Ford Puma vs Mazda CX-3

What's the difference?

If a minimum price and maximum interior space are your priorities, then the Puma is not for you. Especially so in the flagship ST-Line V, which may seem too small and a tad cramped compared to, say, a Seltos, C-HR or ASX.

Where the Ford excels, typically, is in the way it encourages the keen driver while cosseting four occupants (and a surprising amount of their cargo). There's a poise and maturity to the way the Puma moves that puts it on a par with or even beyond some premium compact SUVs. Even the styling is a statement. If the badges (and dashboard) were covered, you might be convinced this cat is actually a Jag.

If all that is more important, then the ST-Line V is for you. The very antithesis, then, of the unassuming and unloved EcoSport the Puma usurps.

‘You get what you pay for’ comes to mind with the CX-3, which is interesting given it’s neither the newest nor most feature-packed SUV in its class.

The ageing light SUV does however offer one of the best-put-together experiences in a car of this size and its engine is powerful for the class. Build quality feels well above par and there aren’t any annoying inclusions that are becoming more common in new cars.

There aren’t many downsides unless you were hoping for a big screen and the ability to play around with software functions, but at this end of the new car spectrum, a car that drives this well and remains stylish a decade on should be applauded.

Put aside its relative (but forgivable) lack of efficiency and somewhat smaller boot than rivals, and the CX-3 nails everything it needs to.

If you search for the 1998 Puma coupe, you'll see some vague similarities with its modern SUV namesake, especially in their anthropomorphic face. It's in the eyes. There are also hints of Aston Martin (DBX), Porsche (Macan) and – let's face it – Mazda (CX-3).

Yet the real achievement lies in the way Ford has managed to make a 4.2-metre-long by 1.8m wide by 1.6m high crossover look so svelte, with the resulting balanced proportions, flowing lines and taut surfacing giving the Puma quite an athletic visual presence. After the EcoSport failure, head-turning looks were deemed paramount.

The extra girth gained by widening the Fiesta's platform allowed Ford's designers to create a muscular body that could also accommodate a metre-wide tailgate opening, while beneath the cargo floor is an exceptionally deep storage box, bringing better-than-expected practicality to boot.

For one, there’s the way it looks inside and out.

The Mazda CX-3 hasn’t remained the most popular car in its segment on price, so the fact its styling continues to age gracefully in the design-focused light SUV segment (aimed at young or first-new car buyers) must have something to do with it.

While it’s been lightly updated a couple of times since 2014, the CX-3 is still in its first generation and has stood the test of time.

Looking like a jacked-up Mazda2, the CX-3 brings some traditional aesthetic to a category peppered with more divisive and daring (but admittedly admirable) designs like the Hyundai Venue, Suzuki Ignis (RIP) or the cute but prohibitively expensive Jeep Avenger.

Some elements of the CX-3, like the chrome trim around the grille or the black plastic cladding along the bottom of the body and around the wheel arches, seemed in the past like they had the potential to age poorly, but Mazda’s design language has only slowly changed since 2015, and the CX-3 still looks at-home in the brand’s line-up.

It’s not the most adventurous - even inside its layout is quite basic - but it does give off a premium vibe and the fact it plays things a little bit safe means the CX-3’s broad appeal is undeniable.

Compact yet spacious, the ST-Line V's interior has strong as well as weak points.

Let's start with the latter. The most obvious connection with the Fiesta is in the Puma's dashboard, which is largely shared between the two. After all the effort expended on the design and chassis, this is somewhat disappointing. There's nothing wrong essentially with the fascia's aesthetics or functionality – it's just that the look is humdrum and dated. What's needed is something with the visual wow factor as found in the latest Peugeot 2008, especially at this price point.

Yet Ford has at least tried to put some tinsel inside this most expensive version of its smallest SUV.

Stitched perforated leather seat facings, carbon-fibre-look trim and soft vinyl coverings in key touchpoint areas bring an upmarket look and feel, backed up by a now-familiar digital instrumentation layout, a lovely flat-bottomed three-spoke steering wheel, easy and intuitive multimedia interface and a wireless phone charger. That electronic cluster, by the way, changes colour and markings but doesn't have the scope of multimedia displays of, say, Audi's Virtual Cockpit. It's comparatively rudimentary.

