Ford Ecosport vs Mazda 3

What's the difference?

So, should you buy a base-model Ford EcoSport Ambiente? 

For the money it’s a great little daily commuter with an odd mix of dated trim and a great multimedia, but it’s definitely worth making room in your budget to investigate the Trend or Titanium grades.

Plus, it’s worth keeping in mind that many competitors now offer more comprehensive safety or more powerful drivetrains for not much more money.

Given how effortlessly it traverses the mainstream and premium small car classes, the Mazda 3 might be the best value small car on the planet.

With racy styling, sports car handling, classy interior presentation and impressive, intelligent efficiency, there’s plenty to sink your teeth into here.

Poor rear vision, a dark back-seat area and smallish boot aside, it doesn’t have any glaring faults.

In a world overrun with SUVs, props to Mazda for evolving the small car so brilliantly to mask a half-decade of existence. Continuous improvements have made the 2024 G25 Evolve SP Vision an essential small car shortlist proposition, regardless of price.

The EcoSport has had a second refresh this year, simply removing the spare wheel from the back. According to Ford, this was due to consumers not liking the extra 12kg it added to the rear hatch. Fair enough. 

Personally though, I think it detracts from the EcoSport’s look, the rear spare was a cheeky stab at small soft-roaders of the ‘90s. 

The lack of a spare also makes the side-swinging door a bit pointless now (it also swings the wrong way, toward the kerb instead of away from it, due to its European design origins) and just gives the rear three-quarter another anonymous SUV look.

Aside from that the EcoSport has come a long way styling-wise. 

It has ditched the weird hatchback grille it used to have, instead employing a tough-looking single plastic grille insert, bringing it stylistically in line with larger Ford SUVs like the Everest and Escape. Plus, the plastic guards on the underside give it a fun off-roader look.

Importantly, it strays far enough from its Fiesta underpinnings to look like something new entirely, unlike the Holden Trax, which simply looks like a Holden Cruze on stilts…

Inside, it maintains a little too much of that last-generation Fiesta look. The dash juts too far into the cabin, feeling as though it reduces space, and there is an abundance of terrible plastics and hardly aesthetic textures across the entire cockpit.

The seat trim is some el-cheapo nylon material, but at least it will be easy to clean.

A saving grace is the slick-looking multimedia interface, but it looks so much newer than its surroundings its obvious Ford has simply tacked this on as part of a facelift. Thankfully, unlike some other current Fords, the volume, fan-speed and temperature controls are all dials instead of buttons.

The touchscreen itself, as with most new Ford products, is a pleasure to use and not difficult to navigate. The Apple CarPlay connectivity didn’t throw me any lag or problems.

In terms of interior trim, the Honda HR-V is still the target to beat in this segment, but the EcoSport shapes up pretty well compared to the Trax and ASX with their tiny media screens and equally average interior materials.

How is it that the current Mazda 3 is already five years old? This hatchback is still stunning, the sort of car you look back at when walking away.

The shape is sleek and almost coupe-like, with a shark-like nose, cab-backward-style long bonnet, upswept shoulder line and a fastback silhouette.

More importantly, it’s the way the light dances across the sculptured sides that draw the eyes in. Bereft of clutter, it makes you wish all mainstream manufacturers had the courage to be so daring.

We’ve said it before – the 'BP'-generation Mazda 3 (Axela in Japan) is the brand’s boldest C-segment hatch since the 1993 'BA' 323 (Astina/Lantis/323F).

But there’s a price to pay for such timeless beauty…

Despite being based on a car as compact as the Fiesta (complete with aforementioned dash design that feels like it detracts from space), the EcoSport has a good amount of head and legroom in both seating rows.

In terms of storage, there’s a little trench under the air conditioning controls, two decently-sized cupholders in the centre console and what has to be one of the smallest storage boxes I’ve ever used under the armrest.

Rear passengers get… um… not much. There are no storage areas in the doors, no drop-down centre armrest and no air vents in the back of the centre console. They do get two ISOFIX points on the outer seats, though. At least in terms of dimensions, space is decent back there.

The EcoSport’s boot is large. As Ford provides measurements in SAE rather than VDA, it’s hard to compare number for number, but the boot is deep and tall with the seats up, and with them down there’s a nifty variable boot floor so you can level it out or take advantage of the extra depth.

CarsGuide colleague Matt Campbell points out in his latest range review, that one of the EcoSport's main selling points in other markets is that it can fit a whole washing machine in the boot.

The HR-V still aces this segment in terms of flexibility, but the EcoSport possesses one of the most useful boots in its class.

Oh, and the missing full-size spare wheel on the back? That's now gone entirely, replaced with an inflation kit under the boot floor. Don't blame Ford, blame the consumers.

There is a price to pay for all this quasi-coupe styling flair, and that’s a comparatively snug-feeling interior, though you’d never call it cramped.

Actually, the Mazda 3 is no less spacious than most of its competition in all but one area, with enough room even for 200cm drivers, along with sufficient shoulder width and ceiling height to match.

If you’re really tall, maybe that missing sunroof isn’t such a bad thing, after all.

Sat so low-down on cushy, enveloping front seats that offer plenty of comfort and support, this is the anti-SUV. Maybe Mazda should have called this the MX-3.

Sporty and spot-on, the driving position is a laid-back affair, with an emphasis on better ergonomics, as emphasised by the thoughtful placement of switchgear that’s all within easy reach, ahead of a beautifully flowing and layered dash. Proudly Japanese in flavour, it brings to mind functional minimalism.

Drilling into some of the 3’s finer interior details, the analogue-look digital instrumentation is super-legible, ultra-classy and gorgeously lit at night. As previously mentioned, the dials and surrounding air vents are reminiscent of the later Porsche 944 and 968.

It’s not just all for the sake of aesthetics, either.

Yes, it’s lovely, but the thinned-rim three-spoke steering wheel feels great to grip, with nifty little paddle shifters that are a delight to prod.

Same goes for the physical volume knob and climate-control buttons, sidestepping the need to get distracted and frustrated by virtual sub-menus.

And having a conventional gear lever with old-school Tiptronic-style shifts suits the 3’s athletic vibe.

Plus, forward vision is A-OK, ventilation is faultless, storage is better than you might expect, and the fit and finish is as good if not better than any of this 3’s German premium opponents.

Out back, the split-fold rear backrest is set at a comfortable angle, the cushion is well padded, and you’re provided with USB ports, air vents, and an armrest with two cupholders. More thoughtfulness.

But while knee room is fair, rear headroom isn’t great if you’re tall or wear a beehive, as the falling ceiling line reveals.

Vision out is limited by that rising window line and fat pillars. Getting in and out of the back requires some contortionist moves. And the small windows mean it can be gloomier in the back than a Smiths album.

Finally, at just 295 litres, the 3’s cargo capacity is disappointing. Sure, it eclipses the Corolla hatch’s 217L cubby, but other rivals are far larger back there.

At least the floor is wide and flat and there are 60/40-split backrests for cabin access for longer items.

Note that a space-saver spare wheel lurks underneath. Mazda argues there’s always the closely-related CX-30 if you need (slightly) more space (317L).

Meanwhile, at the other end of the 3…

Mazda has rationalised the MY24 3 range, with fewer grades and no more manuals, sadly.

The pretty little piece of automotive industrial design you see here is the mid-range Evolve SP Vision, which sounds less like a car and more like a posh hairdryer from Vidal Sassoon.

Priced from $36,520 before on-road costs (or about $41K drive-away before you start haggling), this Mazda 3 is a sporty and well-equipped alternative to the likes of the speedy Hyundai i30 N-Line Premium, spacious Kia Cerato GT Turbo, new Subaru Impreza AWD 2.0R and evergreen Toyota Corolla ZR. All cost roughly the same money.

The thing is, do Mazda’s upmarket aspirations mean the 3 possesses the ride quality and chic to embarrass at times substantially more expensive hatchbacks with premium pretensions? We’re talking rivals like the BMW 1 Series, Mercedes-Benz A-Class, Peugeot 308 and VW Golf, here.

Stay with us, because we reckon you might be surprised by how far the 3 has come since its humble 323 predecessors.

Anyway, this version comes with most of the good gear, including a full suite of driver-assist safety tech like front and rear Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), blind-spot alert, lane-keep assist and adaptive cruise control, as well as keyless start and walk-away lock, powered driver’s seat with memory, 360-degree camera views, a head-up display, digital radio, sat-nav, auto tilt/folding exterior mirrors, dual-zone climate control, Bluetooth phone/audio connectivity and 18-inch alloys.

Oh, and for 2023, an upgraded version introduces a smartphone charger and wireless for the Apple CarPlay/Android Auto function, along with USB-C port access front and rear.

What’s missing at the Evolve SP Vision’s price point? Some mainstream rivals offer leather and a sunroof, available respectively in the more-expensive GT Vision, from $40,000, and flagship Astina grades, from nearly $42,500.

Still, that’s quite a lot of small car for the money, given the quality of the presentation and design. Speaking of which…

The EcoSport Ambiente is the only EcoSport in the range powered by a 1.5-litre non-turbo three-cylinder engine.

The Trend and Titanium levels get a more advanced 1.0-litre three-cylinder turbo engine bearing Ford’s 'EcoBoost' branding.

On paper the 1.5-litre in our car is underpowered. It produces just 90kW/150Nm, comparing poorly to four-cylinder competitors like the Holden Trax with its 1.4-litre turbo (103kW/200Nm), the Mitsubishi ASX with its 2.0-litre non-turbo (110kW/197Nm) and Honda HR-V with its 1.8-litre non-turbo (105kW/172Nm).

In practice though, it’s not too bad. Quite a bit of the available torque arrives early, letting the EcoSport zip around city surroundings with ease. It’s only really out on open roads where you’ll feel the power fade away at higher revs.

All EcoSports have a six-speed torque converter automatic transmission and are front-wheel drive only in Australia.

When you think about it, shoehorning a big torquey engine in a light and agile small car is a recipe for fun. Ford did just that with the Escort RS2000 in the 1970s… and Mazda’s now an expert at it, too.

The engine in question is the G25, a 2.5-litre four-cylinder naturally aspirated twin-cam petrol engine, delivering 139kW of power at 6000rpm and 252Nm of torque at 4000rpm.

As this Evolve SP Vision hatch tips the scales at 1415kg, it makes for a healthy, and consequently very lively, power-to-weight ratio of over 98kW/tonne.

That’s if you decide to use all the available revs, which the six-speed torque-converter auto makes great use of.

Driving the front wheels, it offers a 'Sport' mode to extend the revs even more, which is keeping in line with this Mazda’s sporty character.

Less so is the company’s decision to ditch the old multi-link independent rear suspension system a few years back for a more prosaic torsion beam arrangement. We’ll get to how that affects ride and handling in a moment.

The bad news for the 1.5-litre three-cylinder is clearly in this department. 

Ford claims a not-great combined figure of 6.9L/100km, and after my mixed drive (freeways on the weekend, traffic during the week) I managed to add another 2.1 litres to that total, bringing my final number to 9.0L/100km.

An average score, considering you can extract better fuel figures from much bigger and more engaging engines. For comparison, I recently scored 8.0L/100km in the 1.4-litre four-cylinder turbo Suzuki Vitara.

All EcoSports have a 52-litre fuel tank, and happily drink base-grade 91 RON petrol.

Mazda claims the G25 averages 6.6L/100km on the combined cycle… for a carbon-dioxide emissions rating of 154g/km. On a 51L tank, that gives a potential distance of over 940km!

Driven good and hard in our hands, we managed 7.5L/100km, which isn’t bad given the speed and conditions it was subjected to.

Plus, the Mazda’s happy on 91 RON 'standard' unleaded petrol.

The EcoSport is a great city companion. With long suspension travel that’s comfortable and compliant, neglected infrastructure didn’t bother the ride much at all, and it was surprisingly quiet during our week.

Prodding the accelerator too far will only lead to disappointment, the engine starts to make a bit more noise, but doesn’t propel the car with an equal amount of gusto. It’s hardly the most entertaining car to drive, even in the small SUV segment.

The steering is great, if a little light and the transmission makes itself largely unknown. Ford’s choice to stick with a torque converter rather than a CVT has probably saved this little engine from being a major let down.

All those features combine with a high seating position and great visibility for a little SUV that’s simply easy to pilot in urban surroundings. 

More can be had from competitors like the HR-V with its excellent ride, and the Suzuki Vitara with its fun-packed engine, but Ford has nailed the experience for daily commuters.

Ask yourself. What do you want from a new small car?

Since the first Familia of the early 1960s, Mazda’s been at it constantly, through the 1300 and 323 eras and into the modern age of the 3.

The Hiroshima brand knows its stuff. Space, practicality, comfort, ease, reliability and affordability. But a small car has to offer more, specifically in the way it makes the owner feel.

That’s why, while the Focuses, Lancers, Astras and Pulsars are gone, the 3’s still here. And it isn’t just the lush visuals inside and out that are, well, sensory-rich.

As older Alfa Romeo owners know, there’s something special about an engine that sounds alive, and the moment you push the 3’s starter, it purrs into life. That’s the first clue.

Slot the refreshingly old-school lever into Drive, and the G25 leaps into action, and, if you need it to, will keep pulling forward strongly, engine buzzing, like it’s on a mission.

That describes the torquey urge of this big 2.5L four, paired perfectly with the sensibly-geared auto.

We miss Mazda’s magnificent manual immensely, but the 3’s instant response reflects its favourable circa-100kW/tonne power-to-weight ratio.

And, as we’ve harped on in the past, the twin-cam unit’s extra oomph beyond 4000rpm delivers muscular high-speed responses akin to a good turbo – or a great old-school Alfa. You can keep your laggy dual-clutch transmissions, Europe.

Now, sweet, smooth and speedy performance is one thing, but having the chassis tuned with precise and fluid steering for tactile handling, and confident roadholding, backed by nuanced driver-assist and traction controls, are another.

There is a consistent and unifying control to the 3’s linear and forgiving dynamics, reminiscent of past masters like the Focus (and today’s brilliant Peugeot 308) that makes it a joy to drive enthusiastically through fast corners, with the knowledge that it won’t suddenly snap-oversteer and bite an unalert driver back.

For a Mazda, the ride is quiet enough, but there is still some droning transmitted through the cabin, via the Bridgestone Turanza (215/45) tyres, on coarse-chip bitumen surfaces.

And while suspension comfort is pretty impressive for the most part, larger bumps reveal the torsion beam’s limitations, as the car can occasionally thud over them in a way that we remember the multi-link rear end wouldn’t.

Anyway, what we’re saying is that, overall, the 3 Evolve SP Vision is an immersive and interactive driving experience that is right up there with the best of them.

Brawny performance, exquisite agility and a refinement that, collectively, have eluded every small Mazda in living memory until this generation’s 2019 debut. This 3’s right on the money. Still.

Tested way back when this generation was new in early 2019, the Mazda 3 scored a maximum five-star ANCAP crash-test rating.

On the driver-assist front you’ll find front and rear AEB (with a working range of 40km/h to 200km/h) with pedestrian and cycle detection available between 10-80km/h, while the 'Forward Collision Warning' operates from 40-200km/h.

Blind-spot monitoring, lane departure warning, lane-keep assist, 'Forward Obstruction Warning', rear and front 'Cross-Traffic Alert', 'Secondary Collision', auto high beams, breakaway pedals, adaptive cruise control (with full stop/go functionality and cruising/traffic support), parking sensors front/rear, 360-degree round-view monitor, reverse camera, traffic sign recognition, driver monitor and tyre-pressure monitors are also included.

The lane-keep support systems work between 55-200km/h.

Seven airbags – front, side, curtain and a driver’s knee bag – are fitted, along with anti-lock brakes with 'Electronic Brake-force Distribution', 'Emergency Brake Assist', stability control, traction control, hill-start assist are also fitted, seat-belt pretensioners, and two rear-seat ISOFIX points as well as three top tethers for child seat straps.

Just like Mazda, Honda and Holden, Ford has updated its warranty recently to five-years/unlimited km coverage. Kia doesn’t operate in the small SUV segment (unless you count the quirky Soul) so five years is the bar to beat.

The 1.5-litre non-turbo three-cylinder engine option was not available in Ford’s service calculator tool at the time of writing but expect it to cost between $230-270 per regular service, jumping to somewhere just under $500 every four years (assuming it keeps a similar pricing structure to the previous engine options).

Ford offers a free loan car while your car is down for servicing, which needs to happen once a year or every 15,000km.

Mazda offers a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty, with five-years roadside assistance… and that’s nothing special nowadays.

Service intervals are at 12 months or every 15,000km.

A fixed-price service scheme is available, averaging out to $434 annually over the first five years. Mazda shows pricing right up to 16 years and 240,000km on its website.