CX3 is about a foot shorter then the CX5
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Something is not right here. The shadow line of the 5 should extend 11 inches beyond the rear of the 3. Looks to be about 7 in or 8 at the most. I think the scale is off. Wheelbase match-up does not reflect 5" difference either.
Love my 5 but the 3 is much better proportioned, and is bound to be more nimble. Wonder if it will have any towing capability. Am planning on trading my Focus with its whacky dual clutch auto for one of these. If it can tow a 1000lbs I could (but probably won't) replace my CX5 with it.
Edit 12/13: In the picture, the 18" wheels are 39mm, This establishes a scale, 1" equals 2.17mm (39/18) Difference in length depicted is 13mm/2.17 or just under 6". If actual difference in length is indeed 11" then this composite shows only slightly more than half the actual difference in size between the vehicles. While I appreciate the artistry of the depiction and the skill that went into making it, its misleading and does not serve its intended purpose.
Love my 5 but the 3 is much better proportioned, and is bound to be more nimble. Wonder if it will have any towing capability. Am planning on trading my Focus with its whacky dual clutch auto for one of these. If it can tow a 1000lbs I could (but probably won't) replace my CX5 with it.
Edit 12/13: In the picture, the 18" wheels are 39mm, This establishes a scale, 1" equals 2.17mm (39/18) Difference in length depicted is 13mm/2.17 or just under 6". If actual difference in length is indeed 11" then this composite shows only slightly more than half the actual difference in size between the vehicles. While I appreciate the artistry of the depiction and the skill that went into making it, its misleading and does not serve its intended purpose.
hehh, yea thats what i meant about the wheel bases. since when did 5 inches become indistinguishable
I don't think the ground clearance is exactly the same. You can see in the picture that one is a little bit closer to the ground than another. I would assume the CX3 has a slightly lower clearance than the CX5.
Vehicles are not depicted on the same scale. See the simple math proof in my previous entry on this thread,dated 12/13 . The difference in ground clearance cannot be accurately assessed using this composite.
As the CX3 is shown larger relative to its actual size than the CX5 and ground clearance appears much the same in the picture, I would expect actual ground clearance to be less with CX3.
As the CX3 is shown larger relative to its actual size than the CX5 and ground clearance appears much the same in the picture, I would expect actual ground clearance to be less with CX3.
At least for now it creates some what of a decent reference point, better than anything else that might be around like this.
As the CX-3 hits the streets we'll probably see far more accurate information on this and many other key topics.
But still, your point was obviously an important one to bring up and factor in here.
As the CX-3 hits the streets we'll probably see far more accurate information on this and many other key topics.
But still, your point was obviously an important one to bring up and factor in here.
Joined
·
31 Posts
Thanks for the visual comparison.
One of my main worries is the nearly 8" difference vs. my current 2006 Mazda3 (176.6 in).
This will help put a visual not necessarily a scale in my mind while I weight all the variables before seeing it live in these next few months.
btw - here's the 2016 CX5 refreshed - not bad at all.
Yes!! It's called snow. The CX-5 is 8.5" and most Suby's are 8.7".
The CX-3 images make is look about the same as CX-5 but if it's only 6.3" That can become an issue in snow country. I wonder if ground clearance is different between FWD and AWD versions?
Joined
·
94 Posts
That's a very nice comparison. If it weren't for that low chin on the CX-3, it would probably gain another inch or two in ground clearance. The 3 is quite a bit lower than the others, but does make up for it with more cargo room than the CX-3. With the seats up, it's twice that of the CX-3. I haven't had any trouble fitting my stuff into the back of the 3 when going on a trip, while I know the CX-3 wouldn't be able to do so without flipping the seats down. Frankly, if Mazda just took the 3, raised the suspension 0.5-1.0 inch, raised the roofline 1.0-2.0 inches, and added an AWD option, that would be the perfect vehicle to me. Perhaps in the future they may do a CX-4 (unlikely), but in meantime I am loving the 3.Here is a more crude but more accurate depiction of the CX-5 VS CX-3 Envelope. The 3 is thrown in as well.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
