Car Lust--Mazda Protege5
For the last two decades, two diminutive titans have towered over the rest of the compact car field, dominating sales, reputation, and mind share. Every friend of mine who has looked for a small car in the last decade has started their search by looking for a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla, and for good reason--they tend to be durable, high-quality cars.
Overshadowed somewhat by this excellence has been Mazda's small cars, which have ranged from okay (the GLC) to amazing (the 323 GTX) to beautifully refined (the Protege). The Protege has long been one of my favorites; for quality transportation over the last decade, in my mind it has been more of a mentor in its class than a protege, leading the way in refinement, quality, and its driving dynamics.
Given my wagon fanaticism, it should come as no surprise that the Protege5 is my favorite Protege of all. A sports car among economy cars, with sweetly chiseled good looks, the Protege5 had it all--agility, cargo room, and ease of maintenance.
Proteges are underrated as sporty economy cars, possibly because their styling is usually so staid. We've talked a lot about older Civics as sporty little runabouts, but the Protege is a sweet handler in its own right. The Protege5 was no exception--reviews at the time called the Protege5 a hatchback Miata.
The Protege5 only had 130 horsepower, and there was never a Mazdaspeed Protege5, so it's not as if the Protege5's cup runneth over with power. But matched to the sweet chassis, and given the deceptively light weight of the Protege5--only 2,700 pounds--it was quick enough to be fun.
The styling, though, is what keeps me coming back to the Protege5. The Protege5 is, in my opinion, the best-looking small car of this decade--it's conventional, but very pretty. Wagons get my blood pressure up anyway; but unlike most wagons the Protege5 is lean and purposeful. Compared to most of today's over-stuffed cars, which look as if they are inflated at around 1,500 PSI, the Protege5's lines are sleek. It's sporty without looking tacky, classy without being boring. It's even one of those few cars that looks great in yellow.
Subaru has really fumbled around with the styling of its otherwise excellent WRX; it would be much better off with something that looks more like the Protege5.
The Mazda 3 replaced the Protege in 2004, and while the 3 is a nice piece (in fact, soon we'll run a Mazda 3 Car Lust from Nathan), I miss the lean simplicity of the Protege5. What I don't miss is a car name that rams a number into a word. Protege5? Hit the space bar, Mazda!
Sorry, I guess I'm feeling mildly curmudgeonly today.
--Chris H.
mochi mochi on May 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Chris Right On - on all accounts, including the space bar. The name needed help. The number alone would have been sufficient. When the 5 hit the streets, it really got me interested. It seemed to have a lot of the purposeful lean design that was embodied so well in the late 88-94 civic hatchbacks. More recent editions have been prone to bloat. I was interested enough to go down to the dealer and start specing them out.
It's rare to find a car that is small and big at the same time. Interior space efficiency seems to often be something that strangely gets lost. The 5 does achieved great interior capacity without being a bigger car, in the same way the older civics did.
Mazda has quietly and consistently been improving the designs of their cars in the last decade. They've been making cars that don't call attention to themselves, but deliver a lot of great driving. I've recently been spending some time in my friend's 3... what I nice car. I can't wait for Nathan's article. The fact that Mazda has been deploying excellence across the complete range of their vehicles is really to be commended.
Also re: the WRX comment. From what I understand Rally drivers find the handling of the wagon/hatchback to be superior to the standard sedan version. The slight increase in rear weight distribution along with the higher rear CG gives these cars a significant handling advantage. Hence one reason you see so many hatchbacks in the rally circuit - the Renault Cleo Maxi being among them.
I'm really happy its Friday but there must be something in the air. I've been feeling like a bit of a crank or curmudgeon myself. The idea of standing on a front porch and yelling at the neighborhood kids about paying ball in front of the house sounds very appealing right now. By tomorrow, today will be all over ;)
B. Minich on May 16, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I have one of these in the smart silver color. The Protege5 is an excellent car - looks nice, drives nice, and has great gas mileage to boot. I've done two moves with this car, and with the seats down, it can hold quite a lot of stuff.
Rob the SVX owner on May 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I remember when these came out... nice looking, but I couldn't take the advertising for them seriously. Mazda advertised the rear 'rally inspired spoiler' as the only thing other drivers will see on the road. Uh. What? It has 130hp. My old neon had a 132hp. Nice looking, sure. Nice handling, fine. But talking about it like it's some kind of performance car? Come on Mazda, lay off the crack pipe.
hunter on May 16, 2008 at 12:48 PM
The P5 and Protege ES really are great and under-appreciated cars. If they hadn't been just a little too expensive two years ago, I'd have gotten one instead of my old beat Integra. One thing that impressed me back when I drove a new one was how nice and well-assembled the interior was for a "cheap" car. Of course, after getting on the road I promptly forgot about the interior in favor of the well-balanced chassis and wonderfully responsive steering (though not the power, which was nevertheless perfectly acceptable).
