(first posted 1/24/2017) Is it possible to feel sorry for a corporation? I have to admit, I really empathise with Mazda and their continuing struggle to convince consumers of their worth.
One must look no further than the first front-wheel-drive 626 to see how much potential Mazda had. This was a car that was well-received by critics and consumers alike, and which outsold the rival Nissan Stanza.
Fast forward to 2017 and the 626’s talented successor, the Mazda6, dwells in obscurity. Mazda has one of the most dynamically-gifted mid-sizers with sensuous styling and yet the conservative Nissan Altima outsells it by a factor of 5-to-1. Even the Subaru Legacy finds more buyers. What happened?
Clearly, something went terribly wrong for Mazda and yet the decades between this 626 and today’s Mazda6 reveal little in the way of product missteps. Sure, the 1997 626 was decidedly anodyne but so was the Australian-market model and in Australia Mazda is one of the top 5 best-selling automakers.
Everything Honda did, Mazda did too. A compact crossover? Check. The Tribute was launched in 2001, later than the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V’s North American debuts (1996 and 1997) but preceding the Nissan Rogue’s debut (2007). A V6 mid-sizer? Check. The 626 received a six-cylinder mill in 1997, while the Accord first offered one in 1995 and the Altima didn’t receive one until 2002. Sports coupes? Check. A compact pickup? Check, although not for several years now. Class-leading compacts? Check. Mazda platforms also formed the basis of some of Ford’s most commercially successful and well-received models of the past few decades, like the ’91 Escort and the first Fusion and Escape. So why the hell is Mazda Japan’s underachiever in North America?
You could perhaps place the blame on a rough start. Mazda first arrived in North America in 1970 and quickly became known as a purveyor of rotary-engined vehicles. The Wankel rotary motor was put in everything from subcompacts to sports coupes to pickups, just in time for a fuel crisis and a realization that this type of powerplant simply wasn’t economical enough. Buyers were clamoring for small, fuel-efficient cars – whether import or domestic – and it was Honda that got off to a rollicking start with its Civic and Accord. Toyota and Datsun also did a roaring trade with their range of vehicles that were more conservative than much of what Mazda and Honda were offering.
While Mazda still offered rotary engines beyond the 1970s, they de-emphasized the powertrain in their range and introduced a range of conventional piston-powered models. But by the dawn of the new decade, Mazda was still at number four behind Honda, Toyota and Datsun.
During the 1980s, Datsun shot themselves in the foot by rebranding as Nissan. This robbed them of some serious momentum, not to mention brand equity, and so some of their newer products like the front-wheel-drive Stanza failed to challenge the Accord for sales dominance. Despite this, Mazda wasn’t able to earn a spot on the podium. Still, for all of the Japanese automakers it was a seller’s market as their cars sold at massive dealer mark-ups.
The first front-wheel-drive 626 was a car that really shook off the cobwebs in the mid-sized segment in Australia. Rivals Nissan, Toyota and Mitsubishi were busy selling increasingly old-fashioned, rear-wheel-drive sedans and wagons and along came Mazda with an efficiently-packaged, dynamically-talented, front-wheel-drive sedan and hatch. Priced below the Honda Accord by a few thousand dollars, the 626 and its rebadged Ford Telstar compatriot were immediately popular; the RWD Japanese still outsold the 626 but that was with heavy fleet sales.
Conversely, in North America, the 1983 626 lived in the shadow of the Accord and faced competition from numerous domestics and imports that employed the same front-wheel-drive layout and were priced similarly.
To say the 626 was critically acclaimed would be an understatement. It swept awards worldwide, receiving the Car of the Year trophy in Japan, Motor Trend’s Import Car of the Year prize and Australia’s most prestigious motoring award, Wheels Car of the Year. The 626 also came in fifth in the European Car of the Year competition, the highest finish yet for a Japanese car.
In the Motor Trend competition, the 626 beat out the Porsche 944, Nissan Sentra, Toyota Tercel and the entire Mitsubishi range. The magazine was glowing in its praise—one tester even proclaimed, “I love virtually everything about, in, on or under this car!” The 626 was said to have broad-ranging capability, from a smooth and responsive four-cylinder engine, state-of-the-art front-wheel-drive handling and excellent interior design, materials and workmanship.
Mazda certainly tried to make the 626 stand out by offering a dizzying array of models. Unlike the other Japanese compacts, the 626 came in a choice of 2-door coupe, 4-door sedan and 5-door hatchback (or ‘Touring Sedan’, in Mazda parlance). Transmissions were a three-speed automatic or a five-speed manual. A diesel was offered until 1985, only in a highly-specified Luxury 4-dr, producing 61 hp at 4100 rpm and 87 ft-lbs of torque at 2750 rpm. In 1986, the diesel disappeared and a turbocharged four-cylinder appeared in a new GT hatchback trim. Available only with a five-speed manual, the 2.0 turbo produced 120 hp at 5000 rpm and 150 ft-lbs at 3000 rpm.
Most 626s left the factory with the standard, carburetted 2.0 four-cylinder with 84 hp at 4800 rpm and 112 ft-lbs at 2500 rpm. Corresponding with a minor facelift and interior revision in 1986, the 626’s base engine received fuel injection and a healthy bump in power to 93 hp and 115 ft-lbs.
Like most of its Japanese rivals, the 626 rode on a fully-independent suspension with McPherson struts front and rear. Unlike most of its rivals, electronically adjustable shock absorbers were available on the coupe and 5-dr. The driver could select between ‘Normal’, ‘Firm’ or ‘Automatic’—the latter setting adjusted automatically based on vehicle speed. This was a hot new feature in Japanese cars of the 1980s, also appearing on the 1985 Mitsubishi Galant. Although a novel feature, the 626 already possessed quite capable handling and so this option was somewhat of a gimmick. Still, it was a gimmick Honda, Toyota or Nissan didn’t offer on their rival models.
During the first FWD 626’s run – a nice and short one in typical Japanese fashion – the car continued to be highly recommended by critics. Consumer Guide said they rated the 626 highly, if not quite as highly as the Accord; their only criticism in 1985 was the rather high level of engine noise – an enduring criticism of Mazdas – although they found the various enhancements made in 1986 had improved refinement.
You really couldn’t go wrong with a Japanese compact in the early-mid 1980s, such was the general level of competence. But some were better than others: Mitsubishi’s Tredia was a bit small and the Galant a bit more expensive, while Nissan’s Stanza had soft handling. The Camry was utterly dependable and completely inoffensive. And if you wanted to buy American, you could purchase a GM X-Body or a Chrysler K-Car or a Tempo/Topaz for well under the out-the-door price of one of these Japanese compacts. To give you an idea of the price disparity, in 1985 you could buy a three-row Chevrolet Celebrity wagon with a 2.8 V6 and an automatic transmission for only around $500 more than a base 626 sedan. And that’s talking MSRP, not what these Japanese compacts were actually selling for after the dealers inevitably added unnecessary extras and fees.
Then there was the Accord. It was built in the US, which was a lovely bonus. Depending on trim level, it sometimes undercut the 626 or at least matched it on price and was similarly specified. It wasn’t vastly better than the 626 but it was generally regarded as having superior powertrain refinement. Honda had invested heavily in North America and it was paying dividends: the Accord rocketed up the sales chart.
Honda had a head start in North America in building modern, efficient FWD cars that buyers wanted. Toyota arrived in the US earlier than Mazda and also developed an exemplary reputation. Those automakers’ exemplary reputations and Toyota’s far-reaching growth into new segments explain why they outsell Mazda today. But what about Nissan? Sure, it has more trucks and a greater model range than Mazda, but why does the inferior Sentra outsell the Mazda3? Why does the Mazda6 have its ass handed to it by the Altima?
Things looked so bright for Mazda in the 1980s. If only their North American trajectory had followed that of their Australian operations. Mazda is a brand that deserves to succeed, and one of the first signs they were deserving of this success was the first FWD 626.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1982-86 Nissan Stanza – Well-Versed
Curbside Classic: 1982 Honda Accord – Honda Revolutionizes The US Industry, Again
Curbside Classic: 1985 Honda Accord – The Canary in the Coal Mine for the Traditional American Sedan
Curbside Classic: 1982-90 Chevrolet Celebrity – Beating The Bull To The Rodeo
CC Capsule: Toyota Camry (Gen 1) – The Chevrolet Impala Of Our Times Could Have Been A Ford Galaxie
My Mom’s 626 (first car after her 1976 Charger SE died and she had a short commute) was one of the best cars we ever owned, sporty, reliable and cheap. After she was seduced by the new Taurus, I drove it to 350K miles before a rear end collision totaled it.
I’ve never understood why Mazda can’t break through. The 3 and the 6 are two of the prettiest and most fun-to-drive cars out there, bargain priced, and no one buys them. Any ideas?
One possibility, at least in our area, is a poor dealership experience. No matter how good the cars, a high-pressure, condescending salesperson will send buyers running for the doors. It is a shame, since the cars themselves really are excellent.
I think you nailed the reason, IMHO. I am a huge Mazda fan but buy Honda for DDs, because of the consistently good, stable, and very local dealership experience.
It’s not that my (not too local) Mazda dealers are notoriously bad, but they come and go, they are few and far between, and a bit inconsistent in my own customer experience. It’s not the car that drives me to Hondas, it’s the dealers.
Thanks William for this great piece. There was talk on the Euro sales thread that the Japanese automakers that achieved more than niche success built cars specially for the American market. That is not what the 626 did.
The loud carb engine was simply not enough if one desired an auto. The car comes out slow, loud, and with gearing that is 15% shorter that a typical 80s fwd domestic compact. Over 3000 rpm at 65mph. The days when an import was lighter than the domestics was over. The smaller engines were still with them. Stay off the interstate.
The quality being slightly below the best Japanese must have left the 626 slugging it out with the second string Japanese such as the Stanza and the Tredia. I wonder if there was a little more dealing at the Mazda dealer. Lucky for Mazda, the 80s import buyer never cross-shopped the domestics.
In case anyone is interested, here is how the 2 door 85 auto 626 compared to some of the cheaper domestic competition, all of whom are FI.
626 0-60 14.2 weight 2447 epa 24/28 hp 84 topgear 20.9 per thousand rpm
Somerset 0-60 12.7 weight 2568 epa 24/32 hp 92 top gear 25.9 per thousand rpm
Dodge 600 0-60 12.9 weight 2509 epa 23/26 hp 99 top gear 23.0 per thousand rpm
Tempo 0-60 13.3 weight 2407 epa 25/29 hp 86 top gear 22.1 per thousand rpm
data from automobile-catalog .com.
Please note that all performance stats from that web site are “calculated”, based on hp, weight, etc., and NOT actual performance stats from tests and such. I’m not saying that the data may be somewhat useful, but it really shouldn’t be used as a direct comparison, or claims made about the cars based on them.
Also, the 626 was NOT an actual competitor to those soggy, mushy cars you listed. The 626 appealed to driver who appreciated a set of qualities that none of the other three had. If you don’t know what those would be, it would be a waste of my time to try to explain it. But rest assured, buyers at the time were not cross-shopping a Somerset with an Iron Duke to a 626. Maybe that’s what you were mentally doing in your child’s mind at the time, but not real grown ups looking for a satisfying driver’s car. There’s a substantial difference, and stats (especially calculated ones) only tell a very limited part of the story.
Of course the tempo and Somerset needed a low (numerical) axle ratio to mask the horrible NVH of their crude, large four bangers. If you had even the faintest idea of how different a modern Japanese OHC four sounded and felt compared to the Iron Duke and the Tempo’s 2/3 of a six, you’d realize why this is so, and why your comparison of rpm/mph is utterly irrelevant.
This is as “direct” as I’ve seen Paul!
And I am in total agreement, good catch!
I saw the numbers and was surprised, because I recall during that era tha the Japanese 4-cyl cars were quicker and more fuel efficient according to period publications like Car & Driver, Road & Track, and Consumer Reports.
Now, maybe in Motor Trend…..never mind.
When you hit the auto blog sites that bring up this subject, invariably the same couple of points comes up again and again:
1. Mazda’s dealer network is much smaller than the competition. And, for some reason, the odds of getting an unpleasant sales person is greater.
2. Mazda’s had an ability to rust that was a great, or supposedly greater, than the competition.
3. Interior noise levels in Mazda’s are higher than the competition. Having owned an ’04 Mazda3, I can attest to that – although for me it wasn’t a deal breaker.
and finally the big one:
4. Mazda’s are wonderful driver’s cars that are beloved to that coterie of auto enthusiasts who fill up the Internet. However, the average auto purchases actually wants white bread on four wheels, and is indifferent (if not repelled) by anything actually sporting. Cars that stop, go, are eminently reliable, completely indifferent to driver input, and have the necessary gewgaws to keep the purchaser happy. Superior handling? To the average buyer that’s how easy the car parallel parks.
And I suppose I could add:
5. They’re neither Toyota or Honda. Which a huge amount of Japanese car buyers absolutely refuse to look beyond when car shopping. This is not only Mazda’s failure, but it’s killed a lot of other decent cars (Dodge Dart anyone? Drive one before you start laughing.) So far, Nissan seems to be the only manufacturer who is bucking this trend.
By and large I agree with this list. However if rust protection were better and noise levels slightly better then your point 4 would be half the size. I for once avoided Mazda used cars 3 times in the past three years because of the rust issues. If it weren’t for the rust we could have three Mazda of the models Protege, Mazda3 and Mazda6 in our fleet. Now we only have a chicken tax ’97 Mazda B 2300.
It’s not good advertisement if your 3 to 4 year old models show rust over the rear wheel wells and on the hatch when 10 year old Pontiac Vibes and Hyundai Sonatas look like new.
THIS. This is why Mazda is #1 in non-fleet sales in salt-free Australia and in the doldrums here.
All very, very good points…we had a good dealer, rust was not a huge problem in non-salty Louisiana (not on the coast), we were seldom on the highway, and I steered her toward it based on Car and Driver and other car mags, who loved it! And yeah, Mazda doesn’t have the name recognition. Bummer. So I guess it’s not so mysterious, but it’s still galling that such nice cars are ignored.
Meanwhile in Canada, Mazda is a bit more lucky. There was some years when the Mazda 3 was on the top 5 of the best-selling cars in Canada. It once even finished 2nd around 2007-2008 behind the Civic.
