-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-

2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here

2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here

2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here

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

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
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


Comments

  • 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.