HONDA AND MAZDA FACE OFF
Who makes the better mini CUV?
Occasionally, we hand the keys of a test vehicle to two of our experts to hear what they have to say. Here’s what auto journalists Brian Harper and Nick Tragianis think about the Mazda CX- 3 and its biggest competitor, the Honda HR- V.
Brian Harper: This is not going to be as epic a rivalry as Porsche 911 vs. Chevrolet Corvette or Ford Mustang vs. Chevy Camaro debates, but seldom have I seen such similarities between two competing vehicles as they exist in the Honda HR- V and Mazda CX- 3, both equally new members of a hot and emerging class of compact crossovers. Between their dimensions, power output and price, these two truly compact vehicles are nearly identical — except, it seems, in outlook.
Call it two sides of the same coin, with the CX- 3 representing the sporty side, while the HR- V demonstrates more utility. I’m going to guess that you, being the all- things- performance young punk, are going to be championing the Mazda for this sportiness. Or, are you about to surprise me with some uncommon wisdom?
Nick Tragianis: Call me as predictable as the plot of a B- list horror movie, but I’m all for the CX- 3 because it’s unlike pretty much every entry in the ever- growing subcompact crossover segment.
The CX- 3 is powered by a 2.0- litre four- cylinder engine, good for 146 horsepower and 146 pound- feet of torque. It won’t set anyone’s pants on fire, especially hooked up to the six- speed automatic transmission, but the CX- 3 is definitely one of the livelier subcompact crossovers out there. It’s basically a six- month- old border collie with a backpack.
BH: Oh, so you’re saying it’s a dog. Thanks! Comparison over; I win. No? OK, the CX- 3 is, for all intents and purposes, a jacked- up Mazda2. That, and its inherent sportiness, are easy points to concede, but it’s not like it kicks the HR- V to the curb in terms of performance. The baby Honda has a 1.8- L four- cylinder under its hood, with 141 h. p. and 138 lb.- ft of torque to tap into. Said engine is mated to a continuously variable transmission, the biggest difference between the two crossovers.
Yes, peak torque is reached at higher r. p. m. Yes, with the all- wheel drivetrain, the HR- V is about 75 kilograms heavier than the CX- 3. In terms of acceleration, though, the Mazda’s advantage amounts a one- second advantage from a standstill to 100 km/ h: 9.4 seconds vs. 10.4 for the Honda. The CX- 3’ s 80- 120 km/ h passing move is 6.5 seconds, compared to 7.3 for the HR- V.
But, here’s the key question: Which of the two makes more sense in day- to- day use? Whether it’s suburbanite couples with young kids, the adventuresome twenty- somethings all these manufacturers of crossovers seem to target, or not- quite-seniors, like the missus and I, who just prefer compact- sized winter- ready transportation, which one is going to deliver the most bang for the buck? Talk your way out of this one, kid!
NT: That all depends on whether or not you need to use the back seat for, er, practical purposes. There’s no getting by the fact the CX- 3 is very tight in the back. The cargo hatch is another sticking point; heading home from a massive Costco run? Good luck. Anything big and bulky and you’d need to fold down the back seats.
Let me put it this way: if it’s just you and a passenger ( and your stuff), the CX- 3 is fine. Anything more than that and you’re better off with the HR- V. The Fit, on which the HR- V is based, is one of the biggest hatchbacks around. You get all that flexibility with the HR- V, too, be it the impressive cargo space, the extra rearseat legroom or those rear seats that fold down ( and up) in the most ingenious of ways.
BH: Ah, yes, the reconfigurable second- row “Magic Seat” is a bit of a marvel, isn’t it? With 1,665 L ( 58.8 cubic feet) of cargo volume with the back seats down, Honda’s claim the HR- V has space to rival some competitors’ larger SUV offerings is more than hype.
There is a downside, though. Yes, back- seat room is kinder to we of longer dimension, but it comes at the expense of front- seat legroom. I didn’t seem to have the same stretch- out capability as in the CX- 3. And while we’re visiting the cabin, the HR- V’s interior, while highly functional and ergonomically correct, has nowhere near the same upscale pizzazz as the Mazda does.
NT: Normally, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Topping out at just under $ 30,000, the interior is decent enough; there’s soft- touch plastic in all the right areas, visibility is excellent and the two- tone grey leather in our tester brightened up the cabin quite well.
That being said, the interior isn’t perfect; the stereo’s missing volume knob takes some getting used to, and the lack of physical HVAC controls might seem like a step into the future, but it’s a needlessly complex feature for a $ 30,000 crossover, especially since it doesn’t remember some settings.
The CX- 3, on the other hand, is a little pricier than the HR- V. Our tester was the GT, topping out at just under $ 31,000, before taxes. You know what, though? The difference is worth it because you get more equipment, like a true blindspot monitor, HID headlights, LED fog lights and, at least subjectively speaking, a better interior.
BH: This is going to be tough. It’s not like there’s a clear winner here. I said at the beginning the CX- 3 is sportier, while the HR- V offers more utility in terms of rear- seat room and cargo space — I think we agree on that. It’s also worth mentioning the CX- 3 was named the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada’s 2016 Best New SUV/ CUV under $ 35,000, beating out the second- place HR- V. Conversely, Honda sells about 25 per cent more HR- Vs in Canada than Mazda does CX- 3s.
While I will admit a preference for the Mazda’s driving dynamics, I’d honestly be happy with either vehicle in my driveway. Can you come to any more forthright a conclusion?
NT: You’re right, there isn’t a clear winner here. In the end, sales performance speaks volumes and the HR- V takes it. Neither of them are particularly attractive, but at least Honda gives you the choice between a smaller hatchback and a butched- up crossover.
Having recently announced the Mazda2 won’t be coming to North America, you don’t have the luxury of choice with Mazda. Still, between the CX- 3 and HR- V, the CX- 3 is my pick. It’s practical enough for my needs, far more engaging to drive, packs a jazzier exterior and interior, and in some areas, more equipment than the HR- V. That and it’s pretty much the only way we can have a brand- new Mazda2.