I tend to like the ES sedan's styling more, with its more sedate front fascia and sleek tail. But both types are handsome late-surviving examples of the 90s slight wedge, low beltline, high glass design ethic that gave us cars like the '94-97 Accord, another of my favorite pedestrian vehicles.
Mochi Mochi on May 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Zoom zoom zoom - Rob I thought you were going to bash the "zoom" commercial. You surprised me with the spoiler issue. I think Mazda has just had a lot of problems defining their brand. Often goes along with trying to appeal to everyone and having a message that does not reach anyone. Fiat did it right in the 70s with their "family-car" / Stunt car ads... at least it worked for Italian drivers who want performance in every sedan no matter how small and underpowered.
The ads I think of for honda have always keep things so minimal - almost like the old VW ads - just very clean and simple... it's a quality car. Mazda and a few other companies have had a harder time defining their best selling points to the audience. Mazda has been tying to keep things fun and accessible. They've gone a little too far in that regard sometimes in their ads, but the cars, these are nice.
130hp... not so bad. Not a killer. But really 130hp is more than enough to do some damage. I guess if you are into drag racing 130 is not nearly enough. But I found 60 hp in my old Squareback was pretty decent. The key was finding ways to carry speed through the turns.
Rob the SVX guy on May 16, 2008 at 08:45 PM
Yeah, I know, but the copy just doesn't match the car's actual performance. It was so hilarious that I scanned it years ago, and I uploaded it just for you guys:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/cash68/mazda5flyerfunny.jpg
Matt on May 16, 2008 at 09:24 PM
I loved this car from the first time I saw it at the LA Auto Show. Now it's featured in Car Lust! Please don't speak too highly of this vehicle, I still want to buy a used one cheap!
Mochi Mochi on May 16, 2008 at 09:57 PM
Rob - I understand - the brochure copy was pretty hyperbolic and dumb. However I think the upper rear spoiler was one of the things that drew me to this car. It was remarkably like my 91 Civic. Hence immediate attraction. Still don't fault the car for the marketing department's crack-pipe sins. While 130hp from a 2Liter is not exactly the pinnacle of power engineering, it makes for a pretty nice ride when mounted in a 2700lb chassis. And it is a great chassis.
My 79 BMW 320 had only something like 110hp from a 2L. Mazda got 130 from 2L. I think we have to turn to Honda to find the really big steps in engine power:
Honda B16B (Type R) VTEC Engine - Found in: 1997-2000 Civic Type R[EK9]
Displacement: 1595 cc
Compression: 10.8:1
Bore: 81mm
Stroke: 77.4mm
Rod/Stroke ratio: 1.84:1
Rod Length: 142.42 mm (5.607")
Power: 185 hp (137 kW) @ 8200 rpm & 118 ft·lbf (160 N·m) @ 7500 rpm
Redline: 9000 rpm
Transmission: S4C With LSD
0-60 High 5's
185 BHP
185hp from a 1.6L engine - stock engine. Makes you think doesn't it. Those honda guys are genius when it comes to engines and power.
The big hatch on the 5 is great. Really makes a nice fun car to enjoy on a good road, or haul a bunch of gear. And the spoiler finishes the roof line really nicely. without it, the car would be ok but not great. The spoiler and bold yellow paint - nice.
Anthony Cagle on May 17, 2008 at 08:22 AM
My Spousal Unit looked at a Protege when she was shopping for a car, mostly at my insistence (ca. 1996). She thought it was way too boring to drive daily. She ended up with a Civic HX that got like 43mpg (still does).
I've always had a soft spot for Mazda, but I've never bought a new car so I've never actually had to shop for one. I'm not sure how they can differentiate themselves, except maybe for the 'sportier performance' angle. Then again, maybe simple and reliable can work for more than two companies.
In truth, before I decided to restore my Mustang the Mazdaspeed 6 was a contender for a replacement. Probably the most likely. The Mazdaspeed3 would also have been near the top of the Spousal Unit's list of replacements had the recent accident resulted in a totaling of said Honda. And my brother just got a 6 a couple of years ago. So we could easily be a Mazda extended family.
