Help with Mk3 buying decision please
Discussion
I'm looking at getting a Mk3 for my wife as I keep nicking her Golf for both fishing trips and to tow my bike to track days. I could spend upto £7k, but less would be good.
I'm looking for advice on the various different specifications and what to look out for?
Also, is it correct that even these later cars are prone to rust and are there any preventative treatments?
Thanks in advance.
I'm looking for advice on the various different specifications and what to look out for?
Also, is it correct that even these later cars are prone to rust and are there any preventative treatments?
Thanks in advance.
Edited by andy tims on Sunday 15th March 17:19
Go for a Sport..low miles..with AC and Bose.
They all rust so look under at rear suspension and were the sill curves round in front of the rear arch inward facing part of the sill..get a lot of stone splatter from the front wheels. Oh and they love to collect stone chips all over the front end.
Great car though I have had lots of other nice motors but I have kept this longer than all the others.
They all rust so look under at rear suspension and were the sill curves round in front of the rear arch inward facing part of the sill..get a lot of stone splatter from the front wheels. Oh and they love to collect stone chips all over the front end.
Great car though I have had lots of other nice motors but I have kept this longer than all the others.
Rum Runner said:
Go for a Sport..low miles..with AC and Bose.
They all rust so look under at rear suspension and were the sill curves round in front of the rear arch inward facing part of the sill..get a lot of stone splatter from the front wheels. Oh and they love to collect stone chips all over the front end.
Great car though I have had lots of other nice motors but I have kept this longer than all the others.
This.They all rust so look under at rear suspension and were the sill curves round in front of the rear arch inward facing part of the sill..get a lot of stone splatter from the front wheels. Oh and they love to collect stone chips all over the front end.
Great car though I have had lots of other nice motors but I have kept this longer than all the others.
+ I had my car on the ramp last week, 5 years old, 32k miles, not a spec of rust.
Don't buy a black one (like I did). The undercoat on black cars is white, stupidly. I got showered with rock salt from a gritter lorry before xmas and the front looks like it has dandruff. Getting it resprayed in a few weeks and covered in 3M.
But get a Sport, yes. Very comfy and cosy in the cabin - seats heat up in no time at all and the sound system is good too. Get a convertible and not a hard top - the latter weighs a lot and to be honest, its not a powerful car to start with, even in 2.0 form.
But get a Sport, yes. Very comfy and cosy in the cabin - seats heat up in no time at all and the sound system is good too. Get a convertible and not a hard top - the latter weighs a lot and to be honest, its not a powerful car to start with, even in 2.0 form.
I had a black one, was a f
king nightmare to keep clean. I don't think the paint quality is great either as it's a 'flat' black. I'm no detailer but I tried to keep it well, two buckets, wash mitt, claybar etc, but I was fighting a losing battle as it had swirls when it was delivered from Mazda 
I'd go for a metallic if I was buying one again, probably the grey.
king nightmare to keep clean. I don't think the paint quality is great either as it's a 'flat' black. I'm no detailer but I tried to keep it well, two buckets, wash mitt, claybar etc, but I was fighting a losing battle as it had swirls when it was delivered from Mazda I'd go for a metallic if I was buying one again, probably the grey.
The black looks great when clean. Just doesn't stay clean for very long, as said. Unless you never drive it! 
The folding roof version, according to Mazda, weighs 80-odd kgs more. No doubt it will be more secure but the 2.0 convertible is NOT a quick car. Any extra weight I would say, should be avoided.
The folding roof version, according to Mazda, weighs 80-odd kgs more. No doubt it will be more secure but the 2.0 convertible is NOT a quick car. Any extra weight I would say, should be avoided.Flip Martian said:
The black looks great when clean. Just doesn't stay clean for very long, as said. Unless you never drive it! The folding roof version, according to Mazda, weighs 80-odd kgs more. No doubt it will be more secure but the 2.0 convertible is NOT a quick car. Any extra weight I would say, should be avoided.
The folding roof version, according to Mazda, weighs 80-odd kgs more. No doubt it will be more secure but the 2.0 convertible is NOT a quick car. Any extra weight I would say, should be avoided.
scz4 said:
I think you could be right, as I've also seen this published in another official Mazda brochure. 37kgs is 81.5lbs
hornetrider said:
Because the hard top is ten times cooler that's why. And more solid.
"Cooler" is subjective (to me, folding hard tops are more "hairdresser". Meganes and Peugeots and SLKs have folding hard tops too. Solid, heavier, slower. I will say it looks nice as a hard top. But the soft top is slow (but fun to drive). I wouldn't enjoy anything slower and heavier. All stuff for the OP to use to make his own mind up anyway - he might love hard tops!
hornetrider said:
It's not slower unless you're measuring inches on a quarter mile dash, which is, to be fair, ridiculous.
As is suggesting a folding hard top is "cooler". Goes without saying the lighter car will be faster and better handling - that's how it was originally designed to be. I just put those facts up there for the OP to consider. My choice was soft top. His may be a hard top, like yours was. Neither is wrong...
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff