn’t believe how nice it was inside for the price.
This is how I feel about my integra type s. It is wild the damn thing even exists in the modern times. It is sad but that is how it is.
The landscape has been a bit bleak. I would struggle to replace my Fiesta ST if i were forced to do so, this might be the best option, or get a boring daily and fall back on my less practical fun cars more often.
i forgot Honda still makes the Si while not a hatch, might do the trick…
I love my Si, it’s a 9th gen, but it’s exactly the vehicle I want, and it fulfils most of my needs as well. Can’t haul big stuff being the biggest gap, but my SO has a minivan.
Good setup there.All i have are tiny cars and then my wife’s van.
I’ve also got a crap can 03 Civic Lx, my kids are big enough that we need sedans for sanity. So far I’ve only really had to borrow the minivan once in going on three years, so clearly my need to haul big things isn’t that much of a need.
oh that’s a great generation Civic, especially for a beater. We have made good use of the van’s space, definitely justifying the purchase. I’ve only really needed a TRUCK truck 3 or 4 times int he last few years and i can borrow from my parents for that.
As much as i’d LIKE to have a truck, balancing the cost for how much i’d actually need to use it, its just not worth it (yet).
I had a ’16 Mazda6 Touring with the Soul Red paint and 6MT for a few years before it was totaled by a careless trucker. It was a good car at a good price.
I would have preferred the more agile Mazda3 and a hatchback body style, but with a family of tall people the Mazda6 just fit better.
Anyhow, I know the Mazda6 doesn’t exist anymore so we’re comparing apples to ghosts, but the MSRP on my old 6 was less (even adjusting for inflation) than the MSRP on this 3. Selling Mazda3s for Mazda6 prices just doesn’t seem like it’ll be a popular strategy.
I really appreciated this article, Matt. I like the math-based approach, and it made for an interesting read.
Another math related question I’ve been toying with that perhaps you could weigh in on is very related to the used car/new car debate going on right now. I’ve had a couple people ask me lately what car they recommend in a variety of budgets. I started trying to do the math on total cost of ownership of desirable Japanese sedans and CUVs. And due to the advent of hybrid everything, and high residual values on Corollas/Civics and Rav4s/CRVs, based on purchase price and fuel cost, the new cars are much closer to the used cars on a $/mile basis than I would have thought. There’s lots of talk of new cars being too expensive, but used cars are also very expensive right now, to the point, I’d argue, it actually starts making sense to shop some new cars.
Thanks! And I like the math on this as well. Some vehicles do have so low a cost of ownership and so high a resale value that, if you sort of amortize it over a long enough period, it becomes even or positive.
The problems I have with new car prices is A) I don’t need all the touchscreens and technology, I just want a reliable efficient vehicle and B) My income has not kept up with inflation, at all.
the problem is that there are enough people willing to pay (or borrow) for all that junk so there is no incentive for the manufacturers to make things any other way.
more bloat == more profit
we’ll never escape the cycle.
The screen is there because it is cheaper than buttons and knobs, that’s not why cars are expensive.
Slate! We don’t know about reliable yet, but it’s built with super simple parts and should be easy to work on yourself outside of the battery. Fingers crossed!
I also think the battery part will start to become easier to work on once people understand how to do so safely. While the potential energy is much higher than a regular 12v car battery, the same basic principles can be extended to an EV battery. Once this gets better documented in the DIY community I think that will be less of an issue. I mean if ChrisFix can do it…. 😀
Cautiously optimistic about the Slate, but I was also optimistic about the $40,000 Ford F-150 EV and the $20,000 Maverick. And Jeff Bozos is involved, he seems to be getting more comically evil as time goes on.
I’m hoping, I just want a small simple truck and I don’t want a 30 year old one that has issues or costs 50k cause it is clean looking. My plan is to buy it once its possible and before they can raise the price ha!
Nope. I paid ~$39K after discounts for my ’11 BMW wagon. And that felt like a ton of money at the time. Not paying that for a pumped-up econobox that you can’t see out the back of even with inflation. These are fine cars, but they are no e9x BMW. For that matter, admittedly in the depths of dieselgate, I paid $24K for my ’17 GTI Sport – with both turbo AND the correct transmission.
This car in FWD with a turbo and a stick I could see paying $30K for today. I need AWD like I need a couple of ex-wives. And what really torques me is that this much money and you get almost zero choice. If you want the red interior, which is the only not-black choice, you can choose from all of four boring shades of gray exterior colors. My BMW had a choice of a dozen exterior and about the same number of interior leather and leatherette colors. And very few limitations on what combinations you could get. Baffles me that automakers limit this interior color to only those exterior colors.
Cars have jumped the shark in so many ways, I am OUT. I can afford this, but I don’t want to anymore. I can’t help compare this to the minty ’11 128i convertible with 46K on it that I bought in 2020 for well less than half this price. It’s worth about the same as I paid for it then today (post pandemic pricing is fun). How much is one of these going to worth in five years?
The accounting degree holder in my understands completely why this is, but I don’t have to participate if I don’t want to.
You’re comparing 2020’s $39k to 2025’s $39k, those are two different amounts. Based on inflation, 2020’s $39k has the equivalent buying power of $48.8k today. Or inversely, today’s $39k would have the same buying power as $31k in 2020. Considering the inflation rate, the new Mazda is ~$8k cheaper than the used BMW. If you’re thinking in 2020 dollars, this thing actually gets pretty close to your $30k price.
Yes, I fully understand how inflation works. I don’t care. MY buying power has well outpaced inflation.
I paid $16K for my used BMW 128i in 2020 – like I said, well less than half what this thing costs today, and it’s NOT depreciating to any real extent. I paid $39K for the new 328i in 2011. I still own both. That one hasn’t depreciated much either in the grand scheme of things, given it’s probably worth $25K as a low mileage single-owner RWD stickshift wagon on BaT or C&B. Not that I am EVER selling it. Sorry, I realize it is a bit confusing that they both happen to be the same model year.
I think this is the core of the issue Matt is talking about here, the people that want this car; don’t actually want to buy it, either due to cost, tech, or the artificial limitations in place by the realities of the current market. I leased a Mazda 3 sedan in 2010, it was a very good car, nice enough to drive that I didn’t even hate the automatic (it was for my then wife to use as a family hauler)
I can’t bring myself to pay the asking price of this or most of its competitors, even though I know I’m directly contributing to their downfall.
Exactly. There just is very little market for this car. I can’t even imagine paying this much for this – and I wouldn’t buy one in this configuration anyway.
I find it very hard to believe that in the modern world of HIGHLY automated production that it costs any significant amount to offer configuration choices. And I really don’t buy the arguement about it being “too expensive to certify different combinations”. Cadillac was famously on the record saying the break-even for offering the CTS-V wagon was *25* cars. I think it simply comes down to the fact that they can get people to pay disproportionately more for a CUV with all the same crap in it, so they can’t be bothered. Obviously, for the moment the tariff idiocy is skewing things considerably, but that is certainly going to be a temporary phenomenon.
Yeah, that’s part of what I meant by artificial limitations. It’s like the Model T being painted black because that paint dried faster than other colors at the time. Over 1 million vehicles this added up to some tangible benefit for Henry Ford’s pockets, not anyone else.
I hate it.
The Model T steadily dropped in price as Ford got more efficient at making it and cut manufacturing cost by doing things like only painting them black.
In 1910 a new Model T cost $950. In 1925 is was down to $290.
Not believing reality doesn’t change it. Adding options increases costs at every step: design, R&D, tooling, manufacturing, service.
Not when the options already exist. You already make a red interior – the robots and human who install interiors don’t care if that red interior is installed in a blue car, a red car, or a black car.
Ultimately, you make any added cost back by the marginal increase in sales. There are plenty of people like me who simply won’t buy your product if we can’t have it the way we want it. If I have to compromise, I am simply not going to buy new at all. No sale is a lot more expensive than slightly higher cost of production.
