|
2016 Mazda CX-3 Review
In a market growing with several tiny SUV options, the Mazda CX-3 is a dapper, well-designed choice. Unlike competitors that appear tall, narrow, and not quite grown-up (Chevrolet Trax, we’re looking at you), the CX-3 is a fully formed vehicle. Driving it puts a smile on your face. It’s one of the more appealing entries in a new class of wee SUVs, with agile handling and good fuel economy. But it’s snug inside. So snug, in fact, that you might physically outgrow the CX-3 before you’re ready for your next car.
In our tests of this new field of subcompact SUVs, we haven’t seen much that impresses us. Most entries are either half-baked, or they subject drivers to a harsh ride, loud cabin, and crude interior.
But the 2016 Mazda CX-3 is different. It’s the first vehicle in this segment to make you think you can have fun with a budget-priced SUV, rather than making you wish you were riding your bicycle instead.
With some vehicles, you can tell right away that they have a little extra pizzazz. In less than a block, the 2016 Mazda CX-3 demonstrated a quality that trounces the other competitors: It feels light on its feet and is an enthusiastic dance partner, with quick steering that transmits decent feedback. It also easily snaked through our avoidance-maneuver test and was a delight on the track.
Granted, the ride is hardly plush, but there’s nothing unduly harsh here. Our CX-3 didn’t ride like a buckboard wagon. Like other Mazdas, it’s noisy inside. You might want to step up to the next class of SUV if quietness is a priority.
The four-cylinder engine and six-speed automatic produce smooth and willing acceleration that make the most of the car’s modest 146 hp. You won’t win any drag races with the 2016 Mazda CX-3, but you’ll get a blue ribbon for fuel economy. We measured a frugal 28 mpg overall, trailing only the Honda HR-V’s 29 mpg. But the Honda isn’t nearly as much fun because it feels underpowered and strained most of the time.
From the outside, the 2016 Mazda CX-3 seems smartly sized. But once inside, it’s clear that it’s short on room. The car infringes on shoulder and elbow space, making the cockpit feel hemmed in. Thick windshield pillars and small windows obstruct visibility. At least all CX-3s come with a rear camera.
Other available safety features include blind-spot monitoring with rear cross-traffic alert and autonomous emergency braking—quite uncommon among competitors in this price range.
The driver’s seat is narrow (and lacks lumbar support), the rear seat is snug, and the cargo capacity is puny. In this respect, the Mazda falls far short of the Honda’s innovative interior spaciousness. You can forget about packing for a family vacation.
And give yourself some time for mastering the controls on the 2016 Mazda CX-3. Audio and phone functions are controlled by a rotary knob between the seats; your actions appear on a prominent screen. But even the most basic functions require lots of taps, twists, and icon deciphering.
With a starting price around $21,000, the 2016 Mazda CX-3 has a lot of appeal. But it can get expensive quickly; opting for the top-shelf, all-wheel-drive Grand Touring version runs you about $26,000, though it’s equipped with the aforementioned safety features.
Even with the fun factor, is it worth spending so much for such a little car? For about $3,000 more you can get the next size up CX-5, which has more space and a more muscular 2.5-liter engine. For the same money you could get a well-equipped Mazda3 hatchback. It’s sportier to drive, gets 32 mpg overall, has a nicer interior, and still delivers decent cargo space. If you’re worried about lacking all-wheel drive in the snow, buy some winter tires.
The 2016 Mazda CX-3 is among the better tiny SUVs, but there may be better price-value options.
Read the complete Mazda CX-3 road test.
Editor’s Note: This article also appeared in the January 2016 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.
Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.
|
.JPG)