Should I buy the Mazda CX-30 or Mazda CX-3?
QUESTION
Hi John,
I will be in touch with your crew to sort our next car for my wife.
Our current chariot is a Subaru Forester X 2003, purchased new and apart from two sets of head gaskets at 140,000kms and 180,000kms, it is the perfect size and height. It leaps off the line and has great all round vision, which you need in Melbourne. Now showing 240,000kms, I need to get my wife into something up-to-date with all the safety kit that is available.
Due to a very narrow driveway and my wife being 5ft tall, we have narrowed down our search to the CX-3 with all the safety kit.
Do you know if or when the CX-3 is going to get a media upgrade or update to match the Mazda3 and CX-30?
The local Mazda Dealer said probably in September, but was not confident.
The reason I ask is there are two issues that I feel lets the CX-3 down, apart from the over-pricing of the Akari etc.
The reverse & 360-degree camera display is an absolute joke on the Akari. It might as well be in braille, as it looks like something the sight-impaired have modelled on their experience. The CX-30 has a much clearer display that at least represents what is outside.
The NVH from the CX-3 engine under full throttle is just unpleasant. The CX-30 engine is the later DI type and has a significantly better sound under load. I guess there is little chance we will see that DI engine in the CX-3.
My first preference, the new Kia Seltos is just too big at 1800mm wide for what we need in our late 50s. I really liked the performance and quality, plus we have a Kia already in the family so are very familiar with their customer service. Wake up, Mazda Australia, you cannot trade on good looks forever.
The Subaru XV we tried a few times and is also too big for the main driver. While the early ones had an awful CVT programming set up, the current ones seem to be much better, although still too slow to 40km/h for us.
The CX-30 is gorgeous to look at and drive, but again is just too big for the main driver to manoeuvre comfortably.
Essentially we are looking for a compact vehicle with ground clearance and preferably AWD to cope with our daily travels and reasonable performance. Most of the tiddlers in this class have super-efficient engines that lack the performance we have with our 17 year Forester. I understand that cars had to get wider to have better impact / crash / occupant protection and that is our dilemma.
A car with the looks and size of the CX-3 with more power would be ideal for us.
Looking forward to working and hearing from you and your team in the future.
Best regards,
Daniel
ANSWER
Daniel,
I fear your wires are crossed mate.
The CX-3 has the same direct-injected 2.0 SKYACTIV engine as the CX-30 and Mazda3. It’s in a slightly different state of tune (4kW and 5Nm less, peak). It’s the same engine.
And CX-3 goes (slightly) better because it has less mass; it just sounds different because the CX-3 is cheap - it’s designed off the Mazda2 platform. Mazda2 is a cheap city car for parents trying to keep their kids out of some horrid old shitbox.
CX-30 is the superior car for the kind of driving you depict: on-demand all-wheel drive, ground clearance (180mm), compactness, raised ride height (for easy of egress/digress, and the G20 Touring AWD has an 83.8 kw/tonne power-to-weight ratio (better than the 80.5 kW/t of your old Forester 17 years ago). So it’ll go better than your old Subie too. However…
How often are you actually going to use full throttle? For most people: Not very often. (You shouldn’t make this part of your criteria, it’s just not relevant - speed limits, safety etc - there’s just no quantifiable argument to make full-throttle performance from a standing start part of your due process. Maybe if you were buying a Subaru WRX or Hyundai i30 Fastback N, to use on a racetrack, maybe.)
I don’t know if Mazda is planning on upgrading the camera system on the CX-3. (Current CX-3 arrived in 2015, so it’s probably got another two years (ballpark) before an all-new version arrives).
In my view, you and your wife are making way too big a deal of her height and ability to perceive, spatially.
CX-30 is only 3cm wider than CX-3 - 3cm mate - come on. Work with me here:
CX-3 is 1765mm wide.
CX-30 is 1795mm.
There’s only 12cm in overall length difference. (Not to mention, your old Forester X is 1735mm wide. It’s a difference of exactly 6cm to the CX-30, and yet is infinitely safer, quieter, more powerful and more comfortable than your old Subie.)
If a person in their mid-50s cannot safely and comfortably maneuver a CX-30, they don’t need a smaller car. They need to stop driving, in the public interest. I’m not kidding.
I’d have no hesitation putting it to you and her that a CX-30 is the ideal choice for you both and that your assessment of the differences in relative size are completely over-blown, and un-supported by the dimensional data.
Look, I know this is not what you want to hear, but to me, we still live in a world where the facts matter.
Buy the CX-30 (it’s very good). Problem solved.
Sincerely,
John Cadogan
More reports
Mazda’s CX-70 is a large five-seat SUV with generous legroom, loads of equipment and a supremely comfortable ride. It’s one of four new additions to the brand’s prestige model onslaught, but for a fraction the price of a premium German SUV.