2014 Los Angeles Auto Show: 2016 Mazda CX-3 (FAQ) | Edmunds.com

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,237
edited November 2014 in Mazda
image2014 Los Angeles Auto Show: 2016 Mazda CX-3 (FAQ) | Edmunds.com

The 2016 Mazda CX-3 is an all-new subcompact SUV introduced at the 2014 Los Angeles Auto Show.

Read the full story here


  • 7driver7driver Member Posts: 145
    edited November 2014
    Exterior looks better than the HR-V and the Juke (isn't very hard to look better than a Juke). Interior looks better than a Trax and the Mazda probably gets better mileage too, assuming Trax fuel economy is similar to the Buick Encore on which it's based. But I don't quite see the point. If this thing starts at $20k and options up to $30k then it isn't much different than a CX5 which starts at $21.5k and options up to $31.8k. And that backseat looks painfully tiny.
  • ek900ek900 Member Posts: 39
    I mean, this to me looks like a BARELY disguised Mazda 3 hatchback, but for more money. Say what you will about the Juke ( like it myself), it doesn't look like anything else, and it has a ton of unique touches inside too.
  • metalmaniametalmania Member Posts: 167
    I really don't see the point of these tiny CUV's. If the CX-5 is too BIG? I wish the CX-5 was actually a little bit bigger than it is. Maybe it's an illusion but the CX-5 seems smaller than the CR-V and Forester. This even smaller class, rear seat room seems very tight and the cargo area is tiny - I mean is there even two feet from the rear seatback to the tailgate? Being a Mazda this will probably be well engineered and fun to drive, but personally I wouldn't go with anything smaller than the next class up.
  • mittzombiemittzombie Member Posts: 162
    Hey look its a jacked up Mazda 3 with worse handling...
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    I have to agree with 7driver that the price point cited in this piece doesn't make much sense. This needs to come in a consistent $3k-$5k less than a similar CX-5, otherwise what's the point?

    The front end doesn't seem to work as well on this one as on the CX-5. I am glad that Mazda hasn' jumped on the CVT bandwagon, the CVT is one reason I wouldn't be interested in the Juke or the HR-V.
  • vrooomf1vrooomf1 Member Posts: 28
    Design wise and engine wise it already looks like a home run, price wise... well Madza doesn't intend to be a cheap brand.
  • morey000morey000 Member Posts: 384
    looks like Mazda is giving up on that big smile they used to put in their front grill.
  • greengokartgreengokart Member Posts: 1
    edited November 2014
    "A six-speed automatic will be the only transmission available." But you included a picture of a six-speed manual transmission shifter in your album of pictures for the car (picture #12; Group 3, picture #2). Is the picture from the vehicle's debut at the Los Angeles Auto Show or is it from Mazda's own publicity/informational materials? Either way, doesn't it mean a manual transmission IS, in fact, an option? I sure hope so.
  • tulsamaltulsamal Member Posts: 3
    I love my 2011 CX-9. Only thing that could make it better.... put a turbo diesel in it!
    I keep hoping and hoping that I can buy a Mazda diesel someday. Probably in a CX-5 but I would test drive a CX-3.
Sign In or Register to comment.