Mazda CX-3 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Well not a direct competitor but some of you have asked me for my comparison between the CX-3 and the CX-5 I now run. To put it somewhere logical I've added it here.

Here it is as delivered, the same colour and spec as the CX-3;



And you know I can't resist shodding up with winter tyres but when I bought these wheels off eBay, the tyres were only about half worn so to help me justify the cost, I thought I'd run off the original Mazda Yokos;



What is worse than the CX-3?

Well, the obvious things, it takes up more space in the garage and has much more area to satisfy my obsession with washing - sometimes three times a week (err, or more). It doesn't look as nice from any angle, inside or out. Then again, nothing does. The dash isn't as clear to read. The CX-3 has the latest technology but the CX-5 uses an older display which is not as bright.

What is better than the CX-3?

First of all, let me reiterate this space thing. I don't get it when people buy a CX-3 then complain about the space. I knew full well before I bought it what the score was. At the time it didn't matter and we (anchorwoman and myself) thought it would be just us most of the time but in fact, things changed and it turns out it wasn't going to work for us. I normally sit right back so with passengers I had to scoot right forward where I wasn't comfortable driving. The problem was then compounded by my personal major criticism of the CX-3 and something that wasn't so apparent during a test drive, for me, the suspension was too soft and highlighted the fact it is based on a 2 and not a 3. I know some of you like the suspension but when five up, the car becomes wallowy and a tad unnerving. Additionally, on my way to work, I have to negotiate a long stretch of speed bumps - big ones that required me to crawl over them to save bottoming out and now I'm back to just driving normally like I did in previous RAV4s. They don't flinch. And my last critism of the CX-3 was the over bolstering of the seat. It's just another of my peculiarities that I don't like bucket type seats. I did know full well when I bought it but thought/hoped that I would get used to it. I did like the suede panels. The CX-5 is all leather which is not as nice to sit on and doesn't get as warm as quickly as the CX-3 did in winter.

Right, that addresses my three major critisms that provoked the change. Now I'll cover some of the benefits of the CX-5, some obvious, some less so. There is no doubt when you consider the difference in list price, at least in the UK, you get an awful lot more car for your money. While the gearbox and the rear diff/AWD unit are identical, the amount of sheet metal, engine, suspension, wheels etc, seem to outweigh that cost difference. It should cost a lot more or the CX-3 should cost a lot less. Maybe in future revisions, the detail in the CX-3 will improve; there are all illuminated window switches, all auto up/down window switches, photochromic interior mirror as standard. There are also twin horns. Obviously, the storage issue is resolved through physical size and there is a cavernous storage box, wide console and electronic parking brake - another expensive addition that the CX-3 was crying out for in order to make storage space on the narrow console. The LED headlights are slightly different and certainly have a much longer range. On the CX-3, they physically move to look round corners but on the CX-5, it has 24 main beam LEDs (12 on each side) which respond to the windshield mounted sensor to light up different areas of the road. It still looks round corners but by altering which LEDs are lit. It also has 3 side mounted LEDs on each side that create a floodlit effect when stood at a junction to illuminate pedestrians and cyclists etc (you can just about see them in the photo). I thought these headlights would be gimmicky but it's worth going out in the dark just to watch what they are up to. Not only do they auto dip but they can just dip one or either side of a car you are following - quite amazing! There is a power socket in the boot/trunk which solves the rear camera power supply but for any of you contemplating a rear camera, here's a tip. Do not run the feed through the right hand side rubber gaiter. I did on the CX-3 and this CX-5 and I've completely screwed the reception of both the DAB and conventional radio. I thought it was poor on the CX-3 and when I got this 5, it was wonderful by comparison and could pick up weak stations out in the sticks where I live. That is until I fed the power supply through the same gaiter as the antenna then it was back to only getting a few of the strongest stations. There must be a field set up that it doesn't like. That is a job for another day, I will run 12v all the way round to the other gaiter and in through the left side and then add an accessory socket inside the door (my camera has the 12v to 5v dropper inside the plug so I can't snip it off). The facia is nice, it feels soft and rubbery and the infotainment screen is embedded in the dash which anchorwoman prefers. The auto A/C is superb. I didn't mind the knobs in the 3 but there are more levels of control in the 5 and I'm pleased to report that it is just as unbelievably hot as the 3. I can make my shoes smell like they are melting.

One last thing. The rear wiper is big enough that it wipes a big area and while I used to leave the rear wiper on intermittent on the 3 for the sake of the rear camera, this 5 hardly ever gets wet. It doesn't suffer from immediately getting filthy as soon as the road is wet, let alone raining. Using the rear washer just cleans the glass and doesn't require follow up wipes to clear water left dribbling down. Just little things but they appeal to a fusspot like me.

Actually, another last thing. It pulls like a train. There is a 150 and a 175 option of diesels in the UK of which I have the latter and it can deliver 420Nm of torque. It is quite capable of pushing you back in the seat but for normal driving, light throttle makes good progress and quite good fuel economy. To give you some idea, the 2.5G engine has 185 ft/lbs of torque and the 2.2D has 310 ft/lbs.