The interior color thing really gets me—the f’n robots on the assembly line DGAF about the exterior color it’s matched with. If they offer the other color, you should be able to get it with whatever exterior color.
Exactly.
Also – see automakers who refuse to do special orders at all.
I owned a BMW. I’d gladly pay $10k more for a Japanese car than a BMW. With a BMW you’re paying that extra 10k in repairs. And again in depreciation. I’m sure if you work out the total cost of ownership of a stick shift, beautiful, Mazda hatchback vs any automatic BMW (my understanding is you need to pay at least M3 prices to get a new BMW manual) the Mazda has the lowest total ownership cost.
Plus you don’t wake up every day wondering if today’s failure will be the plastic cooling system, or the timing chain guide, or the vanos, or the rod bearings, or the window regulator (mine went through 7 in 125k miles), or the suspension bushings, or the leaky sunroof, or the electronic control module behind the glove box, or the instrument cluster, etc
Good for you. My BMW wagon has needed a battery as the only out of pocket repair in 14 years of ownership from new, with just a couple of minor warranty issues out of the gate. <shrug> My convertible has needed a little more – but I didn’t own it from new. I don’t worry about failures in the slightest. If they break, they get fixed.
The Japanese sold absolutely nothing at the time comparable. Nor have they ever really.
You’re comparing a new car’s price in 2025 dollars, to the price you paid for a 9 (now 14) year old car in 2020 dollars. This isn’t even apples to oranges, this is a worthless comparison.
It’s really not – but if you don’t get my point, that is perfectly fine.
This really sucks for those of us that want to buy sedans, and not SUVs. We were looking in ’23 when my son needed a car after moving for a job to a new city, we were looking for lease deals on the Mazda 3,as we had one. No deals found, he wound up in a CX30
This article is a good reminder to enthusiasts that you vote with your wallet, not with your internet comments.
You mean my incessant chanting of “BROWN MANUAL WAGONS FOR UNDER $25k!!” isn’t helping?
Its working, people are definitely moving to the other side of the street to avoid you. Crazy-Smiley-Emoji
I would cheerfully pay $60K for a manual wagon today. Brown isn’t really my jam though.
Nope. I yelled into the pixels for years that I wanted a new Saab 900. Never happened.
Never give up!
I am considering one of these for my next car, but may have to go the low mileage used route to save a few dollars. The MSRP on 2026 models has crossed $40k in my city for turbo premium plus models. Ridiculous.
I have a 2025 Mazda3 hatchback with the 6 speed manual and the Soul Crystal Red paint. I decided to do a little price comparison as I live in Canada.
My car here in Canada is C$36,895 before taxes. Based on current exchange rates, that’s about US$28,000. So either Mazda is losing a bunch of money on its Canadian cars or maybe we just have lower tariffs for cars built in Japan? Note that the Canadian spec cars also have a heated steering wheel and 360 camera which I don’t believe the US cars have.
When I was shopping for a new car earlier this year, it came down to this and the Civic si. Besides the fact that the Honda dealer in my city is awful, the price difference really sold me on the Mazda. It’s such an engaging car to drive, and damn the shifter is slick! The NA engine is good, so I imagine the turbo is crazy good.
So you’re telling me I should look at importing a Canadian spec car…? Got it!
Mazda is still stuck in 1999, when the stick shift option was only ever picked by some miserable cheapskate. Nowadays stick shifts are exclusively the province of car enthusiasts. It make no sense to only offer the stick in the lower trims and leave it out for the turbo AWD version.
The stick is actually only offered on the top trim of the FWD NA, the 2.5 Premium. My best guess as to why is Mazda had that transmission ready to go with only the NA FWD powertrain, but not enough development budget or market confidence to design a stick for the turbo or AWD.
This is exactly what I was told when we bought ours; they already had the trans from the CX-5 with the same engine, and didn’t want to develop a whole new manual trans as the current one couldn’t handle the turbo engine.
