Bangkok Post


Mazda’s all-new CX-30 would have been a worthy CX-3 replacemen­t: more refined to drive and better to sit in


The Mazda CX-3 is a mixed bag of virtues and flaws when measured against upper B-segment SUVs like the Honda HR-V and Toyota C-HR in Thailand.

Things to like about Mazda’s smallest SUV include its rev-happy 2.0-litre petrol engine and incisive on-road handling. Bluntly put, the CX-3 is actually the most fun car to drive in its class.

Downsides are comprised of a hopeless boot, limited rear occupant space and prices a shade too high to really justify its position against its more practical rivals. Let’s not forget that practicali­ty in SUVs should be more important than driving fun for most people.

Welcome to the CX-30, then, an allnew SUV that should fix the problems for the CX-3 thanks to a bigger body designed to neatly slot below today’s CX-5. In fact, the CX-30 sits on a platform shared with the 3 C-segment sedan/ hatch; the CX-3 employs the smaller floorplan of the 2 B-sector Ecocars.

Apart from being bigger in size than the CX-3, the CX-30 gets the familiar 2.0-litre petrol engine but tuned to a higher 165hp (same as in the 3 and 9hp more than in the CX-3). To top things off, the CX-30 has a similar price range of 988,000 to 1.199 million baht.

In other words, the CX-30 would be a worthy replacemen­t for the CX-3, which is now over five years old in its current generation. However, Mazda insists the two SUVs will still co-exist in Thai showrooms.

The maker has even made it clear that the CX-3 will be updated again soon (with some sources pointing to a lower price point). It appears that Mazda desperatel­y wants to extract every last bit of the CX-3. So for the ease of you dear readers, the CX-30 is a million baht SUV; the smaller CX-3 (it won’t be rebadged as CX-20 yet, we hear) is set to become an 800k variation.

Despite boasting competitiv­e dimensions, the CX-30 probably won’t beat the HR-V for outright space and practicali­ty. But the CX-30 is certainly not inferior to the C-HR, which suffers from an exterior design backfiring in claustroph­obic quarters for rear occupants.

Mind, the CX-30 isn’t as airy either because the window line is quite high. As well, the front occupant and driver should also find the dashboard set a little too high. It sometimes feel more like a sports car than family-mover inside the CX-30, not to mention the highly snug seats.

Inspiratio­nally speaking, though, the driving cockpit is nicely designed and feels even more special than in the 3 in spite of the familiar, intuitive infotainme­nt screen and steering wheel that is equally good to look at and hold onto. Too bad the instrument panel is the semi-digital type amid the world of new cars turning to fully electronic style.

Thanks to the latest vehicle electrical structure, the CX-30 comes equipped with a host of driver-assist technologi­es unrivalled in number among competitor­s. Sure, they are scattered in the three trims according to price available in the CX-30. But for similar money, the CX-30 tends to offer more, along with other kit, than in rivals.

Like in the CX-3, the chassis of the CX-30 has been tuned on the sporty side of things and feels almost like the 3 except for its slightly higher ride height.

The same use of a torsion beam rear suspension in the CX-30 can also be felt whereby outright grip could have been better at high speeds.

Even so, the CX-30 steers and handles more neatly than in the C-HR, which, in isolation, still does a decent job in delivering a sufficient balance between ride and handling. What the CX-30 does better than in the CX-3 is the suppressio­n of external noise for enhanced comfort when cruising.

Since the CX-30 is heavier than the CX-3, it’s only logical that it gets more horsepower despite sharing the same E85-capable engine block and six-speed torque-converter automatic.

It’s a lively motor in the CX-30, but it needs to be pushed on demanding roads to really get a kick out of things. Like in today’s 3, it’s long overdue that some kind of forced induction comes into play to improve real-world tractabili­ty.

Sure, this naturally aspirated unit isn’t inferior to those used in the HR-V and C-HR. But let’s not forget that Toyota offers a hybrid version on top of the range and Nissan’s pending Kicks will also come with an electrifie­d petrol engine.

To top things off, MG already has a full electric version of the ZS priced at 1.19 million baht, not to mention the slightly bigger but similarly priced HS that employs a petrol-turbo engine. Honda and Toyota do have petrol-turbo tech but have yet to forward it to any of their offerings in Thailand.


So while the CX-30 is a much better SUV overall than the CX-3, it could have been made better with more relevant drivetrain tech to truly stand out in its class.

What we have at the moment is an SUV that offers the most driving fun in its class, if that really matters to the CX-30’s potential buyers. The CX-30 is more a cure for the CX-3’s ills at such a price level.

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? Chassis set-up leans on the sporty side.
Chassis set-up leans on the sporty side.
 ??  ?? Driving cockpit feels modern except for semi-digital instrument panel.
Driving cockpit feels modern except for semi-digital instrument panel.
 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ?? CX-30 is best viewed from the rear.
CX-30 is best viewed from the rear.
 ??  ??
 ??  ?? Familiar 2.0-litre engine lacks usable power.
Familiar 2.0-litre engine lacks usable power.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Thailand