The CX-3's power comes from a 2.0 L Skyactiv four cylinder producing 146 hp and 146 lb-ft of torque. All Mazda CX-3's have a six-speed automatic and electric power steering. In comparison there is 5 hp and 19 lb-ft more in the CX-3 than the 2016 Honda HR-V (1.8-liter four with 141 hp). The CX-3 is also 100 lbs lighter (45 kg) versus a comparably equipped front-drive HR-V with a CVT transmission. Oddly enough real world fuel consumption ratings for both vehicles with the automatic transmission fell in the 28 to 29 mpg range (in metric that's slightly over 8L/100km). Pretty good numbers for North American standards considering our low octane regular fuel of 87.
The one item missing on the CX-3 is interior space, especially in the rear seat leg room department. As well it does not have the versatility of the Honda HR-V's rear "magic seat".
While the CX-3 is stated to handle and ride better than the HR-V, the lack of interior space and versatility may be it's largest drawback.
Honda reputation has been built primarily on reliability, where as Mazda more on the "fun" factor.
The base sport trim CX-3 will apparently start in the low $20,000 US according to Mazda, but final pricing is not yet finalized.
Link to full Road&Track article 2016 Mazda CX-3: http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a25682/2016-mazda-cx3-first-drive-review/
Link to full Road&Track article on 2016 Honda HR-V:http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/news/a25656/first-drive-2016-honda-hr-v/
Nice article. I like the looks of both, but the CX-3 is probably sportier/more fun to drive and therefore the car for me.
ReplyDelete(stumbled across your blog in the blog-o-verse - check out mine at: http://endlessdriveway.blogspot.com/)