I was bored on a Sunday, and I'm kinda hinting for my roommate to replace her Chrysler PT Cruiser and Smart fortwo with something else
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/C8BC23CA-1034-40A3-85AB-460356BE7750.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/C8BC23CA-1034-40A3-85AB-460356BE7750.jpg.html)
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/14573F01-36D5-4DFE-8ACC-AE43A71B9034.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/14573F01-36D5-4DFE-8ACC-AE43A71B9034.jpg.html)
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/3B38950F-C13C-45F8-A863-0B72851D8212.jpg) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/Vannette_12/media/3B38950F-C13C-45F8-A863-0B72851D8212.jpg.html)
Positives
- 2.0L is peppy and the right amount of HP/Torque without any lagginess that comes with the smaller downsized turbo units in other cars of this style
- Amazing interior that is very easy to use, and feels more expensive than it really is
- Excellent ride and handling
- Feels like a small car that really loves the curves, it really is a pleasure to drive
Negatives
- 6AT is a bit indecisive
- Kinda loud on acceleration
- Holy shit, this thing can get to $30K very quickly
- Automatic only.
- Rear space isn't good; it was OK for my body, but i'm not very tall. If I were taller, that rear bench would be nearly unusable.
- This is an SUV? Why is it so low to the ground? It's marginally taller than a Mazda 3, and i reckon it has maybe 1.5" more ground clearance
-----------
It's a wonderful car, but the fairly midlevel Touring model I drove stickered at $26K. Basically, you're paying more money for less car; the Mazda 3 is basically identical in every way, but cheaper and more room, and slightly better fuel economy. I think if this car were more SUV like; (i'd say the HR-V is wayy more SUV like compared to the Fit), I would like this car's concept more. The Juke feels more SUV like, and the Renegade feels very much so like a SUV, but then again I guess not driving like an SUV, that is this appeal of this car. But why get an SUV that's not an SUV? I think a lot of this could be solved by jacking it up further in the air, but that would likely compromise ride and handling.
I'd take this car if it were a Mazda 2; but then again I was kinda cold on the Scion iA I drove a few weeks ago.
I can't imagine what kind of person would own both a PT Loser and a DumbForTwo.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on December 13, 2015, 07:19:10 PM
I can't imagine what kind of person would own both a PT Loser and a DumbForTwo.
Certainly a strange combo. :confused:
Quote from: giant_mtb on December 13, 2015, 07:25:28 PM
Certainly a strange combo. :confused:
Inherited from her parents.
The PT somehow still runs well despite 217k
I'm in a CX-3 test car right now and I share most of your impressions, including the car's existential pointlessness. It's well-executed in ways that are quite appealing from the driver's seat, but not in the ways that give you much of a reason to buy it. You'd have to *really* want the closest alternative to an all-wheel-drive Mazda3, despite less space, less power, and a higher price.
What would have been great would be if they made this thing a little bit lower and a lot less expensive, gave it a manual transmission, and called it a Mazda2. And, alternatively, I'd agree that it would need to be taller and roomier to be a crossover alternative.
At least up here, there's a market for this sort of thing. I see it as the successor to the Suzuki SX4.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 13, 2015, 07:11:22 PM
- Holy shit, this thing can get to $30K very quickly
-----------
It's a wonderful car, but the fairly midlevel Touring model I drove stickered at $26K. Basically, you're paying more money for less car;
I'd take this car if it were a Mazda 2; but then again I was kinda cold on the Scion iA I drove a few weeks ago.
In a nutshell, the price differential between the Mazda 2 and the CX-3 is why we're only getting the later and not the former. Considering the CX-3 is really little more than a taller 2 riding on jacked-up suspension, the profit margins must be enormous! Why would Mazda want to sell anyone a Mazda 2 for $16K when they can sell every CX-3 they can make for ten grand more? It sucks for those of us who'd like a nice small car without all of the bogus SUV-esque pretensions, but the market has spoken and voted with their wallets.
That said, if you're going to insist upon buying a CUV and you don't need U-Haul-sized carrying ability, these mini-CUVs make a lot more sense than a small sedan with a nearly useless lunchbox-sized trunk. They're essentially B-Segment hatchbacks with a higher hip-point. I can see myself in one of these, at least after my youngest leaves the nest and I no longer need my bigger and more family-friendly Mazda 5.
