[ianik777]

If you were on the market for a new car, and was your first choice, and you would have the option between a or CX-3, which one would you choose and why? If none of those options, which other car would you consider to buy?

Let's get the discussion started >

In Israel, the CX-3 will be available very soon for the first time, and frankly I would have bought the CX-3 since IMO it looks more versatile and useful than the .

mazda 3 for sure. coz its sportier and can be tuned. but SUV cannot really be tuned

 

[MechaBouncer]

Well, same "logic" as for the CX-5 which is based on the 3, I guess. Marketing, fooling you in thinking you buy a significant bigger car because of a higher number....

Although when I first drove a CX-5, it felt much bigger than the 3. I think it was the width that threw me off the most. The width is closer to the 6, while the length is closer to the 3. It's kind of in-between the two.

 

[Ronnie]

Although when I first drove a CX-5, it felt much bigger than the 3. I think it was the width that threw me off the most. The width is closer to the 6, while the length is closer to the 3. It's kind of in-between the two.

You're right. I went from a CX-5 to the 3 and the CX-5 is indeed wider. The underpinnings are the same however for what I know.

 

[Chimphappyhour]

Briefly looked at the CX-3 when I started looking at the 3. Found out it has less room, no engine options, and the 3 still has the same ground clearance as the ute and that ended that. I just couldn't find a reason for it to exist.

Just had my car in for service, and primarily to have some issues looked into, and the dealer had a CX-3 as a service loaner. It just felt like an odd duck. I still don't see its reason for being. There doesn't really seem to be room for anything. Everything felt like a squeezed in after thought. And all that squeezing didn't give me a "wrapped in a cocoon" feel like everything was placed for the driver. Feels like they were rushing into a market segment. If a friend was looking, I'd have to steer them either to the 3 or the CX-5.

 

[M3MX5M3]

Just had my car in for service, and primarily to have some issues looked into, and the dealer had a CX-3 as a service loaner. It just felt like an odd duck. I still don't see its reason for being. There doesn't really seem to be room for anything. Everything felt like a squeezed in after thought. And all that squeezing didn't give me a "wrapped in a cocoon" feel like everything was placed for the driver. Feels like they were rushing into a market segment. If a friend was looking, I'd have to steer them either to the 3 or the CX-5.

The worst part is it looks so damn good from the outside. I agree that the inside is no place to be. Fully equipped with a few added accessories, you're at $30k...:confused013:

Even Mazda's own website doesn't consider it "A Smarter Premium."

 

[CJR238]

Its too small, under powered for an AWD and if you put the right type and size snows on a 3 it will preform just as good in the snow.

3 hands down. I actually chose the 3 over the 6.

 

[Seggle02]

A CX-3 is a Mazda2 with longer springs at at A$8k price premium over the equivalent 3.

Why are we even having this discussion?

It may have a little more luggage room, and it may have a bit more ground clearance but I would have to argue the CX-3 is one of Mazda's worst models.

 

[Chimphappyhour]

A CX-3 is a Mazda2 with longer springs at at A$8k price premium over the equivalent 3.

Why are we even having this discussion?

It may have a little more luggage room, and it may have a bit more ground clearance but I would have to argue the CX-3 is one of Mazda's worst models.

Actually, the same ground clearance and the 3 has more cargo space from the specs I'm looking at on the Mazda site. There's just zero reason to buy the CX-3.

 

[ElNino77]

Actually, the same ground clearance and the 3 has more cargo space from the specs I'm looking at on the Mazda site. There's just zero reason to buy the CX-3.

True, but that goes for a ton of SUVs out there when the equivalent minivan makes way more practical sense to the drivers buying the SUVs. Madness.....

 

[scmazda3]

We were in this exact same position. My son wanted the Cx-3 but the 3 was actually cheaper and bigger. The CX-3 is a great little car if there is only 1-2 people in it. Very nice handling as well. We ended up with the 3 just based upon price.

 

[wolstentech]

My son wanted the Cx-3 but the 3 was actually cheaper and bigger.... We ended up with the 3 just based upon price.

Americans have an irrational love affair with SUVs right now, so manufacturers are taking full advantage of it, offering vehicles that cost them less to build, but selling them for more money and pocketing the difference.

