Nissan Pulsar ST vs Mazda 3 Neo

Cheaper than the Mazda but there's give and take on the feature list. Standard gear is on par with the Mazda but there's no iPod or audio streaming in the Bluetooth. But Pulsar gets alloy wheels (Mazda has steel). Resale is 45 per cent and service more costly at $1909 for three years.

The Neo and the ST represent very good value. Neo gets all the hi-tech drivetrain goodies shared with its siblings. It adds sensible features including a four-speaker audio with Bluetooth and iPod connectivity. Resale is a high 50 per cent and three-year service costs only $961.

Nissan continues to put on its conservative styling face. It gets a traditional dashboard enhanced by soft-touch plastics. Lots of silver-coloured plastic panels look up-market but may be less durable than the Mazda. Rear seat room is bigger than Mazda and seats are softer. Boot space is 360L-1224L but rear seats don't fold flat.

Evolution creates a bold hatch with Mazda's corporate face. Cabin design is first-rate with soft-touch plastics and a large main speedo dial flanked by a tiny tacho. Small dashtop monitor includes trip computer. Rotary switchgear is functional and easy to use. Good room for four adults. Boot extends from 308L to 1270L.

Simple 1.8-litre engine (96kW/174Nm) is mated to a constantly variable transmission. The platform, new for Nissan and shared with Renault, has a long 2700mm wheelbase, matching the Mazda3, and though it is 165mm shorter it has more cabin room. Nissan claims 6.7L/100km on standard fuel from a 52L tank. Towing capacity is 1100kg.

Mazda3 bristles with SkyActiv technology. The 2.0-lite engine (114kW/200Nm) claims a miserly 5.8L/100km from a 51L tank and is mated to a six-speed automatic. High-tensile steel and lightweight suspension help fuel economy even though it weighs 47kg more than the ST. Can tow up to 1200kg.

Same standard as the Mazda though the Pulsar lacks emergency brake lights. Its spare wheel is full-size, which may be of greater appeal to rural or long-distance drivers.

Five-star crash rating, six airbags, brake emergency display and a hill holder are standard. The spare is a space-saver.

Engine performance is far better than the outputs suggest. It's more responsive and feels quicker than the Mazda but the CVT sometimes produces flaring. Ride comfort is more compliant than the Mazda and seats are softer, perhaps better for urban owners. Soft-feel suspension produces more body roll than the rival.

Solid road feel duplicates that of high-spec Mazda3 variants but tuned-for-economy engine feels strangled. Excellent gearshift. Ride comfort is very good - a benefit of the high-profile tyres - and firm seats are supportive for long drives. Handling is good though the accent here is on ride comfort.