Rob the SVX guy on May 17, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Mochi: That Honda power comes at the expense of driveability and torque. Sure, you can make that much, but the powerband is going to be extremely tiny, it will get crap MPG, and torque will be non existent when you're outside the powerband.
Mochi Mochi on May 17, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Rob: I largely agree with you. I picked specs for one of the most extreme examples in the Honda B engine lineup. Still it's quite impressive - its really more of a motorcycle engine and I think requires a 6speed transmission to make it work. I've always found engines that produce numerically similar figures for hp and ft-lbs to be much more balanced and fun to drive. Requiring less shifting with a broader powerband, yet another reason I like my D16 engine so much.
But this actually does get back to the merits of the Mazda. Like the EF series civics with the D16 engines, the protege-5 was a nice drivable car. Something balanced and highly usable for a wide variety of drivers.
I think it interesting that Anthony's "Spousal Unit" ended up with the Civic 6th gen HX running the D16Y5 engine:
D16Y5
+ Displacement : 1590 cm³
+ Bore and Stroke : 75 mm X 90 mm
+ Compression : 9.4:1
+ Power : 115 hp (86 kW)@ 5600 rpm & 100 ft·lbf @ 4500 rpm
+ Valvetrain : SOHC VTEC-E
These HX models were geared for high fuel economy and drivability. But clearly they were able to catch her imagination. I'm sure that comes through the fact that Honda not only built great engines, but mated these with great suspension and a low CG. But all that said I still think the P5 is a nice car with a lot to offer.
A quick check of craigslist shows not many are being sold, and those that are are asking pretty substantial cash. Not sure if this has to do with the number sold, or how much people like the ones they have. I'm guessing its low volume and high driver loyalty. Who would want to let a nice car like that go. If they sold in lower volume then they were likely going to people who appreciated them from the start.
The new 3 series Mazda's seem like a blast. I really like the size and feel of these cars. My friend Makiko has a 3 sedan about 3years old. We had it up on the lift the other day and I have to tell you the quality of the interior was matched in the presentation of the undercarriage. It's rare to find a car that has such a nice bottom plate. This thing was designed to a tee and really impressed me - right down the the heat shields. It made me think that if Mazda is paying that much attention to detail - parts of the car usually only the mechanics see - then we are looking at a very nice trend. Lavishing quality on the undercarriage and interior speaks well to the rest of the car.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on May 19, 2008 at 08:51 AM
When I bought my GTI, I looked at the WRX and the Mazdaspeed 3, and I'll tell you it was a tough call between all three. (I should probably write up a Car Lust on the shopping process--'twas an adventure!)
Mochi Mochi on May 20, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Since it's a slow posting day... the Geo Metro again in the news...
everything old is new all over
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/20/geo.metro/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
This is a great little article about the Geo Metro - probably should be added to the CarLust of a few weeks back. Buy a metro for $200 bucks and fix it up - get great gas mileage and maybe have a little side business ;)
OldCarGuy on May 21, 2008 at 05:03 AM
Interesting article, Mochi Mochi -- thanks for sharing. I also enjoyed the comments added by readers, and personally I shared the sentiments of one who said he just couldn't bring himself to drive a Metro. Instead he's driving an MR-2, and said that when he drives it conservatively he gets over 30 mpg. I can relate to that, as when I had my '87 Mister I regularly got low to mid-30s. Let's see . . . drive a Metro instead of a MR-2 for 7-8 additional mpg? No thanks!
I also have to say that I'm noticing more old VW Beetles on the road in recent weeks. Is it just that they're coming out of winter hibernation, or are more owners driving them for their fuel economy?
Steaming Pile on May 21, 2008 at 05:58 AM
You rock, Mochi. I saw a four-door Metro for sale on my way home from work. Maybe I should take a look at it. Hard to believe these cars got actual, no-I'm-not-shitting-you, 50 MPG. Why can't we have any of these now?
My Scion xA gets 35, and that's about as good as it gets nowadays for a non-hybrid. It's a really short hatchback that one guy at the local Auto Zone called a 4-door Mini. Damn thing weighs 2300 lbs. I bet the Metro weighs 1800 soaking wet. Surely there is room for weight-reduction that can be done without compromising on safety. I noticed the Metro in the article had those big honking 5 MPH bumpers on it, and those are heavy, so I know it can be done.
Rob the SVX guy on May 21, 2008 at 09:04 AM
Thing is... metros get good gas mileage because they didn't have to satisfy today's safety requirements. Sure, they have 5mph impact bumpers, but could you imagine what would happen if it got into a tangle with an escalade? I'm not saying we should all drive bigger cars to stay safe, but there's such a thing as so small it's unsafe, and statistically, small cars are the most dangerous kind of car (SUVs aren't cars, their deathrate is above everything).