The “Zoom-zoom” theme, rechristened “Vroum-vroum” in Quebec because to the ears of some bureaucrats, “zoom-zoom” didn’t sounded French enough, also played a part in Mazda’s popularity in the Great White North.
So wait. The government forced them to change their *primary* advertising tag line for the French-speaking market because it didn’t sound French enough?
That’s wrong on so many levels…
#1 is probably why I have never owned a Mazda. dealer network. I have looked at Mazdas every time I bought a car and even when I wasn’t. I first really started looking at them when the GLC changed to the 323. Was a little too poor then. But have always looked. But the distance to a dealership is my concern now. My personal policy now is to not buy a car or motorcycle that doesn’t have a dealer in town. just in case. With that said, my last car was a Olds Aurora and the local dealer would not help at all when I needed it. but there is a local garage with two former GM mechanics that do the Northstar work for the local dealers ( they are good) and they kept me going.
Back to Mazda… they have a wonderful line of vehicles. I hope they somehow gain momentum or at least keep going. the world needs an automaker like Mazda.
Dealer network may be a big factor. The dealership where I bought my 3 in late 2004 no longer exists, then the next nearest franchise went under, and for a couple of years the nearest dealer was 20 miles away — and this in Los Angeles, perhaps the biggest single automotive market in the continental U.S.! (There’s one closer again, but it’s paired with Volvo, so their service rates are painful.)
Nissan will finance your dog if he/she shows interest in a Sentra, Altima, or Rogue and can provide proof of residency.
Mazda doesn’t play the low-low-low finance/lease game as well as anyone else, and it affects “sales.”
“Nissan will finance your dog…”
I’ve heard this argument before relating to Nissan but still not clear on the point of it. Please explain how who purchases a Nissan is an issue.
Nissan will happily accept more marginal buyers will lower credit scores than most of their competition. Which means that somebody who actually wants a Camry or Accord may end up buying an Altima, just because they can get the latter financed while they’re turned down for the other two.
The argument is that Nissan, having more corporate resources, can fund riskier loans (and hence generate more sales) because they can afford to absorb potential nonpayment losses from deadbeat buyers, while Mazda loses sales volume because of higher loan standards.
Whether this is actually true or not I have no idea as I don’t know anything about Nissan’s involvement or non-involvement in the financing side of the business, or Madza’s for that matter.
We do know however that both GM and Ford have captive lenders which bring them substantial volume from lending to ‘subprime’ buyers.
This article from July 2016 suggests that subprime lending is not actually that risky and serves both companies well.
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/21/are-ford-and-general-motors-at-risk-from-an-auto-l.aspx
So true. Subprime finance is actually pretty low risk for the lenders. Unlike a credit card, these are secured loans, with the car as collateral. They charge higher interest rates, take the payments, and if the loan goes into default, they can (and will) repossess the car, which still carries value as they resell it. The volume of sales it generates leads to higher profits, and any losses due to bad loans is a handy tax write-off. The sad fact of the whole thing is that very few actually default on the loan on their car, as their car is needed more than a lot of other things in order to keep employment and freedom of movement, thus the car note gets priority over other bills.
So not really a factor in the decision process when making a Nissan purchase…save those of a certain snob appeal.
Timely article, given yesterday’s US Light Vehicles Sales review. In that review, I was startled by Mazda’s poor showing — they’ve sold fewer cars in 2016 than Kia, Mercedes or BMW. I knew that Mazda was slipping, but seeing the numbers really surprised me.
Back in the 1990s, I used to frequently help friends shop for cars. Back then, my friends were mostly in the market for affordable used cars, and I would often steer them towards used Mazda 626s. Every bit as good as an Accord or Camry, I’d tell them, for a much cheaper price. Several people bought Mazdas on my recommendation, and none regretted it. I also owned a Mazda (’88 323), and was very happy with it.
At the time, I figured that Mazda would catch on more — not less! — in the coming years. Despite all the good analysis here, Mazda’s lack of sales success continues to mystify me.
Mazda is doing decently in Europe – They’re by no means on top, but no bottomfeeder either.
We used to have a 1997 Mazda 626. Not *one* thing went wrong in the time we had it until 2003. Then we got a new 2003 Nissan Primera Station wagon.
That thing had every fault you can think of, rear window panes getting loose, engine problems, brake problems, doors filling with water, rust on the inside of the rear hatch.
..And regretting that piece of garbage, we went back to a brand new Mazda6 2.2 diesel in 2008, my dad loved *every* minute in that car, it was extremely well planted in the road, the torque-y diesel ready to pull off at any speed, anywhere. I learned to drive in that thing, as well. My dad passed in 2010, and as a result we had to get rid of it to cover our bases, times got better for us eventually – but even now, with my mom driving a BMW, she’ll still remark “Damn, I miss that Mazda 6 we had, such a fun car you know…?”
Now, THIS is a car, I expertly know…Owned quite a few of the 2nd gen 1983-87(US) Mazda 626…
84 white 626LX sedan
86 silver 626GT Turbo coupe
85 white 626LX Touring hatchback
85 navy blue 626LX sedan
87 charcoal gray 626LX Touring hatchback
All were great cars, with their spirited and reliable 2.0 powerplants. The 1983-85 2.0 was carbureted, while the 1986-87 offered fuel injection.
Neither engine missed a beat or ever left me stranded. These cars handle excellent in the snow…Used to drive around slow snowplows, on unpaved snow.
My white 84 sedan, always stopped nice and straight.
Love these 626s, being a 626 afficianado, I’ve also owned 2 of the previous RWD 1979-82 gen…A maroon 82 626LX coupe, and a 79 misty green 626LX coupe, both 5 speed manual.
My 86 GT Turbo coupe used to leave Mustang 5.0s, Camaro v8s, and MR2 Turbos in the rear view mirror. That car was a beast, and with it’s subtle styling…With no corny hood scoops or ricey bodykit, it was a true sleeper.
If you can find one, that isn’t rusted out, buy it…You won’t be sorry. 😉
I have an opportunity to buy a rare 85 dark grey 626LX Diesel sedan, 5 speed manual… Trying to sort out fixing my 83 Toyota Corolla 2dr sedan and my 89 Honda Prelude Si 4WS, before I pull the trigger.
Who says all the rare, older cars are only in Eugene? 😛
Same here. I bought an 86 626 four door new and being the Bay Area the dealer was local. My girlfriend was so impressed she bought the same thing except with an automatic. When my mother’s turn came for a new car she bought a 1989 626 soon followed by her friend buying a 1989. All went between 250,000+ miles except my stick which went 375,000 miles. Very easy cars to wrench on. Currently have two fourth gen versions at home, a 1990 four door auto and a 1991 Touring hatchback manual. Only issue is peeling clear coats.
The only 626 gen I would stay away from, if automatic, would be the fifth gen (93-97) with the crappy Ford automatics. With a stick shift no problems.
Great article, Will, about a car I knew relatively little about. As per usual, I learned new things on CC today.
What I do have, though, is personal experience. The families of two of my best friends from high school each had one of these. My memory is still vivid (please, kids, don’t do this) of riding shotgun as a sixteen year old while coming back from the Detroit Auto Show at extra-super-legal speeds on I-75. If I had been more responsible, I might have asked my friend to slow down (should have). But, man alive, that car flew and didn’t even break a sweat. Just a stock 626 LX five-speed. We so wanted to hate that car, being foreign in our GM town, but it earned our respect. That car took so much abuse and almost never complained.