Mazda has done a good job with the styling and the reviews I've seen so far have been pretty positive. Auto-only is disappointing but that's par for the course these days. Market forces, etc. I'm sure we'll be seeing quite a few of these on the roads very soon.
I recommended this vehicle to my 74 yr old mother. Efficient, good in winter, and easy for her to get in/out of.
Kevin/Brady, how's the seat height/ingress-egress/visibility?
Quote from: Madman on December 14, 2015, 04:02:22 AM
In a nutshell, the price differential between the Mazda 2 and the CX-3 is why we're only getting the later and not the former. Considering the CX-3 is really little more than a taller 2 riding on jacked-up suspension, the profit margins must be enormous! Why would Mazda want to sell anyone a Mazda 2 for $16K when they can sell every CX-3 they can make for ten grand more? It sucks for those of us who'd like a nice small car without all of the bogus SUV-esque pretensions, but the market has spoken and voted with their wallets.
That said, if you're going to insist upon buying a CUV and you don't need U-Haul-sized carrying ability, these mini-CUVs make a lot more sense than a small sedan with a nearly useless lunchbox-sized trunk. They're essentially B-Segment hatchbacks with a higher hip-point. I can see myself in one of these, at least after my youngest leaves the nest and I no longer need my bigger and more family-friendly Mazda 5.
Mazda has done a good job with the styling and the reviews I've seen so far have been pretty positive. Auto-only is disappointing but that's par for the course these days. Market forces, etc. I'm sure we'll be seeing quite a few of these on the roads very soon.
But this one is a B-segment hatchback with pretty much the same hip point as a Honda Fit or Versa Note. It doesn't feel crossover-y. And cargo space is poor behind the rear seat -- talk about lunchbox. About half the Fit/Versa volume behind the rear seat and a much smaller rear seat. Rear visibility is also much worse. Front-seat entry exit is pretty easy, but again, I don't feel like the seat is noticeably higher than in those other two. The CX-3 is less than an inch taller than them.
It's basically a CUV minus the utility and minus the crossover aspect. It's just an expensive tiny hatchback.
That said, it does have all-wheel-drive available, so it does cover the winter criterion. But I think you'd have to love the premium feel and/or the handling to put up with all the things it doesn't do so well, while also demanding all-wheel-drive rather than a cheaper, lighter, and potentially even more fun car. In the same class, the Subaru Crosstrek and Honda HR-V are much more useful vehicles and a better buy.
Quote from: ifcar on December 14, 2015, 05:55:34 AM
But this one is a B-segment hatchback with pretty much the same hip point as a Honda Fit or Versa Note. It doesn't feel crossover-y. And cargo space is poor behind the rear seat -- talk about lunchbox. About half the Fit/Versa volume behind the rear seat and a much smaller rear seat. Rear visibility is also much worse. Front-seat entry exit is pretty easy, but again, I don't feel like the seat is noticeably higher than in those other two. The CX-3 is less than an inch taller than them.
It's basically a CUV minus the utility and minus the crossover aspect. It's just an expensive tiny hatchback.
That said, it does have all-wheel-drive available, so it does cover the winter criterion. But I think you'd have to love the premium feel and/or the handling to put up with all the things it doesn't do so well, while also demanding all-wheel-drive rather than a cheaper, lighter, and potentially even more fun car. In the same class, the Subaru Crosstrek and Honda HR-V are much more useful vehicles and a better buy.
Yep, I agree. It's not as high of a hip point as the Renegade and Juke, and feels more similar to a Yaris or Fit. And it's low to the ground, and doesn't have much room, and it's kind of expensive.
Save for AWD - it feels really ergonomically similar to a Mazda 3.
I'm renting a CX5 now. Visibility is very good and ingress/egress wasn't a problem for my 93 year old grandmother.
Quote from: Laconian on December 14, 2015, 01:31:19 PM
I'm renting a CX5 now. Visibility is very good and ingress/egress wasn't a problem for my 93 year old grandmother.
This is a CX3. This car probably is worse since the rear seat is so tiny.