That is a valid reason. Although ideally the turbo AWD car really should have gotten a dual clutch trans if manual was not doable.
I would love to have this car with the manual but not with the AWD.
I assume I have to be overwhelmingly in the minority, I get that.
But how would buying this car send the message that gets me what I actually want? Does keeping this form factor going do me any good if it’s not really a car I want?
The only power we have is voting with our wallet and I plan to make as few compromises as possible.
I’d love to support building more cars, but I don’t know if limiting the options like this is getting us where we really want to go and I can’t justify spending many 10s of thousands just to get incrementally closer.
Very cool hatchback tho.
I’m with you. If I am paying new car money, I want it MY WAY, or I am just not going to bother. Not compromising when spending forty-large.
Yeah, exactly. I was amazed when I was looking to buy a new car and came in with the exact config I wanted, and they were like, “Well, we have this that’s pretty close…”
Umm, no. I just told you what I want. Find it and get it, or I’m not buying the car. They managed to find it.
I still can’t believe there are people who walk in and buy whatever happens to be sitting there. For the stupid amount of money they’re asking for a new vehicle, I’m not compromising on anything. (Perhaps this is why I rarely buy brand new cars…well, that and the poor value proposition.)
Exactly!
When I could get what I wanted with nobody else’s farts in the seats, I gladly paid it. Always managed to get good deals too – because I wouldn’t buy if I didn’t.
People don’t understand that the vast majority of the time you have all the power when buying a car. I never HAVE to buy a car, but they need to sell them to eat. Walk away if you can’t get what you want.
My ’06 3 was $23k with just the sunroof option (~$400, IIRC), though it was a 2.3 hatch, so the more expensive body, though manual transmission. Very overrated car for being fun unless it’s only being compared to a contemporary Corolla. Ten years later, I paid $23k for a Focus ST, but even my ’12 Focus SE (manual, of course) was better than the Mazda platform mate (and neither of them rusted like it’s 1979). Here’s the thing: my GR86 is cheaper than the 3. I paid under $30k after taxes and I didn’t even consider the Mazda, not only because of my past disappointment of something hailed as a “driver’s car”, but the lackluster reviews of the current car as a driver, no manual and AWD only with the turbo (I don’t like AWD), a bunch of pansy “safety” shit I’d pay not to have for more money than the competitors. If saving money is more of a priority and you’re looking at a base 3, you might as well go for a competitor with better mileage or one with more utility. Toyota/Subaru sell low five figures of 86 and BRZ combined and have their own distinct engine version and platform (though it’s based on an older platform, it’s the only model using it), as well as being made in Japan. Where’s the margin there? (Serious question—it has to be almost nothing.) And they’re massively better cars to drive, enough to excuse reduced utility over the hatches I traditionally bought, but they’re only less practical than a 3 if you regularly put people in the rear seats (and if you do, you’ll probably want something roomier than the 3). Otherwise, it’s amazing how much crap can be fit in it with the seats folded, though a hatch instead of an awkward trunk opening would make it a lot easier to do. Coming from several similarly sized hatchbacks, there isn’t much more in everyday life that I could fit in the hatches that wouldn’t be too much for either car and a hitch receiver fits on both for those occasions. Whatever the reasons, Mazda’s are decent all things being equal, but they’re not equal due to the price and, while I understand manufacturing and logistics challenges, I only care about the value for my money and I don’t see it here. Seems a lot of other people don’t either, as I don’t see many current 3s around (the hatches are good looking, though). Unfortunately, I think the better value for most people is the CX3, which I do see lots of.
The turbo awd model not having a manual killed this car for me. I really like them but that was my requirement.
Same.
I looked at one of these briefly while my Miata was in for a recall and I was looking to dump my Grand Cherokee. The sticker definitely shocked me; I had a hard time with the idea of buying one of these when a new Accord Hybrid was 4-5k cheaper. Yeah the Mazda would be more fun, but I already have a fun Mazda in the garage.