On a different note, the Touring Sedan still, to me, still looks exceptionally good today for a car of its era.
Why does Altima outsell the Mazda6? Easy. It’s a much nicer car inside. Why does pretty much everything outsell the Mazda3? Same thing.
I go to the North American International Auto Show every year, and for the past several years, the Mazdas were pretty disappointing-interiors that looked several years out of date and little in the way of anything that stood out either in tech or design. That’s really the story of Mazda more broadly-there’s nothing to set them apart in the marketplace. Current Fords drive just as well (actually, the current Fiesta drives better than the Mazda2, and whoever designed the clutch in the 2 needs to be exited through a high-story window!) and have nicer interiors. The Nissan model range has really sharpened up over the past few years. Toyota and Honda have their staid boring reliable designs for staid boring reliable people and a quality reputation to match. Subaru is perpetually 10 years behind (actually, no, their interiors this year felt like they were made at least in this decade, so only 7 years behind), but they have all-wheel-drive and are believed to be reliable.
So why would someone buy the Mazda when there’s someone else offering a more recognizable version of whatever thing you value?
This year, I will give them complements because they’ve tidied the lineup nicely. It feels like they’re moving upscale (worth noting that the wood in the “crafted, not made” Mazda CX-9 is actually wood, albeit a very thin veneer, but wood all the same), and while I hope they’re not leaving Zoom-Zoom behind, they needed to do something to find some distinction from the rest of the pack.
All that said, though, after sitting in pretty much everything, I wouldn’t buy a Mazda. There are still too many other compelling choices out there in whatever segment you’re looking in.
Maybe it’s personal preference, but I actually like the 6’s interior quite a bit. Granted I’ve not sat in one in person, so maybe the materials are subpar, but as far as the design? Looks great to me. It’s not dominated by a huge center stack, which is a plus. Generally speaking I don’t love the “glued on ipad” touch screens but they’re far from the only offender in that area. All things considered I think it looks streamlined and elegant.
And the CX-9’s interior is gorgeous for the price point.
I think the obvious problem with Mazda was Ford. Ford poached all the good ideas, but did nothing to help make Mazda a viable mass market brand in North America. Any product that had potential was turned into a Ford model as well as a Mazda, and since it would be sold and serviced by a better dealership network, they sold in much higher numbers than the Mazda version. Honestly, I am surprised that Ford didn’t siphon off a copy of the Miata for themselves. Now that the cash cow of Ford ownership dried up, Mazda is going it alone (or trying to), but always seems to end up getting used by another company (I am looking at you, FCA and Toyota!). It is a shame, as the Mazda engineers and designers seem to be real enthusiasts, unlike most car companies.
You are 100% right, JFrank. Having worked in a Mazda/Mitsubishi store for 8 years from 1996 -2003, I can tell you first hand the many horror stories I heard of the mid-90’s and early 2000’s 626’s breaking down and basically falling apart because of – you guessed it – bad Ford transmissions. Ford marred a company that had a great, bullet-proof reputation. Many customers were so turned off that Toyota and Honda became their go-to brand. Mazda suffered and never bounced back.
There was a time that Mazda sales were right there behind the big guys. Mazda could have continued to grow and been a viable alternative, but Ford’s bad quality and influence basically put the nail in the coffin for them.
That could be in North America, but it doesn’t explain why Mazda is very strong in Australia while Ford is one of the heavy hitters in Oz, also.
This I suppose is written from a North American/Aussie PoV. In the EU – particularly in Austria, Germany and Switzerland – the picture is somewhat different. In Germany Mazda sells less cars than Toyota and Nissan but not by that far; in Austria it is the best Japanese selling brand, period (and Toyota and Nissan’s figures are well and truly embarrassing considering their size globally). Switzerland is again similar. The reason I believe is because Mazdas are far more “European” than the other Japanese cars – my 2015 3 drives very much like a VW Golf: sporty, direct, and yes, slightly noisier (I believe the noise issue has been taken care of in the 2017 models). The Mazda should be more reliable than the VW by the way. Of course, as Syke correctly noted above, these characteristics are not as valued in the US/Canada and/or Australia…
Figures for Germany:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/167008/umfrage/neuzulassungen-von-pkw-nach-marken-in-deutschland/
for Austria:
http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/energie_umwelt_innovation_mobilitaet/verkehr/strasse/kraftfahrzeuge_-_neuzulassungen/index.html
Switzerland
https://www.auto.swiss/de/statistiken/autoverkaeufe-nach-marken/
This generation 626 was a surprisingly big hit in Germany at the time, and IIRC, was the best selling Japanese sedan of its class for some years there. And it really helped to cement the reputation there of Japanese cars as being better built than the domestics. But later versions of the 626, especially the GE (’91-’97) just weren’t appealing any more, as they lost the edge they had, and became too soft and dull, in relative terms.
But the 626 was once a hit in Germany.
Paul,
The 91-92 were still part of the 1988-92(US) 4th gen 626s, still a good car.
I think you mean the rounded, no Turbo model offered, dull 1993-97 5th gen…Which had the timebomb, self grenading Ford automatic. 😉
I sometimes wonder if Madza was in some ways ill served by their loyalty to the rotary engine as their flagship cars -the RX-7 and RX-8. These models are very visible to the public while the rest of their cars are essentially invisible. People tend, I believe, to associate Madza with
‘performance’sporty cars, and this perception was reinforced by the memorable “Zoom Zoom” commercials. I speculate that American experience with muscle cars and British sports cars has formed a conventional-wisdom association of performance-car = uncomfortable-car. Mom wants to be comfortable driving to work and she certainly doesn’t need a loud rough performance car.Personally, I thought the ads brilliant, and speculated that Madza had identified a niche to occupy. The odds of succeeding against the larger players in the appliance-car market seemed low to me, so better to focus on a small but secure market. Nissan occasionally flirts with performance, but Honda abandoned that field, and Toyota never seems to gain traction there.
The short answer: Mazda markets its vehicles as sportier alternatives to more conservative competitors in a market that largely favors conservatism.
While Mazda offerings may indeed boast superior driving dynamics and emotional styling, the average buyer in the classes Mazda focuses on (compact and midsize sedans and CUVs) simply prefers comfort, features, and not making a statement.
So although traditional automotive publications and enthusiasts alike bestow a high degree of praise for Mazda, it’s often for reasons that don’t matter to the average consumer. Sure Mazdas also offer high-quality, better looking interiors than most of the competition, but trying to be the budget-BMW just doesn’t cut it in the mainstream world.
Just take Volkswagen, for example. They used to be in a similar position as Mazda, offering affordable cars with a higher focus on driving dynamics and premium style than your average family cars, and selling to low numbers. Then they completely changed their product line and marketing strategy in the U.S., switching to more conservative designs with a focus on comfort and value over German handling/dynamics, and sales went up by a considerable amount (at least until DieselGate).
I also must second what Syke said about Mazda’s much smaller dealer network than Honda/Toyota/Nissan. There are even far more Lexus and BMW dealers within a given radius of where I’m located than Mazda. The two Mazda dealers closest to me are also rather old and unpleasant inside compared to newer or remodeled dealers of other makes.