Yeah I was shocked by how small the cx3 is. Looks good but pretty worthless from a utility standpoint.
Quote from: MrH on December 14, 2015, 06:05:16 PM
Yeah I was shocked by how small the cx3 is. Looks good but pretty worthless from a utility standpoint.
It's size isn't the issue, it's packaging is. The HRV and Juke are better SUV type vehicles. This car is basically a hatchback.
For perspective on CX-3 size and shape, here's a picture of my test car today:
(http://i.imgur.com/sEznFbr.jpg)
It's got a lot of inches on the i3. And the i3 isn't that small, really.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 14, 2015, 06:25:03 PM
It's size isn't the issue, it's packaging is. The HRV and Juke are better SUV type vehicles. This car is basically a hatchback.
Yeah well, the Outback is basically a station wagon. Like the Outback, it's a stylish lifestyle option.
Quote from: Rockraven on December 14, 2015, 06:58:39 PM
Yeah well, the Outback is basically a station wagon. Like the Outback, it's a stylish lifestyle option.
Not true, though. The Outback doesn't have a Legacy Wagon. And even still, the Outback had more ride height over the Legacy Wagon. This is basically a smaller Mazda 3 with AWD.
It drives well, I mean, it won me over on dynamics alone. But I also realize the Mazda 3 is just as well, and does everything better.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 14, 2015, 07:00:57 PM
Not true, though. The Outback doesn't have a Legacy Wagon. And even still, the Outback had more ride height over the Legacy Wagon. This is basically a smaller Mazda 3 with AWD.
It drives well, I mean, it won me over on dynamics alone. But I also realize the Mazda 3 is just as well, and does everything better.
Yeah, C&D basically said the same. AWD in a small efficient car is a big draw up here though, and I get the appeal of the CX-3.
Kinda like the Crosstrek?
(As far as I can tell, it's just as small as an Imprezza)
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on December 15, 2015, 06:01:00 AM
Kinda like the Crosstrek?
(As far as I can tell, it's just as small as an Imprezza)
The Crosstrek is an Impreza with a higher ride height and body cladding (same as the old Outback Sport). CX-3 doesn't appear to have much added ride height versus a Mazda2.
The other difference is that the Mazda2 is one size smaller than the Impreza. The CX-3 is longer than a Mazda2 but not much taller, while the Crosstrek is the same size as a car that was larger to begin with, just higher off the ground.
I see the CX-5 as more a Crosstrek competitor. The CX-3 is more like that Buick mini crossover.
Quote from: MX793 on December 15, 2015, 08:41:27 AM
I see the CX-5 as more a Crosstrek competitor. The CX-3 is more like that Buick mini crossover.
But less SUV like than that as well
Quote from: MX793 on December 15, 2015, 08:41:27 AM
I see the CX-5 as more a Crosstrek competitor. The CX-3 is more like that Buick mini crossover.
Where would that leave the Forester to you?
Today's comparison photo, by the way:
(http://i.imgur.com/yJjs5Hx.jpg)
Quote from: ifcar on December 15, 2015, 09:56:53 AM
Where would that leave the Forester to you?
Today's comparison photo, by the way:
(http://i.imgur.com/yJjs5Hx.jpg)
What a looker though. It needs the Mazdaspeed treatment.
Quote from: ifcar on December 15, 2015, 09:56:53 AM
Where would that leave the Forester to you?
Today's comparison photo, by the way:
(http://i.imgur.com/yJjs5Hx.jpg)
The Forester is dead to me.
I kind of put that in the same segment, but on the larger/pricier end.
But the Forester is neither larger nor pricier than the CX-5...
Had I known this would be the conversation, I'd have taken the picture to capture the Forester that was parked right in front of that CX-5. :lol:
Off the top of my head (and I'm sure I've missed a few).........
B-Segment crossover: Buick Encore (AKA Opel/Vauxhall Mokka), Chevrolet Trax, Fiat 500X Ford EcoSport, Honda HR-V, Hyundai Santa Cruz, Jeep Renegade, Mazda CX-3, MINI Countryman, Nissan Juke, Renault Kadjar, Skoda Yeti, SsangYong Tivoli, Subaru XV Crosstrek.
