BMW 325ti (E46) | PH Fleet
The old BMW has 190hp, a manual, and distinctive looks - so does a new Mazda 3. What's changed in 20 years?
It’s no secret that I quite like Mazdas. One day I will own an RX-8, however financially ruinous it proves, and I think the MX-5 is one of the best new cars on sale. And, if only for a little while, I owned a 3. Ultimately, it proved a little too ordinary for a car that doesn’t have to be used every day, but I’ve always admired Mazda’s commitment to doing things its own way.
The latest 3 is the perfect example of that, eschewing the current trend for small turbos and plug-in hybrids for Mazda’s Spark Controlled Compression Ignition. It’s a 2.0-litre naturally aspirated engine with an incredibly high (for a petrol) compression ratio of 15.0:1, meaning it can run both as a conventional combustion unit and a compression ignition one - i.e. like a diesel.
According to Mazda, SPCCI ‘combines the fuel-efficiency of a diesel with the power and drivability of a petrol engine’, which was intriguing enough on its own. With peak power of 186hp (just 6hp less than the BMW) once mustered and a standard manual gearbox, I was keen to see just how rare groove hatches had evolved since the ‘00s. Obviously the BMW has the additional capacity, cylinders and rear-drive, so it’s hardly a direct comparison, but having a naturally aspirated, manual family car still around was good enough for me.
Having spent a good amount of time in similar hatches like the Golf and Civic, the Mazda feels so much classier and more sophisticated. In a world of rubbish interiors, the 3’s seems really high quality and is intuitive to use. Mazda being Mazda, too, the driver’s dials are a model of clarity, while the relationship between steering wheel and gearlever isn’t bettered by some sports cars. To disable the speed limit warning and lane keep requires no interaction at all with the central screen, which makes the 3 eminently recommendable almost on its own.
While I won’t suggest that a new four-cylinder can rival an old straight six for charisma, there’s a lot to like about the Mazda 2.0-litre. Not least from an efficiency standpoint: officially this is a 50mpg, sub-130g/km car, an absolute world away from what was achieved by atmospheric engines not so long ago. It means that more than 40mpg is easily achievable, yet with all the joy of a naturally aspirated engine: it responds to the throttle perfectly, so working with the six-speed manual is a pleasure, and actually doesn’t sound bad at all by 2025 standards. It doesn’t scream around to the limiter or lug with vast quantities of torque (unsurprisingly the BMW shows it up a bit here), but the Skyactiv-X is satisfying to use in a way that a small turbo just isn’t.
Indeed, the whole car is, with a lovely weight and resistance to all the controls that is seldom found in the average family hatch. Jinba Ittai isn’t just for the MX-5, it would seem. Against the old Compact, everything inevitably feels quite light, but the Mazda avoids the modern trap of feeling overly synthetic or assisted. Perhaps it needs a little more effort than is the norm these days, thinking about revs and gears, but it’s really enjoyable to do so. However hard you try, though, the lighter old car is faster - while using so much more fuel it seems like there’s a hole in the tank.
That’s all without considering the biggest advantage I think the 3 holds over the alternatives, and most definitely my dumpy old 3 Series: it looks fantastic. An elegant, distinctive piece of hatchback design when so many are now overdone; seldom has the Compact looked worse than when parked next to the Mazda. Perhaps if my old 3 had looked as good and gone as well, I wouldn’t have got rid…
So, in conclusion, a two-decade-old BMW isn’t much like a brand new Mazda - who’d have thought? But having the 3 around was a great reminder that, even in the humble hatch, there’s little to rival the enjoyment of a (very clever) atmospheric engine and a manual gearbox. That it comes in such a handsome, well-built car means the Mazda left a very positive impression, a welcome reminder that the obvious options aren’t always the ones to go for. Which is what I always say to those who ask why I bought the ugliest 3 Series…
FACT SHEET
Car: BMW 325ti Compact (E46)
Run by: Matt Bird
Purchase price: £2,999
On fleet since: July 2024
Mileage: 160,055
Last month at a glance: 3 is the magic number
Previous reports
- Fortune favours the brave, doesn’t it?
- 1,000 miles driven, £1,000 spent
- MOT AOK
- Classic Compact charmer clutch change
- Lord of the ‘ring
Far bigger companies like VAG and Stellantis seem to be struggling to get this right. What chance have they ? Combine that with huge extra new competition from Chinese brands and they've got some tough times ahead. And they're not alone....