Like I said before, I think we’re starting to see that change. I haven’t seen Zoom-Zoom used in TV advertising in awhile (it’s “Driving is important” now, it seems), and the CX-9 commercials talk about how the car is “crafted, not made” while showing off the woodwork in the interior. From last year’s Detroit auto show to this year’s, the Mazda interiors all definitely went up-market. Last year, they were pretty drab, uninteresting, and felt spartan compared to much of what it was competing against on the floor. This year, they were nice enough to hold their own.
Our family had a 86 Mazda 626 GT turbo with 5-speed. It was a nice car, the oscillating center vent was fun to show off, as was the adjustable suspension and the power rear side vent windows. It even had headlamp washers. It also had a turbo light, in the IP, it was fun to drive it have the light come on, and feel the boost. It was quick but not overly so. My neighbor’s souped up Omni GLH and later Shadow and Spirit turbos were much quicker.
It worked well for us for several years, I ended up taking it over and later trading in on a used 95 Volvo 850 wagon, as I wanted more safety features (ABS, airbags) that the 626 did not have. I do regret not keeping it though as an extra car. Our car did not have rust issues, but we did wash it regularly in Michigan winters.
I noticed you said “souped up” GLH…I doubt a stock one would beat the 626GT turbo in 2dr coupe guise(which I had)…You do know the GT turbo was also offered in the heavier 4dr sedan and 4dr hatchback. 😉
The Spirit R/T, we can both agree on…I miss my 91 R/T, very much, but that self grenading turbo and manifold, was why I sold it.
Oh, and I think ALL 626s, whether turbo or not, offered the oscillating vent windows from either 1985 or 1986 to 1987.
Great article on a really fine car. That generation 626 was the best generation of this car’s history, in relation to its contemporaries at any time. This was a car with a lot of appeal, and it developed a rep for being very well built and durable too. It’s successor generation was still quite appealing and reasonably successful.
But the GE generation (1991-1997) seemed to piss all of that away. it was softer, dull-looking, and had very little appeal, and developed a bad rep for its glass Ford automatic. I think that generation destroyed a lot of the 626’s equity.
I assume you are talking international for those years since US 626 would be 78-82, 82-87, 88-92, and then the 93-97. For all intents and purposes the 82-87 and 88-92 are practically the same in body and drive line minus the difference between carb and EFI. The 93-97 had the bad rep and I see those Mazdas for sale all the time down here on Craigslist. Conversely, I almost never see a manual 93-97 for sale.
Yep…
The RWD 1st gen 626 was in the US, from 1979-82, only.
The FWD 2nd gen 626 offered in the US, went from 1983-87 only.
In Japan, they are usually, offered a year before, than in other regions.
As far as manual 93-97s go, they are out there, rare, but out there…I’m a CL stalker, so I know. 😉
I’ve seen 3 come up, in 6 months time.
Even rarer, is a manual last gen 1998-2002. Great car, if you can find one.
Yeah, the generation stuff can be confusing which is why I prefer 83-87, 88-92, or 93-97 as being easier to grasp.
Exactly.
Those 1983-87 626s are rare to find.
A friend of mine, a retired school teacher, has a light blue metallic 86 626LX sedan, that runs great…But she is currently using it as a bookmobile.
No, she doesn’t deliver books in it…She stores books in it. 🙁
I wanna buy it, but don’t think she’ll ever let go of it.
What a waste.
Yes, I accidentally used the the Japanese model years.
I remember the Japanese compact car of the 80s. My parents had a 1985 Toyota Camry. It wasn’t big, nor was it fast, but it was reliable, and it was good looking, better looking than the 2015 Toyota Camry. The same goes for the Mazda 626. Although we never owned a Mazda 626, I’ve always liked its styling. I find it more attractive than what’s offered today.
I’ve never seen a 626 like the white one sitting in the car park (rego# 183 GMT) in the last photo having a sloped front end with the grill the same height as the headlights. The height of the grilles of this generation of 626 were always shorter than the headlights and were upright for the Japanese, US and European versions. The sloped front end looks like a Mitsubishi Sigma of the time. Perhaps this one is a unique one-off Australian version or possibly built there? This generation 626 had a straight, crisp design that I yearn for in today’s cars. I prefer the shorter bumpers, flush headlights and amber rear turn signals employed in the rest of the world versions.
IIRC the front end used depends on the bodystyle. In Australia the sedans used that front end while the sportier coupe and hatch used a longer nose with the lower grille that you describe. I remember reading that in some parts of the world the longer ‘sport’ nose was used on sedans.
The 1980 626 Sports Coupé remember me the Brazilian SM Santa Matilde from the same time (although the SM is almost a hand made product)
This 626 and the generation that followed were terrific cars. Sportier and more luxurious than a Camry, with 10-way driver seats, roomier and fuller featured than an Accord. So why weren’t its sales off the charts? There were a few issues:
– The 4-door sedan was roomy – only the Camry sedan had more room in its class. But the 2-door and 5-door with roofs that were two inches lower had very tight headroom, especially with the optional sunroof.
– The 5-door had very high trunk liftover height, unlike the other two, a problem in a body style that’s synonymous with practicality. It also had flip-fold 50/50 rear seats that folded perfectly flat; the other two 626s had simpler fold-down rear seatbacks that weren’t at all flush with the trunk floor
– The ’83-85 models had two dashboards – a plainer on on the 4-door sedans and a more modern one on coupes and hatchbacks with touch flaps reachable from the steering wheel instead of stalks. There was a huge parcel shelf on the dash, storage compartments everywhere, a gaggle of electronic tunes used as lights-on warnings and the like. Controls were unusual but easy to figure out – power windows and clock on the center console, balance and fader away from the main stereo head unit also on the console. Digital gauges were optional on the 2- and 5-doors.
– For ’86-’87, a major facelift was in store. All engines (in N.A.) got fuel injection (as they already had elsewhere), and the new GT level available in all three body styles got a turbo mated only to the 5-speed manual. A new dashboard with orange backlighting replaced the previous two designs – it was more conservative than either. More basic audio warnings and dash layout. In all an improved car, with decent acceleration now a given. The auto trans for ’87 became a four-speed. All LX and GT models had the excellent power oscillating A/C duct in the center dash. The driver outside keyhole lit up to help you find it, nice in those pre-remote-opener days.
– The ’88 626 would bring smoother, more powerful engines, roomier bodies, and intercooled turbos fitted with antilock brakes and automatic transmission options for a greater reach. They should have succeeded.
Ahhh, the last of the “true” Mazdas. I’m going to get a lot of flack from Ford fans, but you can blame the demise of Mazda on Ford. Maybe not 100% – but almost. See, this generation of 626 from the early 80’s was made with all true Mazda parts. Ford’s influence hadn’t been felt yet, and having worked in a Mazda dealership from 1996-2003 I can attest to the many customers that had owned a “real” Mazda and then one that was built with the “joint venture” Auto Alliance. The cars were nothing like their fully Japanese predecessors. So many owners were turned off that they fled to other brands. Many had no clue that Ford parts (especially transmissions) were used in their Mazda and when they found that out they actually felt betrayed. Sad, because a true Japanese Mazda made with Mazda parts was an exceptional car. I cannot tell you how many customers I heard say, “If I wanted a Ford, I would have bought a Ford.”
