Topic: Long-Term Test Update: 2016 Mazda CX-3

[Autos_Editor]

Teething problems can't abate the love affair.

Read More...

[Great_Big_Abyss]

See,

THIS the biggest reason why I can't stand CUV's.  $32K for a small crossover that has merely adequate power and has a few deficiencies.  $32K buys you a helluva lot more when looking at cars.  Oh Sure, the CX-3 seems fully loaded, but there is more to a vehicle than just some vinyl seats and a few baubles.

[OliverD]

See,

THIS the biggest reason why I can't stand CUV's.  $32K for a small crossover that has merely adequate power and has a few deficiencies.  $32K buys you a helluva lot more when looking at cars.  Oh Sure, the CX-3 seems fully loaded, but there is more to a vehicle than just some vinyl seats and a few baubles.

Wouldn't be an autos.ca thread without someone complaining about the price of a fully loaded model and ignoring the fact that well equipped models are available for thousands cheaper. 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

See,

THIS the biggest reason why I can't stand CUV's.  $32K for a small crossover that has merely adequate power and has a few deficiencies.  $32K buys you a helluva lot more when looking at cars.  Oh Sure, the CX-3 seems fully loaded, but there is more to a vehicle than just some vinyl seats and a few baubles.

Wouldn't be an autos.ca thread without someone complaining about the price of a fully loaded model and ignoring the fact that well equipped models are available for thousands cheaper. 

No, no, no,  that's not my point.  This is a general discontent at CUV's vs cars in general.  What I'm saying is that $32K gets you a near-loaded V6 sedan like an Accord or an Altima.  OR a sub-compact CUV like a CX-3.  This isn't me complaining about the value (or lack thereof) of fully loaded models, but rather the premium that people pay just to get into a vehicle with with slightly more ground clearance than a comparable car.  If the CX-3 is based off a Mazda3, then it's about $8-10 000 more expensive.  AND the Mazda3 has more power and is likely nicer inside.

[OliverD]

See,

THIS the biggest reason why I can't stand CUV's.  $32K for a small crossover that has merely adequate power and has a few deficiencies.  $32K buys you a helluva lot more when looking at cars.  Oh Sure, the CX-3 seems fully loaded, but there is more to a vehicle than just some vinyl seats and a few baubles.

Wouldn't be an autos.ca thread without someone complaining about the price of a fully loaded model and ignoring the fact that well equipped models are available for thousands cheaper. 

No, no, no,  that's not my point.  This is a general discontent at CUV's vs cars in general.  What I'm saying is that $32K gets you a near-loaded V6 sedan like an Accord or an Altima.  OR a sub-compact CUV like a CX-3.  This isn't me complaining about the value (or lack thereof) of fully loaded models, but rather the premium that people pay just to get into a vehicle with with slightly more ground clearance than a comparable car.  If the CX-3 is based off a Mazda3, then it's about $8-10 000 more expensive.  AND the Mazda3 has more power and is likely nicer inside.

Well fair enough, though a loaded CX-3 is actually cheaper than a loaded Mazda 3.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

See,

THIS the biggest reason why I can't stand CUV's.  $32K for a small crossover that has merely adequate power and has a few deficiencies.  $32K buys you a helluva lot more when looking at cars.  Oh Sure, the CX-3 seems fully loaded, but there is more to a vehicle than just some vinyl seats and a few baubles.

Wouldn't be an autos.ca thread without someone complaining about the price of a fully loaded model and ignoring the fact that well equipped models are available for thousands cheaper. 

No, no, no,  that's not my point.  This is a general discontent at CUV's vs cars in general.  What I'm saying is that $32K gets you a near-loaded V6 sedan like an Accord or an Altima.  OR a sub-compact CUV like a CX-3.  This isn't me complaining about the value (or lack thereof) of fully loaded models, but rather the premium that people pay just to get into a vehicle with with slightly more ground clearance than a comparable car.  If the CX-3 is based off a Mazda3, then it's about $8-10 000 more expensive.  AND the Mazda3 has more power and is likely nicer inside.

Well fair enough, though a loaded CX-3 is actually cheaper than a loaded Mazda 3.

Loaded Mazda3 Sport with automatic is $28,990 after freight and PDI.

[OliverD]

See,

THIS the biggest reason why I can't stand CUV's.  $32K for a small crossover that has merely adequate power and has a few deficiencies.  $32K buys you a helluva lot more when looking at cars.  Oh Sure, the CX-3 seems fully loaded, but there is more to a vehicle than just some vinyl seats and a few baubles.

Wouldn't be an autos.ca thread without someone complaining about the price of a fully loaded model and ignoring the fact that well equipped models are available for thousands cheaper. 

No, no, no,  that's not my point.  This is a general discontent at CUV's vs cars in general.  What I'm saying is that $32K gets you a near-loaded V6 sedan like an Accord or an Altima.  OR a sub-compact CUV like a CX-3.  This isn't me complaining about the value (or lack thereof) of fully loaded models, but rather the premium that people pay just to get into a vehicle with with slightly more ground clearance than a comparable car.  If the CX-3 is based off a Mazda3, then it's about $8-10 000 more expensive.  AND the Mazda3 has more power and is likely nicer inside.

