Last week, fellow contributor Doug DeMuro posed the question, “Has Mazda lost its zoom?” Some weeks before that, he asked readers, “When did BMW lose its edge?”
To be brief, the answer to the first is a simple “No,” while the answer to the second is – well, let’s ask BMW. Hey! Bavarians! How do you sleep at night, selling bizarre cross-coupes and sport activity whats-its and M-badged heffalumps like the 5-series Gran Turismo?
BMW, in a Rainier Wolfcastle accent: “On a huge pile of money, surrounded by many beautiful ladies.”
I see. So here’s my question – if Mazda is, as I posit, selling the strongest lineup of vehicles it’s had in decades, then why isn’t it knocking it out of the park?
First though, some brief defence of the Mazda range may be needed, as there are those who feel that it lacks cohesion. I believe the quote bandied about refers to our resident hot-shoe / well-heeled-Visigoth Jack Baruth declaring the Camry SE a bit sprightlier around a racetrack than a Mazda6. However, I remind you that the same gent said the following, “As it turns out, I did nearly sixty laps of Laguna Seca in the CX-5. The first three were for you, dear readers; the rest were for me.”
And that was back when you still couldn’t get anything other than a relatively overmatched 2.0L in that particular crossover. Now there’s a more-flexible 2.5L engine available that still returns excellent fuel economy but doesn’t feel overtaxed in passing maneuvers. You can get the same engine in the Mazda3, which I have just finished up a week in, now with either a six-speed manual (lovely) or conventional six-speed automatic (frankly, better), and that car is pretty enough that it could easily wear an Alfa-Romeo badge.
The Mazda2, which Doug dismissed for having just 100hp, is just debuting with 115hp now, and shares a design language with the rest of the range. The new CX-3, bound to launch somewhere mid-year, builds on the 2’s chassis with a little more ride-height (as well as a 2.0L, 155-horsepower engine), and having watched a camouflaged mule run along the Angeles Crest highway at speed, that thing’s going to be sharp too.
Much more importantly, they’re also very pretty cars these days. No more of the grinning why-so-serious nonsense that only really worked on the cutesy ‘2, Mazda’s new design language is good enough to have those who don’t care about corners looking twice. Should they glance at the fuel-economy figures, those too should impress. Moreover, most Mazda products I’ve driven actually hit their economy targets without trickery, unlike some turbocharged options I could name. And will: so-called Ecoboost offerings.
So what gives? Is it, as Doug suggests, a lack of power in the range? Toe-to-toe with four-banger Camrys and CR-Vs, Mazda’s products are actually a little ahead; it’s a fair point that handling and feel take a backseat to plain ol’ underhood gumption, and that there are probably a few people driving around in 2.0T Optimas who turned down the ‘6 on the basis of power, but where the bulk volume is, there too is most of the Mazda range.
The problem, I feel, is in not in the product, it’s in the perception. Easiest example of this? The new MX-5.
When the word went out that the new ND-chassis MX-5 would have just 155hp, out came the knives. It wasn’t enough. It certainly wasn’t daring enough. If anything, it was a step backwards. Just one issue: the Venn Diagram between those complaining and those who’d driven the car had zero overlap – and that was with the JDM 1.5L cars.
Moreover, get a few lines down in the comment thread of any first-drive, and you’d start hearing people talk about rust. Either they’d be dismissing all Mazdas as rust-buckets, based on apocryphal experience, or defending the brand, based on apocryphal experience. The consensus seems to be that the modern cars are much better (with the caveat that time has yet to take its full toll), but that the buying public hasn’t forgotten.
More to the point, the buying public doesn’t seem to have forgotten their last poor experience with a Mazda dealer, or perhaps the lack of choice when it comes to finding one. Not that they’re all the same, but if there are five Honda dealerships in your town, eight Toyota dealerships, and one place that sells Mazdas, guess which brand takes a kicking? Someone who had a bad experience at Toyota A but liked their car might try Toyota B before switching brands.
Meanwhile, over at Subaru, equally a niche player, things couldn’t be rosier. This despite a history of headgasket issues and fussy maintenance requirements. Subaru’s overall sales in the US were double Mazda’s results, with just under treble the growth.
It’s not a mystery, no more so than the prevalence of gluten-free food these days. Subaru’s all-wheel-drive is of no real benefit to many shoppers, but it has at least a placebo effect. In addition, overall fuel economy is improved enough now thanks to CVT and direct-injection to be acceptable, and the brand can tout its reputation for all-weather capability and safety loudly enough to drown out the critics.
For Mazda, a philosophy of “fun-to-drive spirit” baked into every car, no matter how true, just isn’t enough. In fact, if Mazda succeeds, it’ll be in spite of the fact that their cars drive well.
Enthusiasts buy into handling and feel, but they do so in small numbers, and they currently face a glut of options. No-one would tell you the Miata wasn’t zippy, but the actual sales figures for that car are almost hilariously modest, even by niche-market standards. Everybody else buys safe – not boring: safe. Something that’s a known quantity, recommended by friends and family, with a decent monthly payment and a nice-enough feel.
BMW certainly understands this, and has abandoned their Ultimate Driving Machine image for a scattershot approach that currently fills at least three niches which were probably better left empty. They still make the odd enthusiast-pleasing car, but the average 3-series leaving the lot is more akin to a Mercedes-Benz C-Class than its boxy ancestors. BMW knows that they need not worry about the weight-distribution of the ATS when the Audi Q3 is a far bigger sales volume threat.
Thus, the disheartening feeling that the gleaming alloy air cars are coming for that Soul-Red barchetta with the Mazda badge on the nose. But perhaps that’s not quite the case just yet.
CX-5 sales are steady, and the company’s growth, as-mentioned, is modest but present. The CX-3 will be an important launch, but its the CX-9 that faces down even tougher competition in the three-row segment. At least Mazda’s earlier to the game here than VW.
Personally, I’d like to see the next Mazdaspeed car, the next powerful Mazda, be a version of the CX-3; imagine a GLA AMG competitor for less than half the price. With the conventional hot-hatch segment relatively crowded, the next ‘Speed, and Mazda as a company, needs to hit them not where they are, but where they ain’t.
However, that’s beside the point. If Mazda’s to survive, it’s the twin attributes of consumer-reproducible overall fleet fuel economy and attractive styling that will keep the company afloat. Has Mazda lost its zoom? No, but that’s practically irrelevant. Survival here is not going to be about Jinba Ittai, but how pretty the pony is, and how much it costs to keep it fed.
The post Editorial: Zoom, But Where’s The Boom? The Mazda Question appeared first on The Truth About Cars.
Best Deals today in www.freepromotoday.com