Another bump in the history of Mazda was not letting the Amati brand come to fruition. They had a great product – the Millenia – that was well-liked by the consumer, but the Mazda brand and showroom never had the panache of Lexus, Acura or Infiniti, so the Millenia never took off like it could have. Mitsubishi also tried to sell their luxury car – the Diamante – next to Galants and Eclipses. It too was another beautiful automobile worthy of a separate luxury nameplate, and never sold like it could have. And if we look further at Mitsubishi – maybe they suffered the same fate as Mazda – except instead of Ford, their products were jointly built with Chrysler! Remember Diamond-Star Motors???
In the big picture, this car may not have been a huge market success in the US, but more of my friends owned this gen 626 than owned Camrys and Accords combined, at the time. At least two were 5 door turbos, all were 5 speeds. I guess car buffs flock together. A few years ago I rented a Mazda 3 in Portland and it was very impressive; I drove it up to Timberline Lodge at Mt Hood and the power and handling were a pleasure. In my smallish community, we have a Mazda dealer along with Nissan, Toyota, Subaru, VW and Ford, and the 3 and smaller CX crossovers seem popular; but not so much the 6.
It was the picture of the 626 five-door that sucked me into this article. It immediately became my dream car, to the point of my going to the Mazda dealership in Nashville to drive one. It was another flashback here to read about bad dealer experiences, because this guy was your perfect caricature of the fat, badly-dressed, cigar-chewing know-it-all who gruffly informed me that “Americans don’t buy expensive hatchbacks ’cause that’s just for cheap-ass economy cars.” So we went for a ride in a four-door. Now, this was the pre-FWD 626 (must have been around 1979), and while it was a nice enough car the engine was rough as a cob and produced much more noise than horsepower. I was not sufficiently impressed to continue the encounter further …
The later FWD five-doors, though, with their greatly improved engines, continued to hold my interest enough to look at several over the years, though mostly I was concentrating on Alfas, as I still am. However, there’s one Mazda that I drove for a few days and fell in love with instantly – a Mazda 2 that I got from Enterprise when our Subaru was in the body shop. By the time I was out of the parking lot we were buddies; by first merge on the freeway it had my heart. They are now orphans as a US model – Mazda decided they were sucking customers away from the Mazda 3, and declined to send us any more, the bloody jerks. But I am in need of a small frugal grocery-getter (since the Subie gets no more than 17 miles per gallon in town), and I am noticing that Twos are going for $10K or less.
Watch this space …
The Toyota Yaris iA (nee Scion iA) is a Mazda 2 in a Toyota suit. So unless they’ve softened up the handling in its Toyo-transition, maybe that would be an option?
Our family has evolved over time to become a Mazda family because of the fact they are so consistent with reliability and quality. For us it all began with my Aunt’s purchase of her 1990 626 and the fact it kept clicking over the 6th digit of the odometer flawlessly.
As a middle class family, I think we all secretly revered that car as it was the first of its kind for us. Up to that point, all my relatives and my immediate family drove mostly mid-sized and full-sized Chevys, Oldsmobiles, and Mopars, so this 626 was a breath of fresh air.
Later, my mom followed in my aunt’s footsteps and convinced my father to lease a 1998 Mazda 626 (later buying it out.) The car was great. With typical Mazda low axle ratio gearing and base 2.0L, the 125 hp car moved it off the line as authoritative as any other Mazda 4 cylinder I’ve known. At least in terms of performance, these are underrated automobiles. I recall my father being more than a little surprised of a 1988 Mazda 323’s performance that was loaned to him as a courtesy car — especially since it was an automatic.
As for interior accommodations, they are just as competitive as anything from Toyota or Honda, though I’ll admit our ’98 626 was decontented. But then again, so was the Camry and Accord of the day (as a young car enthusiast at the time, I went with them on the test drives and was a little disappointed with what I saw of the Camry and Accord compared to what I’d known earlier going to Autoshows, etc even though car shows notoriously stock the show with loaded models.) Nevertheless, our car still had the cool swivel vents actuated by a push button marked “Swing” that we all envied our Aunt/mom’s sister for having in her ’90 626. What other car has that??!
I don’t get it either why these cars aren’t more popular. Maybe it’s dealer network. To this day, I don’t know where the local Mazda dealer is. Meanwhile, I can spout off at least two Ford dealerships, a Toyota, and a Honda one. Even Mitsubishi is on a main drag.
Quiet competence? The cars just “keep their heads down” and quietly go about business without fuss while their owners focus on other more interesting pursuits?
Anyway, I think Mazda is a special little secret that only its owners know about, so maybe it’s a good thing they aren’t so ubiquitous. Well, except for the fact I’m driving its Ford cousin, a first gen. Ford Fusion with a “Ford” Duratec 4 cylinder. But, to my non-car friends and family, that is my little secret…
I’ll start off by saying that I agree with Brendan, Mazda is trying to sell enthusiast oriented cars in a conservative market.
2 years ago, my significant other decided to replace her 13+yr old Toyota Matrix. We both felt that the Mazda3 was the best choice considering the cars she actually liked and my obsession at finding a durable successor to the Matrix. The Mazda hasn’t disappointed her at all. I however, find the low roofline and overall poor visibility to be increasingly annoying (and I’m only 5’8″). Maybe these aspects are hurting the 3 and 6 in the marketplace. To me, the road noise is obtrusive only over rough asphalt, and otherwise the car is an entertaining, responsive drive.
As I’ve mentioned before, I ended up with her old Matrix, and prefer it to the Mazda. She rode in the car recently and remarked, “It’s like sitting in a phone booth!” Yes, indeed.
From all I’ve read over the years, America still seems like an alternative universe in automotive terms. I’ve always known Honda is big there, which puts a smile on an Aussie’s face – we know they’re good cars but until recently the premium pricing they asked had firmly placed them among the also-rans. But Nissan? Nissan is not a company most people would think of here when it comes to cars. After Nissan closed up manufacture in Australia, they have mostly been an SUV company to judge by what you see on the roads, and they have never really been a force in the mid-size sedan market – for many years they never even offered anything between the Pulsar and Maxima. Their car range is better now, but you still don’t see many.
Mazda has always been popular here, and the model-sharing with Ford (323/Laser, 626/Telstar) if anything elevated Mazda’s profile, although an imported Mazda was always substantially pricier than the locally-assembled Ford equivalent. Mazda went through the doldrums for a while after the model-sharing arrangement ended, but picked up massively in the ‘Zoom-zoom’ era, to the point where the (sporty-image) 3 regularly outsells the (boring-image) Corolla. The 2 sells well, but the 6 is a comparatively rare sight nowadays – at 4865mm it wouldn’t fit in our garage so I wonder whether it has grown too big?
The best way to get an idea of what companies sell in the US is to go to their website. Yes, the US is a huge market, and all of the successful Asian companies tailor their products to it, to one degree or another, to the point of vehicles exclusive to the NA market.
https://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/?lang=en&fromSav=true&_vipreq=493399443
Has anyone seen what a Nissan dealer looks like nowadays.All Mostly Trucks,4X4’S AND SUV’S everywhere.I was at one the other day getting the fuel injectors and wheel alignment done on the Micra I have these days and was shocked.Those of us who want to upgrade are now being forced to buy Korean elsewhere or consider a Toyota or Suzuki in the same class.There’s no way in hell I am paying close to $24,000 for a Clio with a Automatic from the Renault side of the dealerships if I want another small car.