Well fair enough, though a loaded CX-3 is actually cheaper than a loaded Mazda 3.

Loaded Mazda3 Sport with automatic is $28,990 after freight and PDI.

That's the base GT. Add the luxury and tech packages and you're right at $33k.

[redman]

My 2 cents, considering the mild fuel consumption of the 2.5 I don't accept whatever lame excuse Mazda offers for not making the 2.5L engine standard on all CUV offered.

The 2.0 should only be reserved for the smaller lighter vehicles.

[jamesautos]

See,

THIS the biggest reason why I can't stand CUV's.  $32K for a small crossover that has merely adequate power and has a few deficiencies.  $32K buys you a helluva lot more when looking at cars.  Oh Sure, the CX-3 seems fully loaded, but there is more to a vehicle than just some vinyl seats and a few baubles.

Wouldn't be an autos.ca thread without someone complaining about the price of a fully loaded model and ignoring the fact that well equipped models are available for thousands cheaper. 

No, no, no,  that's not my point.  This is a general discontent at CUV's vs cars in general.  What I'm saying is that $32K gets you a near-loaded V6 sedan like an Accord or an Altima.  OR a sub-compact CUV like a CX-3.  This isn't me complaining about the value (or lack thereof) of fully loaded models, but rather the premium that people pay just to get into a vehicle with with slightly more ground clearance than a comparable car.  If the CX-3 is based off a Mazda3, then it's about $8-10 000 more expensive.  AND the Mazda3 has more power and is likely nicer inside.

CX-3 is based on the Mazda 2... and who can blame car makers for all the suckers who are willing to pay extra...ultimately it is the market that dictates price...

[OliverD]

CX-3 is based on the Mazda 2... and who can blame car makers for all the suckers who are willing to pay extra...ultimately it is the market that dictates price...

Very true. The two segments we're talking about are interesting to compare. The midsize sedan market in Canada is relatively small, while these small crossovers are one of the fastest growing segments. So it's not too surprising that the sedans are better values.

[dkaz]

My ~2880 lb 155 hp Mazda 3 feels fine. I've never lacked passing power even on the highway. Drop down a gear or two and speed off. The CX-3 is slightly detuned due to space constraints but I expect it to be fine. The Skyactiv automatic transmission is quite responsive.

[Nuttygent]

  It really depends on how much room you need. The GS CX-5 is the same price but significantly bigger, must say I saw a CX-3 and the styling is sharp. Back seats are small and very plain, the munchkins don't notice that stuff though.

[JacobBlack]

On the subject of the rear suspension, it is indeed a torsion beam.
I got the official word back from Mazda, and included some images from them in the slideshow in the story.

[dkaz]

I thought the FWD CX-3s have Torsion Beam and the AWD CX-3s have something else.

[JacobBlack]

I thought the FWD CX-3s have Torsion Beam and the AWD CX-3s have something else.

That's what we were looking into. We thought that was the case, but it's not.
Turns out they both have a torsion beam, but the one in the AWD brings the springs further forward to make way for the driveshafts. There are pics in the article.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

AWD


FWD


That certainly isn't torsion beam.  See the springs?  This is more of a trailing arm suspension...

The horizontal member that you think is a torsion bar (I suppose it acts as such in a certain way) would be more of a stabilizer bar, while the coil springs are what provide the actual suspension of the weight of the car.

[CountOfGamble]

Mazda defines this as torsion-beam suspension. I do see where you are coming from though.

[JacobBlack]

Mazda defines this as torsion-beam suspension. I do see where you are coming from though.

What he said. I also didn't think it fit the conventional definition so we got you those images so you could look for yourself.

[Noto]

There are a few niggles popping up. For example, the navigation screen crashed on me while I was on the second of those road trips. Apparently turning off the car while I was mid-menu caused it to have a minor kerfuffle.

That's what happened in FMIL's.  It did not just come back on without dealership intervention, though.

Speaking of, Maddie pointed out that there are no cupholders for her back there. There’s no fold-down armrest or anything, the middle seat is simply solid. This and the lack of an armrest console are two “cheap outs” that I think are excessive.

It's funny - the rear seat thing I don't think I'd ever really notice.  My back seat passengers rarely use cupholders, etc. since I'm not a fan of people eating/drinking in any car I drive

...but, IMO, the armrest console is beyond reproach.

one spray of interior cleaner and a wipe with a microfibre cloth sorted the problem every time. Bill Clinton would have been home free.

Dirty.

[CountOfGamble]

One thing that I agree on with Jacob that drives me bananas are the rear reading lights in my Mazda 3. I have two small kids and the ability to turn these on during night time is crucial. Coming from a MK6 Golf, you could turn these on independently in the back. The MK7 Golf has control for the rear reading lights in the back and in the front of the vehicle. My general nitpicks with Mazda 3 are unlit controls in the doors (save for one line for auto driver window) as well as the front dome light switches. Is this the case in the CX-3 as well? I luckily have both the front and rear armrests with cupholders.

In the 9 months of ownership the infotainment unit has only crashed once. Johnson Controls has done far from a stellar job on this. Pull out of Connected Services from North American market is another heated discussion that I would not like to go through again.