Mazda CX-3- Crossover based on the Mazda2

  • Thread starter RocZX
  • 170 comments
  • 9,671 views
You spelled "iPhone 1 which is the reason all the new smartphones look the way they do" wrong.

I would have said "iPod" because of the rotary dial, but the command dial is prettier than the iPod's.

It is, thankfully, a bit more intuitive than iDrive.
 
http://www.mazda.com.au/about-mazda...d-mix-of-grades-performance-and-fuel-economy/

Offering unprecedented performance, the 2.0 litre petrol engine produces 109kW of power and 192Nm of torque and includes Drive Selection which allows a switch in drive modes. The 1.5 litre diesel alternative offers 77kW of power and 270Nm of torque.

Available in either Front-Wheel Drive (FWD) or All-Wheel Drive (AWD) and with a SKYACTIV-Drive 6-speed automatic or SKYACTIV-MT 6-speed manual transmission, the First-Ever Mazda CX-3 also includes the fuel efficient i-stop idling system.

The FWD 2.0 litre SKYACTIV-G petrol engine with SKYACTIV-Drive 6-speed automatic transmission sips from as little as 6.1 litres per 100 kilometres¹, while the FWD 1.5 litre SKYACTIV-D diesel engine with SKYACTIV-Drive 6-speed automatic transmission has fuel economy figures from a low 4.8 litres per 100 kilometres¹.

Arriving in dealerships in just a few weeks, the CX-3 range² has something special to offer all buyer types, including MZD Connect - Mazda’s advanced car connectivity system - a seven-inch screen operated by a commander control, an Active Driving Display, satellite navigation and a range of i-ACTIVSENSE safety technologies.

Should be fun.
 
They're heeeerrrrrreeeee....
73Smmby.jpg
 
yTxpR97.jpg


Akari. 18" wheels, fog lights

AhyIM0O.jpg

sTouring. 16" alloys no fog lights
cLrJdFD.jpg

IMg0pFA.jpg

oeworx5.jpg


cZuFlzM.jpg


fYGcwv2.jpg
 
Last edited:
The 2.0L fwd manual is 1100kg. The diesel Auto AWD is 1270kg

DKo5ceJ.jpg


GYG4rBd.jpg


P2KBfBY.jpg

size difference CX-5 and CX-3
 
If I stay here in the North, this could very well be my next car. Damn they are sharp. This platform is BEGGING for a mazdaspeed variant. It's like a rally raid car!
 
I don't see Mazda dropping the ball with this one. A Mazdaspeed version has to be in the works. I took a Mazda 2 manual home tonight. Awesome shift feel. Very positive. Lacks intial grunt as the previous model, but the 6-speed is too cool. The shifter is beefy too. I'd expect a better drive in the CX-3 with the better tyres and more power.

The CX-3 is going to appeal to anyone who wants style. The 2L will to be plenty. I'll try the diesel at some point.
 
P2KBfBY.jpg

size difference CX-5 and CX-3
I love the new, thicker grille surround. Why they didn't put it on the CX5 during the facelift like they did the 6 I'm not sure. Now it's the only car that doesn't have the fully updated Gundam face.
 
I have to applaud Mazda for not merely resting on the praise of the Kodo styling as it was introduced on the CX-5 and M6. They have really improved it remarkably. The CX-5 I felt was a bit generic, and seeing one next to the 3 really demonstrates the progress Mazda has made within their own design language. They haven't merely adapted it to subsequent new models but really evolved the language.
 
I have to applaud Mazda for not merely resting on the praise of the Kodo styling as it was introduced on the CX-5 and M6. They have really improved it remarkably. The CX-5 I felt was a bit generic, and seeing one next to the 3 really demonstrates the progress Mazda has made within their own design language. They haven't merely adapted it to subsequent new models but really evolved the language.

Spot on. I have nothing more to add to that.

More specs:

All models have the bigger Nav screen.

18" wheels use 215/50-18 Toyo Proxes.

16" 215/60- 16 Dunlop energy tyres

Drive Away pricing(AUD):

2L Neo Man FWD $23,523
Auto FWD $25,583

2L Maxx Man FWD. $25,995
Auto FWD. $28,055
Auto AWD. $30,115
1.5D Auto FWD. $30,527

2L STOURING Man FWD. $30,733
Auto FWD. $32,973
Auto AWD. $34,853
1.5D Auto AWD $37,325

2L Akari Man FWD. $35,162
Auto FWD. $37,222
Auto AWD. $39,382
1.5D Auto AWD. $47,754
 
Last edited:
I have to applaud Mazda for not merely resting on the praise of the Kodo styling as it was introduced on the CX-5 and M6. They have really improved it remarkably. The CX-5 I felt was a bit generic, and seeing one next to the 3 really demonstrates the progress Mazda has made within their own design language. They haven't merely adapted it to subsequent new models but really evolved the language.
I love the front end of this car but something about everything behind the A pillar makes it look less Kodo to me. The 6 and 3 both carry their rear ends better than this car. I think @niky had a way to describe it when I was complaining previously. I just doesn't pull off the sensuous look and is a bit slab-sided. Maybe it's the black trim. It looks like an old Toyota Matrix in that respect:

2003%20Toyota%20Matrix.jpg


Tall and flat. The CX-3, like this Matrix, doesn't have a wide, powerful stance like the 3 hatchback. Oddly, the CX-5 doesn't suffer from this problem either. The fact that its wheel arches aren't round makes it look more dynamic.
 