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on May 21, 2008 at 09:07 AM
@Steaming Pile
re: Why can't we have any of these now?
Three reasons:
1) Safety. Crash tests (and actual crashes) have made it clear that light vehicles are more dangerous. No carmaker wants to get sued for deliberately selling a car that gets a 1-star crash rating.
2) Performance. Car engines have gotten amazingly more efficient. But due to relatively low inflation of gas prices (until recently), all that improvement went into improving horsepower, torque, acceleration, etc. That has resulted in the phenomenon Chris has pointed out on several occasions: the average family sedan can equal the performance of most 80s-era supercars.
3) Market issues. Small/light/efficient has usually meant "cheap". If you are a manufacturer trying to sell cheap cars, your profit margin is extremely slim. People are willing to pay more for both size and comfort, which means you make more money per car. But the Japanese upscale lines (Lexus, Acura, and Infinit) have proven that people will pay for luxury/performance in small cars, too. (Also proving that the Cadillac Catera was not actually ill-conceived, but merely badly implemented). But it takes time for automakers to react to the high prices. They have to design, test, re-tool factories, and market-test before they can produce smaller cars.
But it will happen. It probably won't be too long before we see a Lexus version of the Yaris, or Acura version of the Fit, with 50+ mileage.
...just don't complain when your car takes 13 seconds to get to 60 mph. Or if you have to pay $30k for a car that wrings 50 mpg out of a 9 second 0-60 performance standard.
Steaming Pile on May 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM
@Nate:
1. If you smash a light car against a wall, won't reduced inertia result in more favorable crash test results? The only reason you don't have 1800 lb. super light small cars is because nobody wants to spend the money to develop them. That's why the Pinto and the Vega sucked in the 70s - because they were hastily slapped together with little engineering foresight.
2. People will sacrifice some performance for 50 MPG. If the SUV thing taught us anything, it is "if you build it, they will come." Think about it - what did the SUV have going for it (other than four wheel drive) that a minivan didn't? Marketing, that's what. It was, IMO, an ugly monstrosity that screams, "see this? I'm driving it because I can. Just shut up about the adjustable-rate HELOC I had to take out to buy it."
3a. I think if a car could honestly (and legally) post that magic number - 50 MPG - people will forget all their prejudices against small cars. Lots of people did when GM sold the Metro, and gas was really, really cheap in the 90s. I bet if GM had something similar to sell today, they couldn't keep them in stock.
3b. In the 80s, you had the Chrysler E-class. "E" for Executive. It was the same basic K-car stretched a bit and with more bling. So you're right about that. People will buy small luxury cars; we just don't know it yet.
Mochi Mochi on May 21, 2008 at 01:29 PM
I'm looking forward to higher and higher gas prices being the incentive for lighter and more efficient cars.
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on May 21, 2008 at 01:46 PM
@Steaming Pile
I repeat: "But it will happen. It probably won't be too long before we see a Lexus version of the Yaris, or Acura version of the Fit, with 50+ mileage."
Kansei on May 23, 2008 at 09:34 PM
Wow I just happened upon this blog post, and I can't agree more. I love my Protege5 more than any car I've ever driven (ever). It's SO much fun, so rewarding to drive. Also, with just 7psi of turbo boost it can be pretty quick and get 36mpg highway (with some breathings mods obviously).
Check out my URL, hundreds of Protege enthusiasts there :)
I'll be hitting 100K miles on my turbo Protege5 this weekend too :)
scott on July 18, 2008 at 09:56 AM
I used to drive an '89 Civic CX, great car. Then had a sweet Si, even better! More recently I had a '90 Miata. tons of fun, but totally unpractical in Minneapolis. Now I'm driving the '02 Pro5 in that sweet yellow. I love this car more than all of the others. I will be sad in ten years when I have to upgrade. The Mazda 3 is pretty cool but I love the wagons. However, the 3 wagon really looks like an afterthought. Hopefully, I can swing a A4 wagon next time I'm in the market for a car.
Gerry C on December 29, 2008 at 02:41 PM
My 2003 Protege 5 won't start.
The battery is well charged.
When I turn the key its completely dead.
There are no burnt out fuses.
One must have your foot on the break when starting.
I have always had to turn the key twice to get the starter turning.
What is the problem....the book says starting is controlled by the spark ignition system. Does this have an impact.
Is there some easy little thing I can tap to make it start????