If you have any specific questions, fire away.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Comparison pics......





Winter wheels.........



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
What is the apples to apples price difference between the two? In the US its about $5,000 which is a hefty difference. Those in other markets will hate me for saying this but a loaded CX3 is $33,000 which is a lot for the class. You're close to getting into a Mercedes GLA for that price.

Unfortunately we don't get those fancy LEDs in the US as they are not approved. The CX5 here uses the same setup as the CX3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Anchorman, with all respect to your choice, but you are comparing two so much diferent cars. Put the price aside, we all knew what we will get for our money. You are comparing diferent class, filosofy of car it self. Of course it is bigger, has better space, powerful engine. But do all people need all that. Cx3 is great car and saying how 5 is better in almost all aspects is silly. For that money of cx 5 you can get 2 years old bmw x6 and write down how it is superior to cx5. i drove x6 and it is uffff...

Bottom line is when you bought cx3 you made wrong decision, many people didnt.
Someone would have to pay me to drive the cx5.

dont get me wrong this are just my toughts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
IMO, different class but I expect there are shoppers town between the two, weighing size and price with features and performance. I friend of mine just did the reverse, going from a CX5 to the CX3.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
DJ. Will have to check and come back. Things have changed a bit now but when I bought my CX-3 last year it was at launch and they flatly refused to discount the car. Conversely, the CX-5 can be bought quite heavily discounted and the prices I paid were not that far apart (I would be guessing but I think $1000-1500) but I don't have the paperwork to hand.

Nik. Of course you are right. There would be no point Mazda producing these two models if they weren't different. However, there are two other separate threads running where members have asked how I find the two models in comparison and as they were attached to none related subjects, I've tried to do it in its own topic.

Forgetting the size aspect and looking at the CX-3, what I've tried to indicate is that the CX-3 price wise in the UK was pitched at the premium end of the scale and that money would have got me into an AWD CX5, RAV4 or CRV albeit a slightly lower spec. What I've tried to say, perhaps not very well, is that I think Mazda could have completed the job a bit better by adding a bit more detail like the window switches, rear view mirror and twin horns. I think for a small amount in production costs they could have just pushed the boat out that bit more. I'm absolutely not trying to say that the CX-5 is better, I am saying that for the money I paid, it represents better value. It's Mazda that have got it wrong - it doesn't make sense - either the CX-5 should cost more or I suspect, the CX-3 should cost less.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
IMO, different class but I expect there are shoppers town between the two, weighing size and price with features and performance. I friend of mine just did the reverse, going from a CX5 to the CX3.
You know what DJ, I would ideally like a CX-3 as a second car. Its better in my opinion than and similar sized Ford, GM, VW etc. Here in the UK, there is no AWD petrol/gas automatic. For that combination, you have to take diesel and in the CX-3, that is the 1.5 version. I would have much preferred the CX-3 with the 2.0G engine like you guys have. In the CX-5, we only have the diesel powered AWD auto. Why they push us down this avenue, who knows, maybe import restrictions. Ideally this time, I would have had the 2.5G, AWD auto in the CX-5 which is the standard spec for the rest of Europe. My comments regarding the engine power might be of interest to any readers that are stuck with the same limited choice. The 1.5 diesel goes quite well but you have to plan overtaking properly or you could kill yourself. The CX-5 is right at the other end of the scale and it launches itself when you open the taps.

In reality, I can't justify both but I can assure readers that if it were practical, a nicely spec'd CX-3 would sit alongside my CX-5. I can't get excited about any of the competition and that includes overpriced, overrated, BMWs and Mercs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Maybe they went that way so they have space with improvements in redesign.
I don't know what those items would have cost extra but I would have thought maybe $100 in production. I don't know how they cost a car or arrive at the list price but I suspect it is more a marketing issue than a true reflection.

I'm still frequenting this forum because I'm a big fan of the CX-3. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
The 'goodies' on the CX-5 are certainly attractive. However I prefer the size and looks of the CX-3, not that I'd be disappointed if I had a CX-5 I might add. Maybe on the next version of the CX-3 some of those items will make an appearance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
I wanted a CX-5, because it had more space. However, my girlfriend found it to big (we are only with the 2 of us) and preferred the CX-3. The CX-3 is better looking and sporty of course.

And, the CX-5 is around EUR 5k higher priced in comparable configuration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
Comparing On The Road prices on the UK Mazda Price List, where comparisons can be made on drivetrain and roughly on spec name :-

Petrol SE-L Nav 2WD CX5 is £3,600 dearer (roughly $5,200)
Petrol Sport Nav 2WD CX5 is £4,200 dearer (roughly $6,000)

Diesel SE-L Nav 2WD CX5 is £4,000 dearer (roughly $5,800)
Diesel Sport Nav 2WD CX5 is £5,600 dearer (roughly $8,000)
Diesel Sport Nav AWD CX5 is £6,400 dearer (roughly $9,200)
Diesel Sport Nav Auto AWD CX5 is £6,300 dearer (roughly $9,000)

In all cases, the petrol CX5 has significantly more bhp due to a tweaked engine, I believe, whereas the diesel CX5 has considerably more bhp due to a larger engine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Comparing On The Road prices on the UK Mazda Price List, where comparisons can be made on drivetrain and roughly on spec name :-

Petrol SE-L Nav 2WD CX5 is £3,600 dearer (roughly $5,200)
Petrol Sport Nav 2WD CX5 is £4,200 dearer (roughly $6,000)

Diesel SE-L Nav 2WD CX5 is £4,000 dearer (roughly $5,800)
Diesel Sport Nav 2WD CX5 is £5,600 dearer (roughly $8,000)
Diesel Sport Nav AWD CX5 is £6,400 dearer (roughly $9,200)
Diesel Sport Nav Auto AWD CX5 is £6,300 dearer (roughly $9,000)

In all cases, the petrol CX5 has significantly more bhp due to a tweaked engine, I believe, whereas the disel CX5 has consdierably more bhp due to a larger engine.
For the spec of the car I had v current, the list difference is £5500 which I suppose is reasonable for the extra value. What made it doable for me was the amount of discount which I think was 4K ish. I could have had a grey with white interior with another £1000 off as they had it in the compound but anchorman was insistent on red. I didn't choose white this time as it is just all white and not as nice as the CX-3 with black suede and red piping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: st3v3cx-3

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
Awesome as always Anchorman. All I can say is that the CX-5 is definitely up for a redesign. This and the 3 look outdated compared to the CX-3, the new CX-9, and the 6. I could see myself trading the CX-3 for a CX-5 when Mazda decides to redesign it. I'm really missing a lot of the features/benefits the CX-5 has but the CX-3 is missing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Awesome as always Anchorman. All I can say is that the CX-5 is definitely up for a redesign. This and the 3 look outdated compared to the CX-3, the new CX-9, and the 6. I could see myself trading the CX-3 for a CX-5 when Mazda decides to redesign it. I'm really missing a lot of the features/benefits the CX-5 has but the CX-3 is missing.
Me2. But it will take another 2-3 years I expect. Which is perfect for me ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
And me too. I may just have one more before I retire which would be the new model. Want to see it? Just ask Ancs!

It may show its face next year in LA..........

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
I'm glad I have one of each so I don't have to choose. ;)

One other quirk I've noticed is related to how dirty the rear gate gets. The reverse camera on my CX-3 is seemingly always covered in gunk, reducing visibility on the cam. My wife's CX-5 reverse cam stays much cleaner for longer.

It's surprising how much difference the 2.5L engine makes in the CX-5 even though the car is several hundred pounds heavier. I fully expected the added weight to balance out power-to-weight ratio and they would feel about the same, but the CX-5 does feel faster. It also helps some that I'm comparing FWD CX-5 to AWD CX-3. AWD suffers added parasitic loss in total horsepower put to the ground, but I haven't seen any comparison tests to see what the actual difference is. In the CX-5, unless there's some loose material or water/snow/ice on the road, the FWD doesn't break loose under very hard acceleration. Traction control seems to work well without being overbearing.

I'm surprised at the improvement in fuel econ in the CX-5 compared to CX-3. We routinely get better mileage in the CX-5 by around 4-5 MPG with almost identical commutes for work. With our particular cars, the CX-5 is clearly the bigger car with bigger engine but more efficient drivetrain. The bigger engine means you don't need to get into the throttle so heavily for similar acceleration as the CX-3, so the bigger engine is less frequently running in an inefficient operating range. This was a surprising revelation for me. Totally unexpected for me that the CX-5 would give superior MPG over the CX-3.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I'm glad I have one of each so I don't have to choose. ;)

One other quirk I've noticed is related to how dirty the rear gate gets. The reverse camera on my CX-3 is seemingly always covered in gunk, reducing visibility on the cam. My wife's CX-5 reverse cam stays much cleaner for longer.

It's surprising how much difference the 2.5L engine makes in the CX-5 even though the car is several hundred pounds heavier. I fully expected the added weight to balance out power-to-weight ratio and they would feel about the same, but the CX-5 does feel faster. It also helps some that I'm comparing FWD CX-5 to AWD CX-3. AWD suffers added parasitic loss in total horsepower put to the ground, but I haven't seen any comparison tests to see what the actual difference is. In the CX-5, unless there's some loose material or water/snow/ice on the road, the FWD doesn't break loose under very hard acceleration. Traction control seems to work well without being overbearing.

I'm surprised at the improvement in fuel econ in the CX-5 compared to CX-3. We routinely get better mileage in the CX-5 by around 4-5 MPG with almost identical commutes for work. With our particular cars, the CX-5 is clearly the bigger car with bigger engine but more efficient drivetrain. The bigger engine means you don't need to get into the throttle so heavily for similar acceleration as the CX-3, so the bigger engine is less frequently running in an inefficient operating range. This was a surprising revelation for me. Totally unexpected for me that the CX-5 would give superior MPG over the CX-3.
Hopefully this will encourage Mazda to be a bit more adventurous with the CX-3. ;)
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top