Automobile Magazine Expects Reader Backlash On It's Car of the Year Choice

Does this thing have a turbo?

If it does I would not think this thing should win, because I've seen others do just as well without a turbo.

Yes, the Civic Si makes the same power with same horsepwer with the same displacement without a turbo. BUT, it makes less torque (a lot more less torque) so it is basically slower (eventough it is lighter). The Civic Si also gets worse fuel economy. So there is nothing wrong with having a turbo, in fact Acura is using turbos now.

Some publications place it first, some place it last. All publications are biased to some point.

isn't a MazdaSpeed 3 about the same price as that? All the comparisons I've seen have the Speed 3 in first place.

In this case, I would take the Mazdaspeed 3 over the GTI.

Very good performance and very good fuel economy, 25/32 city and highway. High quality interior (for the price) Very good package overall for the price.

The editor thinks people will complain about the pick because it isn't something reserved for people looking to be further in massive debt or self so self absorbed that they have to drive the most expensive car........and they picked it for what reason.....oh yea "was the unanimous pick of the magazine's senior editors because of the way it combined performance and affordability".

Because all expensive cars are worth every penny....

ahhh incorrect use of an apostophe!

sorry, i can't stand that. named it's car of the year means named it is car of the year.

Looks like u got a really good english grade ;)

First the magazine is called Automobile. Second you are correct the Mazdaspeed3 does have more straightline performance. Third, the Volkswagen Rabbit (and GTI especially) have nicer materials inside than the Mazda 3 or Mazdaspeed 3.

mazda 3 smokes the vw.

Here in Australia, the Golf GTI took out the low price sports car category in the the COTY done by the regional automobile clubs (the non-low price sports car award went to the Audi RS4)

There are a lot of comparisons between the Golf, Mazda 3 and it's clone the new Ford Focus (euro model) and the winners are split equally between the three models.

In terms of the hot hatches, it's usually the GTI verses the Focus XR5 vs the Holden Astra VXR (we don't have a mazdaspeed 3 here...yet) and usually the Focus is the best in way of performance, but the GTI is the better all-rounder! Automobile's decision sounds like it's par for the course IMO.

again, only reason this thing won was becasue of its affordability. the 3 series coupe, no doubt is the real car of the year.

When did I ever say that acceleration doesn't matter? Maybe if I am comparing two fuel misers or something. The GTI has better EPA fuel economy, 27 or 28 EPA combined when compared to the Civic Si's 26 EPA combined.

Not sure where you are getting your numbers chewy, but the Civic Si and the VW GTI have the same EPA ratings; 23/32 city/highway for 6 speed manuals. The auto GTI gets 25/31 city/highway, but there's no Civic Si Auto, so you can't really compare that.

In the real world, I'd bet the Civic will do better in overall gas mileage, but there probably isn't going to be much diff b/tw the two. Nevertheless, both cars are pretty sweet.

"sorry, i can't stand that. named it's car of the year means named it is car of the year."


Not really, the term it can be used to describe a non human entity. So the apostrophe would be used in a posseive form belonging to that entity being the magazine. Just as if it were a man named Joe, and it was Joe's choice. If if the entity describe it known as it, it could be it's choice of car.

It's can also be used for the term "it has" e.g. "it's been raining for a long time" = " It has been raining for a long time."

The GTI has the potential to truly be car of the year, but VW was only able to put an engine in it with spark plugs due to our anti-diesel biased regulatory community.

huu76 - I have no desire that everyone go diesel anymore than everyone go hybrid, HCCI, or turbo, direct-injection gas power, however, all of these technologies are superior to naturally-aspired engines that have averaged us 22 mpg--or less--for over 25 years.

The GTI uses one of these fuel saving technologies, so I must give it its props, however, a 2.0 with this kind of power takes that technnology to the excess, which really deminishes the fuel-saving potential of such technology. A 1.4 liter would be better suited with a city rating over 30 mpg and is already manufactured for European cars.

A Clean--yes--Clean diesel with around the same displacement (2.0) would meet emissions standards; save 30% petroleum even after considering the extra petroleum over gasoline that is in the fuel; and would give decent performance.

You can't simply take the energy value of fuel and apply to the amount of hp/torque that each creates and then determine that diesel fuel uses more petroleum than gasoline. The compression-ignition engine results in much more efficient use of the fuel during combustion due to the lack of pumping losses and other factors. BTE of diesels are nearing 50%, while that of gas power is still in the thirties. Besides, diesels can run with no modification or loss in fuel economy, on non-petroleum sources of fuel, i.e. biodiesel, natural gas-to-diesel, coal-to-diesel, and synthetic diesel from bio-oil. While spark-ignition can use alternatives as well, they must be specially designed to do so or converted.

What a Whascully wabbit