Conversely, there's a solidity and quietness as well, offering a level of refinement that's usually found in more-premium Euro alternatives. We weren't expecting that, though of course this is a German Ford product.

Our test car also boasted a vast glass opening sunroof, adding to the opulence. With all this gear, the ST-Line V's cabin is properly appealing.

On the practicality front, entry and egress is pretty good, the driving position is excellent (thanks in no small part to a big amount of adjustability for both the steering column and seats), the front cushions themselves are sumptuously enveloping, while wide door pockets and a big glovebox obviously come in useful. And there's a USB-C outlet in the centre cubby between the seats. How modern.

However, rear vision out is poor, there are no seat warmers and some of the lower-lying plastics are a bit drab.

The back seat isn't really suitable for people over 175cm, as kneeroom is limited and taller scalps may scrape the ceiling with the twin-pane sunroof in situ. The latter also means no overhead grab handles.

But the backrest angle and cushions themselves are fine, even for longer journeys. Just don't expect to squeeze a third adult in the back unless rubbing shoulders won't bug you. Note, too, that the rear cushion does not slide or tilt forward to allow for a lower load area when the backrest is folded down. Pity.

There is a receptacle in both doors for small bottles but no cupholders whatsoever (how can Ford call itself an American company?), or face-level air vents – though the large dash vent outputs do reach the rear. Amenities such as USBs and cupholders are AWOL; and vision out from back there is limited by the high shoulder line. Tough if you're trying to peer out. Sorry, Fido.

The Puma's overall compact footprint and rear packaging clearly suggest that this is aimed at singles, couples, or couples with smaller kids/pets to transport around.

Still, for a small SUV, the cargo area isn't bad at all. The standard floor depth is fairly generous, with a long and flat loading area, but below that is a narrower yet deeper waterproof area, while under that again is a space-saver spare wheel. Clever. Also intelligent is the luggage cover that lifts automatically with the tailgate, as per Mazda's CX-5.

For the record, cargo capacity is rated at 410 litres with the 60/40 split-fold rear seats erect – or 1170L with them folded down flat. These figures far outstrip the CX-3.

To sum the cabin experience… it's far-better than its Fiesta-sourced dashboard may suggest, while the ST-Line V treatment goes a long way in helping justify the premium. That's a win.

The Mazda CX-3 isn’t the most spacious light SUV on the inside, but from either of the front seats it’s clear a lot of thought has gone into the best way to make the cabin work.

For example, precious space hasn’t been wasted by two dedicated cupholders, instead there’s a cupholder in the central storage compartment that’s relatively easy to reach into.

Like its design and some of its features, the CX-3’s layout can’t hide its age - there are still big physical controls for the climate settings, the speedometer is a physical dial and the gear selector is a very traditional style.

Mazda’s soon-to-be-gone media control wheel persists in the CX-3, which is by no means a bad thing. It falls nicely to hand, as with many of the controls in the CX-3. Its seating position isn’t too high and the positions you’re able to get the seat and steering wheel into should accommodate most humans.

Behind the front seats it’s a little more spartan. Space is at a premium, with my 178cm frame fitting in the back seat just enough that I had a fair bit of headroom, but my knees were able to brush the seat in front, set to my own driving position.

There are no ports for charging or vents in the second row, but the fold-down armrest has a clever fold-away cupholder. The window shoulder is a little high for young kids to properly see out, but there’s enough light that it doesn’t feel cramped.

The boot is similarly diminutive, a 264-litre space becoming 1174L with the second row folded down. Compare it with the Hyundai Venue and its 355-litre boot, or the Toyota Yaris Cross and its 390 litres, and the CX-3’s simple, well-constructed interior starts to lose points.

Upon updating the Mazda CX-3, the Evolve variant is now a $32,100 ask before on-road costs, which is $900 more than before. It’s a little step up from the $30,370 entry price of the Pure, but falls well short of the top-spec Akari’s $38,890 sticker price.

The CX-3 range now comes with updated autonomous emergency braking and adaptive cruise control, with the Evolve specifically scoring new fog lights and keyless entry.

The Evolve also comes with black machined 18-inch alloy wheels, synthetic leather interior trim and front parking sensors.