Owned one of this generation new.
Seemed like a better value than a Toyota or Honda, fun car to drive, roomy, more gadgets than any in the class, and great handling for less.
Problem with them is that the head gaskets blew at between 60k and 80k miles. Dealer admitted it happened to nearly all cars. Not only did the head gasket have to be replaced, but found out after it was fixed that the failure also killed the cat converter and it would never pass emissions again, even with a new cat converter.
When these were more common every one had a rattling exhaust heat shield that started just after the factory warranty expired and you could recognize one driving past by its sound.
Regretted not buying a Honda, or Toyota, so never another Mazda again.
Interesting in the 70s advertisement that the RX4 Hardtop uses the original bumper with rubber ‘overriders’, whereas the RX4 sedan and wagon have the 5mph cowcatcher.
That’s how they did them. For ‘75, the RX-3 got an all steel chrome bumper (cross piece and steel end caps), front and back, no rubber end caps, because Mazda built them as they sold them. The RX-4 initial model production was so high, and sales dropped off so fast, that the ‘74s basically got sold through ‘75 in the U.S., and all had the rubber end caps (except for the coupe). For ‘76, the RX-4 got more formal bodywork at each end, and got the all steel chrome bumpers.
Those ‘74 bumpers (RX-4 coupe excluded) were also heavy battering rams, backed up with huge steel beams, side to side. The later all steel bumpers were heavy gauge stamped steel, but didn’t get the “overkill” steel beams behind them.
We tried to buy a 626 hatchback in ’91. The salesman wouldn’t let us drive one, eventually he drove it while we passengered. Bought the Ford 626 hatch instead, the Probe. 10 years later and 1400 miles away tried to by a Protege5 to replace the Probe. The dealer eventually told us he could get us a manual with ABS for only $500 over invoice if we could wait 5 months, bought an Elantra hatch instead. 10 years later same dealer with new owner, tried to buy a Mazda 2 to replace the Elantra, told they would let us test drive an automatic, but if we wanted a 5 speed we would…Walked out with out hearing rest of BS, bought a 5speed Ford Fiesta instead.
Oh well if schedule holds only 4 more years to find the next reason they can’t/won’t sell me the car I want.
Stories like this are brilliant examples of why the dealership model is a total sham. In just about any other consumer product, you decide what you want, and then go to the appropriate store or online, and buy it. For cars, you get to play the “I know what I want, but will they sell it to me?” game. The middleman (dealership) has all the power because you are legally barred from dealing directly with the manufacturer, which is almost unique. If OfficeMax or Best Buy won’t sell me a Dell computer configured the way I want it, I’ll just buy it from the Dell web site directly. (Personally I’d just do that in the first place.) Can’t do that with cars. Maybe Tesla will succeed in trying to shake up that market.
The 5 door Mazda hatchback was one of my favorite cars of that period in the ’80s but the dealers would not make any concessions on them—list price or see you later. The current Mazda 6 is a great car (I currently own a 2016 Sport) but it is not for everyone. The interior size is a bit smaller and the ride, even in the Sport with 17″ wheels, is a bit firmer. The dealers are better at making deals than they used to be but still not as flexible as Nissan, Toyota or even Honda in my area. But I would not trade it for any other mid size car out there.
This post is close to my heart. My current daily driver is a 1995 Protege. Wonderful car. Easy to work on and parts are cheap. 215,000 miles and has never left me stranded in my two years of ownership. Yeah, I like Mazdas.
I havent seen one of these in a very long time they were popular new in Aussie though subsequent owners had problems, nothing major just blown headgaskets, later models had weak transmissions and biodegradable diesel engines late 90s Capella wagons come in two main flavours one pure Mazda the other with Vtec power and a different grille those arequite common theearly ones are all gone.
My family had one of these, back in ’93-96. It was a base model 1983, an 1.6 LX., 4dr sedan, 5spd manual. I learnt to drive on this car when I was 17.
Our 626 didn’t looked bad but it was very used under the surface – rust attacked its fuel tank and the nest of the rear suspension so we had to sell it. The small 1600cc four also worn out.
I still remember to it as a nice and good car: maybe because the 626 was the first car I drove. The design is one of the best from the early-mid ’80s – inside and outside too. Our LX was very good looking in white with navy blue velour interior. With little chrome accents around the windows it looked quite classy.
Driving the ’83 626 was a very relaxing experience. I’m 2meter tall but I still found enough space in it to sit comfortable. Steering, shifter, pedals were in optimal position. Switches had quality feel. It was easy to get used to that car and feel like home.
80HP wasn’t too much but it felt sporty after the Lada 1200 we had before. The old Mazda was our first “western” car – I write from Hungary. It’s suspension could handle much more: didn’t had much body roll in sharp corners.
Now I drive a 1990 W124 200E but I would buy a rust-free mid-’80s 626 sometimes in the future. That way I could own two of my favourite ’80s models. (The third one would be a Porsche 944 Turbo, but prices of those are sky-rocketing. 🙂
The contemporary JDM Bluebird (the U.S. Stanza was the FWD Bluebird, not the smaller JDM Stanza) did actually offer adjustable shocks on many models, as did the pricier Skyline. Toyota had started getting into that for high-end sporty cars, but hadn’t yet embraced them in a big way in this class.
The only thing I can add is that the power rating for the turbo engine — 120 hp — was surely conservative, just as was the 145 hp rating for the turbo in the subsequent generation, because the turbo cars were a bunch quicker than the rating would support. That’s fairly unusual, and I don’t know what the rationale was for it.
Ah but in the US, none of its rivals did at the time, I don’t believe, unless you count the Galant, which was priced a bit above.
I think another piece of the puzzle here in recent times is the disappointing 2007-2012 generation of the 6. The original 6 (not talking about hockey here) made a big splash in 2003, with an attractive design and good driving dynamics. One of the original “zoom zoom” models. I4 or V6, sedan, hatch, or wagon, with a Mazdaspeed 6 joining the lineup as well. And it was quite popular, or at least seemed so. Seemed rather common after a couple years of sales. So when this model was replaced for 2009 with the second generation (GH1) car, what did they do? Well first of all they took away the choice. The hatch and wagon disappeared, and there was no MS6 version. But worse was the styling. The car went from a distinctive design that *looked* like a Mazda to something that, while not unattractive, looked more like an Altima than anything else. Very inoffensive and completely anonymous. While it was hard to get an accurate count because they were so good at blending into traffic, even when you looked for them, you just don’t see them. Buyers were turned off and stayed away. And despite the excellent current 6 that replaced the GH1 in 2014, I don’t think the sales base has recovered.
Good point. I can’t even remember what the second-gen 6 looked like.
While I was not yet of driving age for this generation, it was the next generation that really captivated me. The 5-door hatchback I think was one of the best looking cars built in the late 80s/early 90s. I test drove one (as a used car in college, around 96/97), but couldn’t make the dollars work out for it. I really wanted that car.
