The sub-compact crossover utility has been one of the fastest growing market segments in the industry over the past few years. As of the time I sit to write this in January 2016, there are 10 entries available in the American market with several more to come in the next few years including Ford, Hyundai and probably GMC. Of the examples I’ve driven in the past year including the Chevrolet Trax, Nissan Juke and Honda HR-V, each has elements to recommend it, but like Goldilocks looking for a place to nap they were each too hard or soft in some respect. Did Mazda get it “just right” with the CX-3?
In 2015, the small CUV segment more than doubled from 140,000 sales a year earlier to over 333,000. The Mazda CX-3 is one of the newest challengers for the crown and its family DNA is immediately apparent when you walk up to it. This a handsome little devil with Mazda’s now-standard upright trapezoid grille and the arcing side character lines nicely stretched over its smaller dimensions compared to its elder sibling the CX-5.
Like other contemporary Mazdas, the sharp peak between the top of the grille and the hood along with the front axle being pushed forward creates the visual effect of moving the cabin back and making this look more like a traditional sporting rear-wheel-drive model. The additional ride height compared to the 3 gives this one a bit more of that go-anywhere attitude even if the only customers in this segment likely to even try are those that buy a Jeep Renegade. The reality is that the worst a CX-3 is ever likely to encounter is a heavy snowfall.
With Mazda’s decision not to offer the latest iteration of the B-segment 2 in the US except through Toyota dealers as the Scion iA, the 3 is the brand’s smallest mainstream car right now. The CX-3 stands 3.6-inches taller than the compact 3 but the “car” spans 7.3-inches farther between its bumpers and 5.1 inches between the axles. That extra length along with two more inches of width makes a huge difference in the available cabin space. Despite being barely an inch longer, Honda’s HR-V like its Fit sibling is far and away the interior space winner in this market segment with 100.1 cubic-feet compared to the 86.3 for the CX-3 and 96.4 for the 3. Even the tight-fitting Nissan Juke has 87 cubic-feet.
Awkward position of the cupholders below the armrest
Despite being nominally smaller inside than the Juke, the volume in the CX-3 seems better apportioned overall. In the front there is ample head, shoulder and legroom. You sit a bit more upright in the Mazda and everything has been shrunk front to back. That means the center console cup holders now sit below the fold-down center armrest, making them a bit more awkward to get to.
The compressed size also means the central control for the navigation/infotainment system is not as comfortably positioned as the equivalent piece in the 3 or CX-5. The front seat cushions are also a bit shorter so some support is lost for those with longer thighs, but that’s a common issue in B-segment vehicles including the Fit/HR-V. In typically Mazda fashion the lateral support of the front seats is excellent.
The back seat is tight, there’s no other way to say it. They’re fine for younger kids or short trips with a pair of adults. But if you have to regularly chauffeur pre-driving teenagers, you might start to get some complaints and this definitely isn’t a road trip machine for four adults. If your needs regularly include more than just you and your bestie or a pair of youngsters, you should definitely consider stepping up to the 3 or CX-5.
Aside from the space issue, the rest of the CX-3 cabin is pretty typical of contemporary Mazdas with nicely finished materials, a standup infotainment display in the center of the dash and that very nice central controller. I prefer central control knobs to touch screens since avoid the problem of fingerprints and control is far more precise than reaching an arm out while driving. The Mazda interface is fairly clean and responsive although like the 3 it did hang up a couple of times requiring a restart of the car to get things going again.
Speaking of starts, the CX-3 only gets one powertrain option, the SkyActiv direct-injected 2.0-liter with a six-speed automatic and a choice of front or all-wheel-drive. Unlike Mazda’s cars, no manual gearbox is available although the Grand Touring trim does add shift paddles on the steering wheel. Unfortunately, it seems that the more cramped confines of the CX-3’s engine bay mean this lovely engine can’t breathe as freely as it does in the 3. At 146-horsepower, it produces 9 fewer than in the car and torque is down by 4 lb.-ft. to 146. At the same time, all-wheel-drive bumps the curb weight up to 2,952-pounds, about 90 more than the last manual shift five-door 3 I drove.
Click here to compare the CX-3 to the competition
The combination of the automatic, less power and more mass means that this little Mazda feels noticeably less lively than the lower-slung car. It’s still a far better powertrain combination than the even heavier HR-V with its CVT, but it does lack some of the Zoom-Zoom that I expect of a Mazda. There is a switch behind the shift lever that can be used to select Eco or Sport modes, but the latter seems to mainly hold a higher gear with more noise but not a lot of extra spirit. The hard-on-the-eyes Juke still rules this segment when it comes to propulsion.
Overall, Mazda has done it’s usual admirable job in calibrating the ride and handling achieving a very nice balance of the two despite the comparatively short wheelbase. Like most of its competition, the CX-3 is rated at 29 mpg combined by the EPA with city and highway ratings of 27 mpg and 32 mpg respectively. The surprisingly mild early winter weather enabled me to match that EPA number in driving that included a couple of trips to Detroit as well as running around town. As tested, the CX-3 Grand Touring with all-wheel-drive stickered at $27,670 including delivery charges.
So far, I’ve found a lot to like in each of the sub-compact crossovers I’ve sampled. The problem is that no single model including the CX-3 has yet achieved that “Just Right” combination that would prompt me to spend my own money on one. I want something with the interior packaging of the HR-V, the performance of the Juke and the handsome looks of the CX-3. Sooner or later someone will hit that bullseye. In the meantime, if I were to invest in a smaller crossover, I’d probably go for this one’s big brother the CX-5 or Hyundai’s recently redesigned Tucson.
