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

[RoadRageous]

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.

I FULLY  support this thinking, from a ZoomZoom point of view, but if you want the car to sell in volume, then you have to cater to the large portion of the market that says & thinks things  like "It has  0.5l / 100 km higher fuel use - than car X, that's a dealbreaker ! ". And I want Mazda to succeed.

[RoadRageous]

CX-3 is based on the Mazda 2...

It's based on the Mazda 3, with lightened structure.

http://www.autos.ca/first-drives/first-drive-2016-mazda-cx-3/

[dkaz]

CX-3 is based on the Mazda 2...

It's based on the Mazda 3, with lightened structure.

http://www.autos.ca/first-drives/first-drive-2016-mazda-cx-3/

The interior is as small as a Mazda 2 almost, with just a bigger cargo area. Three adults are cozy in a Mazda 3 and CX-5 and uncomfortable in a Mazda 2 and CX-3.

[johngenx]

MY PERFECT compact ute has the exterior of the CX-3, the interior of the HRV and the AWD and ground clearance of the Crosstrek.

[chignectohead]

Want to thank Jacob for the actual AWD rear suspension pictures.  I can see no difference bar the beam itself in the double photos of FWD and AWD provided by Mazda - if the springs have been moved, it is not shown, as they line up exactly the same way relative to the holes in the rear wheel guard, etc.

And the CX-3 is indeed based on the Mazda2. Mr. Yarkony simply got it wrong in the original article saying it was based on the 3. The floor pan is thicker on this CX-3 and incorporates the rear crash structure by itself, rather than with added pieces as on 3 and CX-5. The thicker floorpan's why it's quieter.

Torsion beam rear suspension exactly to this layout featured on the original Golf 40 years ago, coil springs and all. That car had an additional sway bar too on some models. This Mazda version seems to be an almost exact copy of the current Fiat 500, but as it's so simple a design, they all look pretty much the same these days.

[Bubba]

I was told earlier this week by a Mazda rep that a manual transmission would be available for the CX-3 in two years.

[RoadRageous]

CX-3 is based on the Mazda 2...

It's based on the Mazda 3, with lightened structure.

http://www.autos.ca/first-drives/first-drive-2016-mazda-cx-3/

The interior is as small as a Mazda 2 almost, with just a bigger cargo area. Three adults are cozy in a Mazda 3 and CX-3 and uncomfortable in a Mazda 2 and CX-5.

If you're switching your argument to attack the CX-3 on value-for-volume, then I'll point you to the bmw X1, porsche macan, mercedes GLA, and audi q3, as having similiar passenger room. Mazda is not alone at this vehicle size.

[Solstice2006]

I was told earlier this week by a Mazda rep that a manual transmission would be available for the CX-3 in two years.

We have heard hot air from Mazda before.  I don't care about manual in this segment.  But for Mazda to say in two years they will have a manual seems weird. 

Ask the Mazda rep what engines are they going to put in the next gen CX-9?   

[pg2676]

The rear is definitely an offset trailing arm with the "torsion beam" acting as a stabilizer bar mounted ahead of the rear differential.

[dkaz]

CX-3 is based on the Mazda 2...

It's based on the Mazda 3, with lightened structure.

http://www.autos.ca/first-drives/first-drive-2016-mazda-cx-3/

The interior is as small as a Mazda 2 almost, with just a bigger cargo area. Three adults are cozy in a Mazda 3 and CX-5 and uncomfortable in a Mazda 2 and CX-3.

If you're switching your argument to attack the CX-3 on value-for-volume, then I'll point you to the bmw X1, porsche macan, mercedes GLA, and audi q3, as having similiar passenger room. Mazda is not alone at this vehicle size.

I'm not. I'm just saying the Mazda CX-3 is more comparable to the Mazda 2, not the Mazda 3.

I also realized I accidentally mixed my models around.

[dkaz]

I was told earlier this week by a Mazda rep that a manual transmission would be available for the CX-3 in two years.

We have heard hot air from Mazda before.  I don't care about manual in this segment.  But for Mazda to say in two years they will have a manual seems weird. 

They were right when they said the Mazda 3 GT would come with a manual. I hope the CX-3 comes with a manual next year as opposed to two years from now.

[Solstice2006]

I was told earlier this week by a Mazda rep that a manual transmission would be available for the CX-3 in two years.

We have heard hot air from Mazda before.  I don't care about manual in this segment.  But for Mazda to say in two years they will have a manual seems weird. 

They were right when they said the Mazda 3 GT would come with a manual. I hope the CX-3 comes with a manual next year as opposed to two years from now.

Yes but they have always offered it in the Mazda3, just their would be a delay with the GT...

[JRM]

Just when I thought CUV's couldn't get any uglier.   And what's the point of such a tiny so called "utility" vehicle with cramped rear seat and cargo area?  Even a compact CUV makes little sense to me.

[quadzilla]

Just when I thought CUV's couldn't get any uglier.   And what's the point of such a tiny so called "utility" vehicle with cramped rear seat and cargo area? Even a compact CUV makes little sense to me.

But not to other people. That is why there are many choices out there.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Just when I thought CUV's couldn't get any uglier.   And what's the point of such a tiny so called "utility" vehicle with cramped rear seat and cargo area? Even a compact CUV makes little sense to me.

But not to other people. That is why there are many choices out there.

Honestly, from a utility point of view, the Mazda3 Sport is a better bet.  Larger back seat, and more cargo room.

The ONLY practical thing that this CX3 has over a 3 is available AWD, if that is important to you.

[Solstice2006]

Just when I thought CUV's couldn't get any uglier.   And what's the point of such a tiny so called "utility" vehicle with cramped rear seat and cargo area? Even a compact CUV makes little sense to me.

But not to other people. That is why there are many choices out there.

Honestly, from a utility point of view, the Mazda3 Sport is a better bet.  Larger back seat, and more cargo room.

The ONLY practical thing that this CX3 has over a 3 is available AWD, if that is important to you.

I wasn't sure on that.  Was a bit curious myself.  Have always discovered that Mazda posts their dimensions differently. 

[conwelpic]

for those curious/interested, the build feature is now on the Canadian Mazda website

http://www.mazda.ca/MciWeb/buildPrice.action

[EV-Light]

Thanks! I really like the CX3.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dkaz]

Just when I thought CUV's couldn't get any uglier.   And what's the point of such a tiny so called "utility" vehicle with cramped rear seat and cargo area?  Even a compact CUV makes little sense to me.

Tell that to the millions or RAV4 and CR-V owners.

[johngenx]

CX-3 is priced quite a bit under the Crosstrek.  (AWD version of CX-3 yes)