 

[sjschall]

+1 that it should be renamed to CX-2 and everyone will be happy

 

[MotorCityJax]

I drove both and liked them but went with the 3 because we travel quite a bit and it can easily fit 2 large size suitcases with ease, the CX-3 would have to fold the seats down taking away from seating area for the dogs

 

[htomi]

We have both. 2016 CX-3 105 HP, 1.5 Diesel and a brand new 3, 2.0L petrol, 120 HP hatchback.
As mentioned previously, the CX-3 is certainly smaller, however perfectly fits for 2 adults. Its a great city runner, easy to drive, easy to handle. Due to the higher ground clearance it is ideal on rough back roads too.
Long distance drive is not an issue either, however I think the 3 can offer a bit more comfort.

But...

If you want to add a 3rd person or a child needs to be carried inc pushchair, then it becomes really small.

if I would have to choose between the two, consider about the following:

1. Budget available
2. Number of passengers to be carried 90% of the time
3. Traveling distance 90% of the time
4. % of City driving

 

[Chimphappyhour]

We have both. 2016 CX-3 105 HP, 1.5 Diesel and a brand new 3, 2.0L petrol, 120 HP hatchback.
As mentioned previously, the CX-3 is certainly smaller, however perfectly fits for 2 adults. Its a great city runner, easy to drive, easy to handle. Due to the higher ground clearance it is ideal on rough back roads too.
Long distance drive is not an issue either, however I think the 3 can offer a bit more comfort.

But...

If you want to add a 3rd person or a child needs to be carried inc pushchair, then it becomes really small.

if I would have to choose between the two, consider about the following:

1. Budget available
2. Number of passengers to be carried 90% of the time
3. Traveling distance 90% of the time
4. % of City driving

Are the 3 and CX-3 differently spec'd in Ireland? On this side of the pond, the ground clearance difference is negligible.

 

[Showa_01]

I have the 3 and have test driven the CX-3 just because it looked so damn sharp on the showroom floor. The first thing I noticed was the ease getting in and out due to the increased ride height. However, getting in and out of the rear could be more difficult due to a narrower opening. When I sat inside the cabin felt more cramped and visibility was less than in my 3. In fact the interior looked awfully familiar - it was a Mazda2! Not sold here in NA but I drove one as a rental in the UK.

Given that the CX-3 is based on the underpinnings of the 2, it explains why there's so much less space inside, especially for the rear passengers. Behind the second row is not much better, there's a little extra storage cubby but otherwise you might actually be loosing space. I suppose if you live up north and feel the AWD will help you out in the winter, you might be tempted to get the CX-3, but otherwise I'd vote for the 3 hands down.

Agree, the size, drivetrain and chassis of CX3 is from Mazda 2. So there is no comparison between 3 and CX3. For me, Mazda 3 hands down.

 

[htomi]

Are the 3 and CX-3 differently spec'd in Ireland? On this side of the pond, the ground clearance difference is negligible.

I believe, there is no difference regarding the ground clearance, however Mazdas are spec'd differently vs other countries.
I have a 3 GT. While it is the highest spec available (within the 3 series), the following items aren't included: lane departure warning, radar cruise control, driver attention alerts, advanced blind spot monitoring.
Also only the 120HP 2.0L petrol is available, while in the UK, customers can purchase the 170HP version too.

 

[hau101]

Get the CX-5 if you need the extra room. Else, get the 3 hatch or sedan. The CX-3 is just a lifted up 3 hatch with less power and mpg. I honestly don't see any reason to get the CX-3 aside from absolutely needing a crossover AND a smaller size vehicle for city parking.

 

[rgs]

Doesn't bode well for the future. Word I've heard is that the new 3 being developed will be smaller car. Maybe the 3 on a 2 frame like the CX-3.

 

[RalphVa]

I agree with Road Trip. Not having a MT available would be a deal killer for me to get a CX-3.

I was surprised. The two are nearly the same weight. SUVs are often 500 or more # heavier. Except for the larger front end to push more air in the CX-3, that would mean they'd do the same fuel mileage. Think you'll find the hwy mileage on the CX-3 is much lower. That is the mileage that determines what your mileage will be. EPA city mileage figures are useless unless you're buying a hybrid.

Ralph