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.
"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!
Then how would account for those missing 9 hp? Not enough room in the engine bay for proper intake or exhaust plumbing? What?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...
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.>> 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.