Recently test drove both. I’m looking for a potential replacement for an aging, full bolt on Mazdaspeed3 and a CX-30 (would be nice to consolidate down to one vehicle.)

Interior is the same on both (that lovely red leather). The N/A Skyactiv 2.5 pulls nicely from idle and is enough to push you back in the seat once the tach sweeps over 5 grand. It did not feel lacking in power and while it’s no sledgehammer like the DISI in the MS3, it’s more than adequate for public roads with 191hp. The shifter/clutch combo is fantastic and you can easily heel/toe this car just like the Speed. Handling is good, it rotates well, but not quite as good as the Speed (more body roll on a spirited back road drive), and the car is under-tired IMO, but the suspension is far more compliant over rough surfaces even with the torsion beam. The Speed is a hardcore car and kind of beats you up but as a guy who’s over 40 now, which is why I stopped dailying it, and the new 3 feels easier on the back.

The Turbo is great, I would totally rock one of them as a fast cruiser, but I have to give it a zonk for the SUV-like power delivery that falls off over 4k and artificial engine noise from the speakers (really, Mazda?) Also felt heavier over the front axle than the 3 manual, which is a given given a turbo, intercooler, plumbing, and heavier engine internals to take the boost. Finally, it’s an automatic, and not a particularly crisp shifting one, and as such, there’s just less to do, less engagement, less moment to moment fun outside of onramp blasts. You drive the 3 manual with all four limbs. My arm and hand, and left foot, are a piece of the powertrain.

Anyway, the N/A manual feels like an enthusiast gem that gets slept on more than it should. I had a buzz after driving it that I didn’t get off the Turbo.