Way too expensive, top models are insanely overpriced.

Mazda said they're not playing a price war with the CX-3. A Mazda 2 Genki costs as much as the Maxx CX-3, but the CX-3 has more power and more room with all the amenities bar 18" wheels, leather and sunroof. I do agree about theprice of the Akari diesel, though I don't need the size of the CX-5. For people not wanting a low Mazda3 or a"midsize CX5, the CX3. is perfect me.

I love the front end of this car but something about everything behind the A pillar makes it look less Kodo to me. The 6 and 3 both carry their rear ends better than this car. I think @niky had a way to describe it when I was complaining previously. I just doesn't pull off the sensuous look and is a bit slab-sided. Maybe it's the black trim. It looks like an old Toyota Matrix in that respect:

2003%20Toyota%20Matrix.jpg


Tall and flat. The CX-3, like this Matrix, doesn't have a wide, powerful stance like the 3 hatchback. Oddly, the CX-5 doesn't suffer from this problem either. The fact that its wheel arches aren't round makes it look more dynamic.

The long nose of the CX3. And that rear wheel arch and 3/4 window treatment look dynamic to me. The 18" wheels transform the look. I like the look. The twilight design doesn't look uniform to the other models. That could be a reason why the Kodo language doesn't seem complete. The hip area makes the CX3 look strong though. In my opinion.
 
Mazda said they're not playing a price war with the CX-3. A Mazda 2 Genki costs as much as the Maxx CX-3
Not quite true, I got quoted for the Genki at 20,990 after Negociation of the Manual.
The Cheapest CX-3 Maxx is 5k more and from what they are saying on Whirlpool forum, Mazda won't budge on the price for the CX-3 just yet.

Genki also gets Buckets, HUD and Aluminium knobs for the Aircon etc that look and feel really premium as well as the wheels.

The Neo is the same price but that gets nothing and lacks in every area.
 
Last edited:
Not quite true, I got quoted for the Genki at 20,990 after Negociation of the Manual.
The Cheapest CX-3 Maxx is 5k more and from what they are saying on Whirlpool forum, Mazda won't budge on the price for the CX-3 just yet.

Genki also gets Buckets, HUD and Aluminium knobs for the Aircon etc that look and feel really premium as well as the wheels.

The Neo is the same price but that gets nothing and lacks in every area.

Haggling is fine. The $100 premium /month that the CX-3 Maxx commands over the 2 Genki, for style and rear seat room, plus more power and not a huge difference weight wise. The CX-3 might steal the 2s thunder.
Mazda2 drive-away pricing
Neo (man) - $16,990

Neo (auto) - $18,990

Maxx (man) - $18,990

Maxx (auto) - $20,990

Genki (man) - $21,990

Genki (auto) - $23,990

2L Maxx Man FWD. $25,995(CX-3)
 
Oh it will steal the 2s thunder because Subcompacts don't sell that well here, the mummy's will be all over the CX-3.

But the pricing is basically inline with the 3.

But value wise they are the same I would say.

Shame they don't offer the Euro/JDM Spec lights on the Genki though, Xenons and LEDs front and back would complete the car.

Also Mazda need to charge less for Auto, especially when the Auto feels Under developed.
 
Last edited:
No doubt that tranmisson is on a treasure hunt to find a gear(in normal auto mode). I'll get in that diesel first, before I judge whether the auto is more rubbish than my initial impression.
In Sport mode it's better. It won't shift until it's foot down on the accelerator. It'll even engine brake and downshift from 3rd- 2nd- 1st gear when crawling in traffic.
 
Took a spin in the CX3 sTouring Petrol Manual. That 2L is good by initial impressions. The 6-speed is smooth and positive. Punching it in 2nd and 3rd is a bit loud, but not Chevy Corsica annoying loud. Clutch take up is easy and smooth. A first timer could learn to drive this car, easy. I can see why Soul Red is the colour Mazda chose. Does look strong in direct sunlight.
qimdD5b.jpg


18ig1WY.jpg


The Leather seats are way more comfortable than the 2's cloth buckets. I like to sit low. I can adjust lower in the CX-3 than the 2. The ride on the 18" tyres is good over broken roads and bumps. Steering at roundabouts felt light. The steering wheel telescopes, raises and lowers as well. I'm going to drive the diesel tomorrow.

The 2L in the MX-5 is going to be a rocket. 5hp more and 100kg lighter. And I'm sure the 1.5 will be big fun.
 
Is the CX-3 really only 1100kg? That's incredible...it looks like it could weight 1500kg! :lol:

A Mitsubishi ASX looks like a Durango next to this thing.
The 2.0L fwd manual is 1100kg. The diesel Auto AWD is 1270kg

DKo5ceJ.jpg


GYG4rBd.jpg


P2KBfBY.jpg

size difference CX-5 and CX-3

I wonder how well it can perform off-road?

only off-road duty these things will see, are from Learner drivers reversing on curbs.
 
Tell me about that insanely long hood. Is the dash really short or something? How will this car compete size-wise with competitors that have much shorter hoods and therefore seem much shorter overall?
 
Back