Mazda CX-3 Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Hi, all. Back before this car was released, or even revealed, I had already deemed it as my next car purchase. How could I go wrong with a sweet handling, fuel efficient, AWD, subcompact "crossover" w/ Mazda's home run Kodo styling? As it turns out, plenty. I don't want to bore you all with lengthy paragraphs, so I'll jump right into bullets!

Negatives (Huge Ones That Can't Be Overcome)
  • Pathetic, almost useless cargo space (my Mazda 2 seemed to have a roomier and deeper cargo area)
  • Pathetic rear seat passanger space (again, my Mazda 2 seemed to be roomier)
  • Low ground clearance (sorry, but if you're gonna be a faux crossover, throw some damn increased ground clearance... the CX-5 has 8.9 inches of ground clearance and didn't sacrifice fun)
  • Tight cabin (feels very tight, tighter than my Mazda 2)
  • OK fuel economy (HR-V gets similar while being gobs roomier w/ actual functionality)
Positives

  • Looks GREAT and the CERAMIC METALLIC is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS (hoping for it to show up on the next gen CX-5 or larger next gen CX-3)
  • Fun to drive!
I considered the HR-V, Renegade (awesome looks, but don't trust Chrysler reliability AT ALL), and Ford Escape (they were offering 5K off MSRP). I ended up going w/ a 2016 Impreza hatcback w/ CVT. It's a LOT roomier, more fuel efficient (rated 37 highway and I was able to achieve 47 mpg on a road trip from central MA to Syracuse NY to Boston). Subaru's AWD is legendary and I can really feel the difference on wet roads. The Impreza is dorky looking, but in an endearing way.

Anyways, I had REALLY HIGH HOPES for the CX-3, but I think Mazda really dropped the ball. Initially, I was really disappointed by the weird window lines (made the car look bulbous), but I've come to really like the look. No, I'm not a hater! My previous car was a 2013 Mazda 2 in Clearwater Blue that I LOVED, but ultimately needed something bigger and with AWD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
I can't knock the cargo space and if I wanted something bigger I could have gotten it.The cx3 is perfect for my needs,great looking,good handling enough power and fun to drive.
I didn't even know all the features when I bought like the blindside monitoring heated seats and a couple other things.
I do like Subarus as they would have been my second choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Enjoy the impreza

I don't see the point of a bigger CX-3 when Mazda already offer a line up of the CX-3, CX-5 and CX-9 and with the looming CX-4.

The dropping the ball comment is unfair. There are plenty of cars that have the features you describe as the CX-3's negatives. They have very successfully differentiated themselves from the subcompact market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
This is all subjective anyway. You have reasons to buy the Subaru while others (my wife included) prefers the CX-3. We did not buy the CX to be able to haul 2 kayaks and a 36 foot Airstream. But we did in fact take a 5000 mile trip in the little beast with our two dogs and all our gear so space was not a problem, for us anyway... Our fuel economy just keeps getting better the more miles we put on it!!! Getting 34+ MPG with auto and AWD. No complaints here. Good luck with the Subaru!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
550 Posts
You said it in your last sentence: You needed something bigger than a Mazda 2. The CX-3 is based on the Mazda 2 so it's no surprise that it didn't meet with your size requirement. If you wanted something bigger, why didn't you look at the CX-5 (which is based on the Mazda 3 which is the direct competitor with the Impreza)?

I would take the time to deconstruct your points individually but I think I'm finally getting to the age where I just don't care any more. I'm more interested in why you felt the need to come here and announce this. You have 5 whole posts here, including this one so it's not like you've really bonded with the community. Honestly, it's something I'd expect of a troll except is far more subtle than what the average troll is capable of.

Anyway, enjoy your agricultural equipment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
You said it in your last sentence: You needed something bigger than a Mazda 2. The CX-3 is based on the Mazda 2 so it's no surprise that it didn't meet with your size requirement. If you wanted something bigger, why didn't you look at the CX-5 (which is based on the Mazda 3 which is the direct competitor with the Impreza)?

I would take the time to deconstruct your points individually but I think I'm finally getting to the age where I just don't care any more. I'm more interested in why you felt the need to come here and announce this. You have 5 whole posts here, including this one so it's not like you've really bonded with the community. Honestly, it's something I'd expect of a troll except is far more subtle than what the average troll is capable of.

Anyway, enjoy your agricultural equipment.
I came back because I am a Mazda fan. The next CX-5 is going to be GORGEOUS. It's looking like it's gonna be a shrunken version of the CX-9. Will look to trade my Impreza in in 4 years or so. The Mazda 2 was 155" long. The CX-3 is 168" long, yet feels smaller and more cramped than the 2. Where did the space go?

I'm disappointed is all because I was very much looking forward to buying one.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
I came back because I am a Mazda fan. The next CX-5 is going to be GORGEOUS. It's looking like it's gonna be a shrunken version of the CX-9. Will look to trade my Impreza in in 4 years or so. The Mazda 2 was 155" long. The CX-3 is 168" long, yet feels smaller and more cramped than the 2. Where did the space go?

I'm disappointed is all because I was very much looking forward to buying one.
I often read reports on forthcoming cars but I would consider it stupid not to go and look at one before buying it. My CX-3 proved too small for me but only due to a change of circumstance, nobody forced or tricked me into buying one and I enjoyed it.

When they share a floorpan across models, it has no reflection on the finished dimensions. They only get 2 seats in a MX-5 but it's longer than a 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
Its probably just me but I cant get into CVTs at all which is pretty much what subaru puts in their cars/crossover+ nowadays. Coming from a nightmare of cvt issues in multiple nissan cars in the family, that was one of the huge deciding factors for me anyways. (I was specifically looking for an automatic as opposed to manual this time around)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Well, compared to the HR-V, the Rengade, the Kuga (which is what the Escape is called in Europe) and the XV (we can't buy the Impreza in Denmark and the XV is the one closed to the CX-3), the CX-3 beats them all on price and equipment. The HR-V is the only one which is comparable in size, the other ones are larger and closer to the CX-5 in size.

So for us, the CX-3 is great. If we after more space we would have looked at the CX-5 or the 6 Estate/Wagon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
I guess it really just depends on what you're looking for and what features of a car you consider primary. For me, looks and driving are absolutely primary features, so I wouldn't even consider an HR-V or Renegade or Juke or any of these other ugly weird CUVs. A CUV shouldn't even be about cargo space, it just makes no sense to make that the primary selling point of one like Honda has made their HR-V. Same with their Fit, an ugly weird looking car that makes zero sense when you look at it.

Secondary feature of a car for me is the software/infotainment. If I like two cars the same for their primary features, then the deciding factor would be which one has a superior software. For example even though I hate the fact the CX-3 (and Mazdas as a whole) has shitty infotainment and no Carplay/Android Auto, I would not choose a Honda Civic or something over it because the Mazda absolutely blows it out of the water in terms of looks and driving.

Least important thing for me then in a car is cargo space. I really don't care at all. I don't take lots of road trips that require lots of cargo space, and I've driven with two other adults in my CX-3 with no problems. Sure the backseats aren't super comfortable, but are still far better than a coach seat in an airplane. And at most someone is sitting back there for 45 minutes.

Mazda makes cars that make the driver the center of attention, rather than your passengers or cargo space. That's what they emphasize and what they're known for. Honda, Toyota, and Subaru are known for making boring family cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I guess it really just depends on what you're looking for and what features of a car you consider primary. For me, looks and driving are absolutely primary features, so I wouldn't even consider an HR-V or Renegade or Juke or any of these other ugly weird CUVs. A CUV shouldn't even be about cargo space, it just makes no sense to make that the primary selling point of one like Honda has made their HR-V. Same with their Fit, an ugly weird looking car that makes zero sense when you look at it.

Secondary feature of a car for me is the software/infotainment. If I like two cars the same for their primary features, then the deciding factor would be which one has a superior software. For example even though I hate the fact the CX-3 (and Mazdas as a whole) has shitty infotainment and no Carplay/Android Auto, I would not choose a Honda Civic or something over it because the Mazda absolutely blows it out of the water in terms of looks and driving.

Least important thing for me then in a car is cargo space. I really don't care at all. I don't take lots of road trips that require lots of cargo space, and I've driven with two other adults in my CX-3 with no problems. Sure the backseats aren't super comfortable, but are still far better than a coach seat in an airplane. And at most someone is sitting back there for 45 minutes.

Mazda makes cars that make the driver the center of attention, rather than your passengers or cargo space. That's what they emphasize and what they're known for. Honda, Toyota, and Subaru are known for making boring family cars.

I totally respect that you focus only on looks/driving dynamics. That's totally cool. I look at the big picture. Since I go camping 3-4X a year, cargo space is extremely important to me. I'm just disappointed that Mazda dropped the ball on the CX-3 when it came to utility. Fuel economy is also disappointing. The Impreza is bigger, longer, roomier, has much more cargo space, similar in horsepower (140) and is rated 37 highway. Where's the game changing Sky-Activ technology? Impreza is also close to a 5 year old design...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
But the thing is, if Mazda had focused on utility (again, for a car in that segment, I find it weird automakers would focus on utility), then it would've looked as ugly/weird and would've been as boring to drive as the competitors. When you're dealing with a car this size, you have to compromise something. if I wanted a utility car, I would not look to purchase a CUV at all, I'd go up a size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Before the CX-3, I had a BMW X5. It was obviously bigger and could carry more people/cargo. The wife has a Pathfinder and can carry 7 people, so I don't need a big vehicle. I wanted something small and fun with all wheel drive. I looked at Mini, Juke, and HR-V before the CX-3, and after that, it was a no-brainer. The Mazda looks a thousand times better, feels better to drive, and the wife even loves it. Can I carry the wife and two kids if I need? Of course. Will I take it for a week to the beach with the family? No way - that's not why I got it. If I wanted to carry the family and luggage, I would have stayed with the X5 or looked at something comparable in size. It's all in what you want to do with the ride and finding one that fits AND that you like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Same with their Fit, an ugly weird looking car that makes zero sense when you look at it.
Hey - don't you go disparaging the Fit! ;) The new design is much nicer than the one ('08 model) my wife had before. Would I get one? Heck no - the CX-3 spanks it in the looks/features/drive department - but Honda somehow put ALL of their design mojo into that little beast, at a very nice price to boot. For example, we recently took a week's vacation (me, wife and two girls) and, considering my wife packs for the upcoming apocalypse, we were not cramped at all. It's like a Tardis on wheels! Besides, it's freaking YELLOW! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
lol hey I'm sure the Fit fits more people and stuff than the CX3, and the name fits it (wow so many fit puns), but it still looks way too weird to me, even though I agree it looks better than the old generation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Different stroke for different folks. The fact the CX3 is small and "tight" is what I like about it. It reminds me of my old CRX Si in that way, and also its fun to drive and sporty nature.

I didnt need or want something with a larger cargo area. If I did, I would have picked a different car. You actually can still pack a decent amount of stuff in the car with the seats down (even with a car seat) - Ive never had to leave behind anything I needed to carry!

Im a big Subaru fan, I had 2 WRXes prior to the CX3 and my wife has an Outback. The Impreza 5 door was my 2nd choice actually, but to me it fell short on driving dynamics/handling, equipment level for the $ (no LED, HUD, adaptive headlamps), and of course - looks. If there was no CX3, Id probably be driving a Impreza 5 door or XV.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top