C-Segment crossover: Audi Q3, BMW X1, Buick Envision, Chevrolet Equinox, Ford Escape (AKA Kuga), GMC Terrain, Honda CR-V, Hyundai Tucson, Jeep Compass/Patriot, Kia Sportage, Mazda CX-5, Mercedes Benz GLA Class, Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Rogue (AKA X-Trail), Opel/Vauxhall Captiva (AKA Saturn Vue & Chevrolet Captiva Sport), Renault Captur, Subaru Forester, Toyota RAV4, Volkswagen Tiguan.
Turbo and coilovers will solve all problems
As is though seems pretty pointless. I guess this is what happens when you give a small car big wheel wells.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 15, 2015, 05:25:13 PM
Turbo and coilovers will solve all problems
As is though seems pretty pointless. I guess this is what happens when you give a small car big wheel wells.
Huh?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 15, 2015, 05:25:13 PM
Turbo and coilovers will solve all problems
As is though seems pretty pointless. I guess this is what happens when you give a small car big wheel wells.
:wtf:
Quote from: 2o6 on December 15, 2015, 05:58:46 PM
Huh?
CX-3 would basically become a Mazdaspeed 2 with coilovers and a turbo. I could look past the packaging problems with that.
Reason it sucks packaging wise is because of the big wheel wells to fit those chunky CUV tires. That is a downside of "CUVization" nobody seems to notice.
So yea, without the performance boost this thing is pointless. A 3 hatch is better in literally every way besides having available 4WD.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 16, 2015, 05:32:29 AM
CX-3 would basically become a Mazdaspeed 2 with coilovers and a turbo. I could look past the packaging problems with that.
Reason it sucks packaging wise is because of the big wheel wells to fit those chunky CUV tires. That is a downside of "CUVization" nobody seems to notice.
So yea, without the performance boost this thing is pointless. A 3 hatch is better in literally every way besides having available 4WD.
Big wheel wells have nothing to do with packaging.
These wheels and tires are the same size as the Mazda 2/3. The HR-V and Juke are also CUVized small cars and they offer the benefits of AWD and CUV, such as ride height and hip point. The CX3 doesnt, and that's Mazda's fault. That has nothing to do with "coil overs, turbos, and big wheel wells". The big wheel wells aren't even true, the plastic cladding makes them look larger than they really are.
CX3's tires are 3" bigger and like 1" wider than the 2s, and its suspension has more travel. The wheel wells are bigger and eat into cabin space.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 16, 2015, 04:53:06 PM
CX3's tires are 3" bigger and like 1" wider than the 2s, and its suspension has more travel. The wheel wells are bigger and eat into cabin space.
No they aren't, and not its not.
We don't even get the current Mazda 2 in the US.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 16, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
No they aren't, and not its not.
We don't even get the current Mazda 2 in the US.
Lol they are. Look it up.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 16, 2015, 05:40:46 PM
Lol they are. Look it up.
The car I drove had 16's; which are the same size diameter (only wider) than the 16" on the Scion iA (captive import new Mazda 2)
The size of the "wheel wells has little to do with anything here, especially since the HR-V, Trax, Encore, Juke" use similar wheels, even larger and don't have the same issues with the muddied CUV image that those CX-3 has.
The problem is the car isn't an SUV, and it's not packaged right to be one. Interior space isn't as crucial as the fact it's packaged weird and kind of low to the ground.
Quote from: 2o6 on December 16, 2015, 08:10:45 PM
The car I drove had 16's; which are the same size diameter (only wider) than the 16" on the Scion iA (captive import new Mazda 2)
The size of the "wheel wells has little to do with anything here, especially since the HR-V, Trax, Encore, Juke" use similar wheels, even larger and don't have the same issues with the muddied CUV image that those CX-3 has.
The problem is the car isn't an SUV, and it's not packaged right to be one. Interior space isn't as crucial as the fact it's packaged weird and kind of low to the ground.
There's nearly a 1.5" difference in diameter between the 215/60R16s on the CX-3 and 185/60R16s on the iA.
I published my review of the CX-3; I already posted the TL;DR version in this thread.
http://www.examiner.com/article/review-2016-mazda-cx-3-touring-awd (http://www.examiner.com/article/review-2016-mazda-cx-3-touring-awd)