I must be one of those people who frustrate Mazda marketers; my wife & I have a longstanding, not really defensible bias for Honda & Toyota, and against Mazda & Nissan, even though I admit that the Big Two have lost some of their luster. If anything is wrong with Mazda now, it’s their lack of hybrids or diesels.
My objective reason for getting a Civic over the Mazda3 in 2010 was, the latter rated somewhat lower in fuel economy (bigger engine I didn’t need) & at the time had less useful space inside. I think that’s been remedied since then, but I don’t buy new cars often so Mazda will have to wait.
I haven’t the slightest idea why Mazda has fallen short of the accolades it has deserved over the years. I have driven many and I can’t find a single thing wrong with any of them. I lived with a Mazda 121/Ford Festiva that exceeded everything I could throw at it for over 400,000 miles. My brother’s Mazda 3 has been flawless. Our neighbors have been driving Mazda for over 15 years without issues.
So what the heck? Why do we see all the Boomers flocking to every Honda or Toyota, and every credit-challenged, future repo going to Nissan and Mitsubishi? And what the heck is with Subaru? Had one – won’t have another.
I just don’t get it. Now – if we look into our past, we see other good car companies failing. For every flop that fails, we see good companies fail as well. Sometimes we see CC Deadly Sins, but just as often, we just see a good car company fail to see their good cars. This may be what happens with Mazda as well.
Is the market for Japanese cars saturated to the point where there isn’t any room for Mazda? With all the history with Ford, Mazda seems the least Japanese for American buyers. Did that history cripple them with imported car buyers? What the heck is the reason someone spits out tens of thousands for a boring Honda or Toyota over a Mazda? Or Subaru? What gives with that brand’s popularity. Boomers are retiring and grabbing a Subaru? Really?
If Mazda leaves the US market, it won’t be because they didn’t try or make poor products. Sometimes, I guess good companies get screwed.
See my comment further down.
The car industry is all about scale. Mazda is quite small on the global scale; they made just a bit over a million cars in 2021. That’s considered precariously small. It makes it very difficult to earn a substantial profit because the per unit amortization of the required investment is too low. Mazda has low profit margins as a result.
Mazda’s business in China is faltering, and they (along with a good number of others) will probably exit China, sooner or later. Mazda is quite weak in Japan, and in Europe too. The US is by far their biggest market, but they don’t have the scale that they really need in this giant but very competitive market.
Their future is somewhat precarious. Their market cap is $3.2 B, which is a pittance. Their stock has been dropping since 2015. They have no EVs to speak of, and they can’t afford to develop competitive EVs.
Having literally just returned from the Houston Auto Show, with the mission of finding “what’s next” to replace my Outback heading to semi-retirement in the fall, I can tell you that part of Mazda’s problem, at least for me, is no hybrids. I love the CX-5 design, the interior of the Premium Plus rivals Lexus, but under 30 mpg/hwy in this day and age is ridiculous. It’s the same reason I crossed off another Outback (which started off as the inside candidate).
A car that impressed me was the Kia Sportage hybrid. The interior was well put together. The new CR-V is nice too but the switchgear is definitely a step below everyone else.
I have a Maverick hybrid on order (I give it a 50/50 chance of landing); I do miss the old days of deciding which car to buy, finding a reputable dealer to dance with, test driving, and most likely driving home that day or week in your new car.
Now that we’re six years on from the original article, I believe the Mazda 6, despite its virtues, is still languishing. As for why Mazda generally cannot get more traction, my personal opinion is that buyers looking for a Japanese ride default to one of the big 3 (or 4?) simply because that’s what others do. Also, more and more, buyers (especially young people) seem less interested in vehicle dynamics and more interested in the touchscreen. Given Mazda’s relative anonymity compared to say, Toyota or Honda, this is a lot to overcome.
Actually the Mazda6 was cancelled in the US at the end of 2021.
Thanks for the clarification. I saw a 6 in my local dealer not long ago when my CX9 was in for service – it must have been a leftover or CPO.
I think Mazda’s production capacity for North American-market models may be far more limited than its rivals, so they don’t sell nearly as many cars here because they simply don’t HAVE nearly as many cars TO sell in the first place. Along with that, they don’t have as much languishing stock that may need dealer incentives to move, and dealers aren’t as inclined to haggle just to get cars off their lot.
So why hasn’t Mazda invested in expanding their NA production capacity? Perhaps because they don’t perceive it as necessary, if they’re doing just fine as they are. Their business model seems based more in sustainability, rather than growth or profit at any cost, and that in turn may be a lesson they learned from W. Edwards Deming somewhat differently from other Japanese car makers.
Widely regarded as the “Father of the Quality Movement”, Deming was largely shunned by American manufacturers in his time, so he turned his attention to post-WWII Japan instead, where his principles were enthusiastically embraced. Once upon a time, “Made in Japan” was perceived much as “Made in China” is perceived today, as an indication of cheap, shoddily-made goods; Deming, perhaps more than any other single figure, is largely responsible for the transformation of “Made in Japan” into an indication of quality, innovative, and uniformly well-made products well worth their price.
For all that influence, it’s often overlooked that Deming’s #1 principle of business management has little to do with quality, or innovation, or growth, or profitability. For him, the first and foremost objective of any company and its management is simply to STAY IN BUSINESS. All the rest doesn’t matter, and isn’t even possible to achieve in the long run, if pursuing them winds up running your business into the ground — cf. Lancia, which infamously nearly went under, twice, for paying too much attention to quality and innovation.
As such, Mazda management seems more motivated than their rivals by long-term sustainable business practices, rather than gambling their future viability on investments in expanded production capacity, or on corner-cutting to achieve greater short-term profitability. What they DO gamble on is modest, targeted investment in innovative engineering, simply because they appreciate that will be necessary to keep pace with, if not surpass, the industry state of the art in order to stay in business and competitive well into the foreseeable future.
Although Mazda generally scores well in various quality/reliability rankings, they rarely score at the very top. So there’s no consistent evidence that Mazda’s quality is higher than say Toyota’s (and some others).
Mazda is in a somewhat precarious situation. They are very weak in Japan. They are losing market share in China, and I predict they will likely pull out of China eventually. The US is their biggest market, but they lack the size that would give them better scale in terms of advertising, marketing and most importantly, a better dealer network.
Unless you’re a genuine premium brand, not having scale is precarious. Subaru, although a smaller manufacturer, has had much better growth, and thus is better positioned. Mazda suffers simply from being too small, on a global scale. This will make the transition to EVs a very serious challenge for them. So far, their first EV is a total dud.
Had a 626 hatchback which was 100%, reliable but drank the juice. Never bought another Mazda because they are too thirsty.
Must have been something off as my 91 626 hatchback gets 34 mpg even today.
A good question is – if/when Mazda folds up shop, where will their buyers go? Or, even better, WHO is a Mazda buyer?
I guess that is what happened in this business to other ghost brands as well. They disappeared and few were effected, other than us curbside classic folks.
I guess it is time to hold onto that Mazda sports car as a future orphan collectible.
That is a good question as I am a dedicated Mazda fan although I am a Mazda sedan fan and not SUV, CUV, or any other UV. Seriously I don’t think I’ll ever be buying a new car for the rest of my life and besides not many I would even consider. I don’t like how Hondas handle an don’t care for automatics. Now my wife, who will live longer than me, will be another matter and I’m sure she will get a new car one day but what that is who knows in 2030.