There are good engineers in there somewhere but they don't seem to have anyone who understands suspension.
Not surpised you like it Matt , and it definitely does things in a notable manner.
I'll be upgrading my older 3 to one of these latest at some point. Seem like such a strong bang for buck 'normal' car in just about every way.
Now after that month, and reading these fleet updated of old BMWs................ I sold the 125i cab, and i've listed the FN2....... and bought a 2013 last of the line 125i sport plus edition coupe ( rare run out special edition) for a bargain amount. the convertible gap will be filled by an NC mx5 winter purchase .
thanks for keeping up these older car fleets there is something. they may not be the most powerful f things in todays money but the complete package of a 6 cylinder NA rear wheel drive BMW is something to behold and in my opinion the smaller the car the better. the new stuff is too big,
keep the updates coming
Last year my brother and I inherited the lease of our fathers Mazda 3 with the "big" engine. So I can somewhat relate to this article by Matt.
To be frank, my spouse and I we are relatively spoilt by "premium" cars within our past. Alfa, Lancia, Audi, Corvette, BMW, a variety. And we both love the "Compact" for what it is. A premium sporty sedan in a small body. It eagerly eats the miles on french autoroutes, while within the same tour nimbly carving through mountain roads in Spain. Even after 20 years and 170k miles always carrying the tight and solid quality of an early 2000s BMW within the cabin. If it lacks anything, than it would be 2 more cylinders. It is a shrunk version of a quality sedan.
The Mazda 3 on the other hand is the grown version of a compact car from a car maker, who is used to work on a budget. The outcome is somewhat comparable. But the steering is rather soft and vague compared to an older BMW. While seating position, ergonomics and the weighting of the shifter are rather nice, the Mazda lost us with the details. I for one could not adapt to the rather oldfashioned Mulit-Media interface with its mixture of digital and manual inputs. The strong 2.0l engine was overpowering the front axle and the quality of the body construction seemed to be tailored to a price.
All in all the Mazda felt surprisingly rewarding to drive, but a little tinny and underdeveloped. So we moved it on and kept our old and trusty "Compact". Saving nearly 20k made the decision unfairly easy, though.
The Active G engine is NA and it produces only 120 BHP in the 3. In other cars the Active G is rated up to around 160 BHP but is noticeably less torque'y than the Active X
Mazda kind of avoid calling the Active X supercharged as for a boosted engine the performance is very low and they talk about it having an "air pump" to improve the engines efficiency which is basically true in a "marketing kind of way"
I am on my second gen 4 skayactiv X powered 3.
I had the first which was an early version of the Skyactiv X with the original 180 engine for 2 years and racked up 45,000 miles in that time . Inthen bought its successor which is a late 22 model Skyactiv X with the slightly revised 186 engine , which I've run for a further 2 years and that's coming up to 46,000 miles now.
I normally don't buy the same car twice but trying to find a successor with the same qualities , was too difficult .
It's not flashy , but somehow a bit quirky , looks modern but is somehow old fashioned in its clarity of ergonomics and clear instruments, yet just satisfying to drive with nice control weights and that slick manual gearbox and easy clutch and nicely weighted steering .
It isn't particularly quick but there's something satisfying about the way it drives , yet it's eminently sensible too , averaging 45 mpg and often getting 50mpg on a run, and being reasonably cheap to run too.
The kit levels are impressive too , for the money.
All the things I had to tick the options list for on other cars are standard .
It's still racking up the miles but I'll probably keep it a while yet.
The review is spot on and consistent with my findings .
Not surpised you like it Matt , and it definitely does things in a notable manner.
I'll be upgrading my older 3 to one of these latest at some point. Seem like such a strong bang for buck 'normal' car in just about every way.
But I liked the idea of a 190bhp N/A engine in the Mazda, so was rather disappointed to discover it has a supercharger.
The interior looks great, but why do manufacturers seem so obsessed with fitting shallow windows that look like the slot in a letter-box to the rear doors? It must make things claustrophobic for rear passengers.
I daily a 3 , 2016 model, it's brilliant for the purpose. Got it never expecting to keep it longer than necessary... 8 years later it's still here, still great, goes stops steers & handles better than pretty much anything vaguely similar (again, including modern BMWs eg 1 & 2 series (non-coupe), still nothing going wrong, and now worth so little there's no point selling it. Will probably give it to the kids when they start driving in a couple of years or so.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff