Honda HR-V Forum banner

1 - 20 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Thanks HRV4ME. My initial impression is that the power and fuel economy numbers vs the 3 are disappointing. Knew about the space problems. To my eyes it looks better than a 3 but unless you need 4wheel drive there seems little reason to pick it over the 3. At least the HRV has a space advantages over the Civic to somewhat compensate for its relatively poor performance and fuel economy.

I think the only reason the for the 9 hp reduction in the CX-3 vs that engine elsewhere it the product line is so its performance will not not shame its more expensive stable mates. That steams me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thought you would like that one!

Though no real surprises as the difference between the CRV and CX5. The CX5 is definitely more of a drivers car, but what makes the CRV more popular will also go along with the HRV over the CX3 as the article sums up:

"We also don't have cargo capacity or passenger volume numbers just yet, but we don't need that data to know that the CX-3 lacks interior space. It's fine up front, for two passengers – Mazda fully admits that this is a car for single folks or younger couples – but the rear compartment and cargo area are pretty tight. You could sit in the back seats for short distances and be fine, and there's enough room in the hatchback to carry a weekend's worth of luggage or a full load of groceries. But buyers who like crossovers because of their functionality will be disappointed with the CX-3, especially when compared to the incredible storage and versatility offered by the HR-V. What's more, the Mazda's cargo hold has a high load-in height, and a small opening. There isn't even a flat load floor, though the rear bench does split and tumble."

If your looking for a drivers car, so with the Mazda 6, but if your buying the HRV for what its intended, it offer far more space and versatility over the CX3. No brainer! :)

Trying doing this in a CX3. :D All comes down to personal preference...for me the interior looks far more sophisticated (in the black only).







Thanks HRV4ME. My initial impression is that the power and fuel economy numbers vs the 3 are disappointing. Knew about the space problems. To my eyes it looks better than a 3 but unless you need 4wheel drive there seems little reason to pick it over the 3. At least the HRV has a space advantages over the Civic to somewhat compensate for its relatively poor performance and fuel economy.
I think the only reason the for the 9 hp reduction in the CX-3 vs that engine elsewhere it the product line is so its performance will not not shame its more expensive stable mates. That steams me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Mazda doesn't cripple cars for marketing reasons. It's not in their corporate DNA. They just don't do that. And Mazda isn't worried about cannibalizing Mazda 3 sales. It's universally acclaimed as the best car in the world in its class, and there's a MazdaSpeed version coming in a few months.

I'm not saying the CX3 is good, bad, or ugly. Just that I can guarantee Mazda tried it's best to hit a target design - which I think is (1) be cheap and economical, (2) look good, (3) drive like a Mazda, (4) oh the heck with everything else...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I was REALLY hoping the CX-3 would come in with much better MPG.
If these numbers are correct and given the slowness off a stop I am now leaning even more towards the HR-V.
Bring on the Mulberry...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,363 Posts
"We also don't have cargo capacity or passenger volume numbers just yet, but we don't need that data to know that the CX-3 lacks interior space. It's fine up front, for two passengers – Mazda fully admits that this is a car for single folks or younger couples – but the rear compartment and cargo area are pretty tight. "

I"m looking for a 4 person car. This really shows why the HR-V is the car for me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Yeah, way too tight and far from economical....HRV or even the CRV at that point offers better value.

"We also don't have cargo capacity or passenger volume numbers just yet, but we don't need that data to know that the CX-3 lacks interior space. It's fine up front, for two passengers – Mazda fully admits that this is a car for single folks or younger couples – but the rear compartment and cargo area are pretty tight. "

I"m looking for a 4 person car. This really shows why the HR-V is the car for me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
the cargo is of minimal concern to me, I mean its nice, but not at all a deal breaker as it is for some. I'll buy based on the grin factor. I do have to say that if I do end up with the Mazda the combo in OP is SHARPPPP

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
Out of all brands competing in this segment it sure looks like mazda will take the win for the brand with the best color selection.
The rest don't seem to have anything as nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Mazda doesn't cripple cars for marketing reasons. It's not in their corporate DNA. They just don't do that. And Mazda isn't worried about cannibalizing Mazda 3 sales. It's universally acclaimed as the best car in the world in its class, and there's a MazdaSpeed version coming in a few months.

I'm not saying the CX3 is good, bad, or ugly. Just that I can guarantee Mazda tried it's best to hit a target design - which I think is (1) be cheap and economical, (2) look good, (3) drive like a Mazda, (4) oh the heck with everything else...
Then how would account for those missing 9 hp? Not enough room in the engine bay for proper intake or exhaust plumbing? What?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
>> Then how would account for those missing 9 hp?

That's a good question. One of the reviews mentioned it was re-tuned for this platform. There's a computer running that engine, and for whatever inscrutable engineer reasons, they chose to change the torque/horsepower curve. Could be the air path was less optimal in that tiny body. Could be something else about the 2-series platform. Remember, the CX3 is based on the 2-series. The engine has to work well with a whole different frame and series of lighter components. As for mileage, you're pushing a whole lot more air going down the road with that short but tall body - that's really bad for drag coefficient. Everyone talks about how some other bigger platforms get better highway mileage - mainly aerodynamics, which is non-obvious. The force required to move air is non-linear as velocity increases. Aerodynamics is everything.

CX3 reviews are popping up everywhere now. They're definitely mixed. The one thing in common - everyone says it has the best driving dynamics hands down - typical Mazda. I fell in love with the CX3 when it was revealed. I fell out of love when I realized how tiny the storage space was - I saw it in person at the NYC show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
Out of all brands competing in this segment it sure looks like mazda will take the win for the brand with the best color selection.
The rest don't seem to have anything as nice.
A couple shades of blue?? Nice! Win!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
>> Then how would account for those missing 9 hp?

That's a good question. One of the reviews mentioned it was re-tuned for this platform. There's a computer running that engine, and for whatever inscrutable engineer reasons, they chose to change the torque/horsepower curve. Could be the air path was less optimal in that tiny body. Could be something else about the 2-series platform. Remember, the CX3 is based on the 2-series. The engine has to work well with a whole different frame and series of lighter components. As for mileage, you're pushing a whole lot more air going down the road with that short but tall body - that's really bad for drag coefficient. Everyone talks about how some other bigger platforms get

better highway mileage - mainly aerodynamics, which is non-obvious. The force required to move air is non-linear as velocity increases. Aerodynamics is everything.

CX3 reviews are popping up everywhere now. They're definitely mixed. The one thing in common - everyone says it has the best driving dynamics hands down - typical Mazda. I fell in love with the CX3 when it was revealed. I fell out of love when I realized how tiny the storage space was - I saw it in person at the NYC show.
Guess I'm more cynical than you.... Ok how about this? Now that they have pulled 9 hp from the engine, all they need to do is bump the 155 found in the 3 to 165 and presto!! High performance variant for which they charge and extra 3 grand. The crazy part is I might pay it.;)
And now this: Its a couple of inches lower than the HRV so probably has 1 ft or so less frontal area. It is 100lbs or so lighter. And it has that wonderfully advanced(?) Skyactive direct injection engine pulling it . So why is the fuel mileage about the same as the HRV? It appears unlikely the detuning was for mileage purposes.

Platform from the 2? Yes but the whole drivetrain , transaxle half shafts, 5bolt hubs, brakes etc are straight from the 3. In fact many of these same components are used in the 500lb heavier CX-5 . Much of the awd componets are shared with the 5. Should be plenty robust for any power they can pull from it. Surely the unibody or rear suspension could stand that extra 9 hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
I have been whining about the power loss on the the CX-3 forum also. Mechabouncer has an answer. Don't know his source but his explanation sounds plausible. Long straight 4 into 2 headers on other cars will not fit under the shortened hood of the CX-3. Forced a whole retuning of the engine. That shorter hood and overall length were what led me to favor the CX-3 over the Mazda 3 in the first place, so I guess I will shut up. That's why that ugly long nose on the 3, nothing to do with kodo. No product planning conspiracy after all.

Wonder if impacted fuel economy as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
>> Most of the performance advantage I expected has eroded

I'm pretty sure the CX3, at least the first version, is not about barn-burning acceleration. Cars can be incredible fun to drive without blinding 0-60 times. In the real world, put me in a Miata over a Corvette any day. It's not about brute power - it's about smiles per mile. And Mazda excels at smiles per mile.

Actually Okhick, based on your posts - I think you need a Miata in the worst way. You'd be surprised what you can carry in that thing with the roof down (and a trunk rack). 2016 Miata ships in June.
 
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Top