:lol: These were the exact two cars it came down to for me. No GTS trim on the Lancer in Canada is utter crap, though. That's what lured me away from the Mazda! I'd have probably been just as happy with the 3, TBH. I've driven both, and they're both fun cars to drive.
Haters gonna hate the CVT, but I think I like it better than a regular slushbox. Either way (CVT or normal automatic), you're not
really controlling the gearbox. I feel like I'm more in control of the CVT, though, because it won't shift (and thus unsettle the car a bit by shifting) when I don't want it to. It's one continuous...thing. How far I push down the throttle pedal relates more to the RPM of the engine. This I like. It makes it stupidly easy to keep it in its powerband. It's stood up to almost 33K miles of utter abuse thus far with no issues, so I'm really impressed.
I have the GTS, so it came with paddle shifters (and the programmed-in "gears"), but I really only like those for acceleration. Revs don't fall very quickly for downshifting, so meh, I prefer to get up to speed with the paddles and then whack it back over to D to stay. In that case, a normal automatic with flappy paddles may work better, but it does at least seem like the "gear" changes are a bit more instantaneous with the CVT than the usual autobox/paddle combo. Maybe it's the lack of gears?
So, um, teach the sister to drive a stick--if not for this car, it's still a good thing to know! I know several of the Mazda slushboxes have paddle shifters. Are any of them available on the 3? That might be a good compromise. The paddles on the RX-8 I drove were a little strange (+ is above and - is below on BOTH sides--like four paddles total), but they worked.
Insurance companies only hate the Lancer because they tend to be driven by knobs. It's supposed to be a very safe car (there are a bajillion airbags), as rickhamilton mentioned.
The handling in both cars is pretty great for what they are. They're both nose-heavy FWD cars, therefore, understeer, but I've been really impressed with the Lancer thus far. IIRC, even the lower trims of the Lancer come with surprisingly fat swaybars and such to keep everything under control. The Mazda3 was
the car to have in its class for autocross (and is in the same one as the Lancer) for years. Both cars are easy to maneuver and whee.
As far as the engine goes, I've tried out the 2.0 and 2.4 in the Lancer (both CVT) and a 2.3 in the Mazda3 (manual). The base 2.0 in the Lancer seemed a little sluggish. I've heard that CVTs eat power a little bit, so that might be the case. The 2.4 is decently perky, especially above 3500 RPM, mwahahaha. I didn't get a chance to abuse the Mazda much (it was a "let's try to teach you how to drive a stick again" car), but the 2.3 seemed pretty nice, too. No complaints there. It seemed to have more low-end power than the Lancer's engines, IIRC.
Where the Mazda3 beats the pants off the Lancer is in the interior, though. It's just much nicer in every way. Mine's a LOT of hard plastic. It scratches easily and already has a couple rattles.
I also like the looks of the Lancer sedan exterior better, but the Mazda3's hatch version looks more...together? The Lancer comes in a Sportback hatch version, but the roundy back end doesn't seem to match the angular front. The Mazda3's hatch seems like more of a cohesive design statement. I
that car as a hatchback. It's weird, but I love the angry face on my car as well as the 3's happy face. I think the 3 is where the happymazda look actually fits the best.
I have no idea what the warranty offer is in Canada, but a big selling point for the Lancer here was the 10-year/100,000 mile deal.
Good luck!