This is all on top of the CX-3’s standard kit which includes a leather-wrapped gear shift knob, handbrake handle and steering wheel, keyless start, an 8.0-inch multimedia display, wireless Apple CarPlay and wired Android Auto plus LED headlights, daytime running lights and tail-lights.

For its segment, the CX-3 isn’t cheap. The Evolve grade is more expensive than pretty much the entire line-ups of rivals like the Kia Stonic or Hyundai Venue, and its price somewhat lines up with the newer, hybrid-powered Toyota Yaris Cross.

But there’s more to the CX-3 than just a list of features.

A multiple international engine-of-the-year winner, the compact and lightweight, 999cc 1.0-litre twin-cam three-cylinder turbo petrol unit is the sole choice for now. Driving the front wheels via a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission (DCT), it delivers 92kW of power and 170Nm of torque.

With no all-wheel drive option, there are instead five driving modes – Normal, Sport, Slippery (for snow) and Trail (gravel) applications, working on the traction, stability and transmission algorithms to mimic some of the benefits of AWD. In the ST-Line V, a set of paddle shifters are fitted in lieu of the sadly-absent manual gearbox.

Owners of the previous-shape Fiesta S and EcoSport would be familiar with the 1.0T's smooth and strident performance, though these 2010s models used a completely different type of DCT. This was the highly-publicised Powershift, which consisted of a dry-clutch system, and was prone to a multitude of problems and failures in the petrol-powered auto versions.

In contrast, the Puma adopts a next-generation transmission dubbed 7DCT300; related to the item found in some smaller Mercedes-Benz, Renault and Nissan models, it instead employs a more-robust wet-clutch system with a higher torque threshold, so promises to be far more durable and reliable than the problematic old dry-clutch unit.

The Mazda CX-3 is still powered by a 2.0-litre, naturally aspirated, four-cylinder petrol engine, as has been the case for years. Its outputs remain at 110kW/195Nm.

It drives the front wheels only, via a six-speed automatic transmission.

The Puma's official combined average fuel consumption figure is just 5.3 litres per 100km, which works out to 121 grams per kilometre. Fitted with a 42-litre fuel tank, the potential range averages out to almost 800km between refills.

Out in the real world, we managed an exceptional 6.2L/100km, no doubt helped by an ever-eager stop/start system (which, annoyingly, kills the air-con when it extinguishes the engine; we found ourselves constantly pressing that 'off' button as the days wore on). This figure was achieved in motorway-heavy driving scenarios, albeit loaded with holiday gear and with the air-con blaring.

So, we took another, urban-focused test, in lots of slow-moving traffic situations, and averaged a still-solid 8.0L/100km.

Note, that while the Puma requires 95 RON premium unleaded, it's also perfectly happy on – and is even recommended by Ford for – the cheapest petrol currently offered in Australia, 94 RON E10 unleaded. Either way, the ST-Line V is a frugal small SUV.

Mazda claims the CX-3 sips 6.3 litres of fuel per 100km, minimum 91 RON petrol, though on test the small SUV returned an 8.1L/100km figure under a mix of urban, highway and some dynamic driving.

With its 48-litre fuel tank, that means you’re realistically likely to get about 550km to a tank, though theoretically given Mazda’s efficiency claim a 760km trip on a single tank would be possible - if you could recreate the test lab conditions.

If the Puma's pricing is complicated, its cabin surprising accommodating and its real-world efficiency particularly parsimonious, then the upward trajectory of pros over cons continues with performance that's downright spirited.

Around town first. A small-displacement engine plus a turbo plus a DCT usually spell interminable spells of lag when all the driver longs for is an instant and measured response to a right foot flexing down onto the throttle.

But the Ford largely sidesteps such pitfalls. Though momentarily hesitant at take-off, the three-pot turbo does then get down to business in no time, with a sustained and satisfying surge of thrust as the revs grow, accompanied by a lusty and raspy thrum that's entirely in keeping with the Puma's track-pants appearance. And it doesn't let up either, with speed building up strongly through the gears, and much more so than the mere 999ccs suggest. Great for overtaking, or taking over a rapidly diminishing gap in the peak-hour derby.

Selecting Sport (a fiddly action that's located too far from the driver for safe eyes-on-the-road operation) lights an even bigger fire in the Puma's belly, with punchier acceleration and a very attentive transmission tune, slicing seamlessly through the seven ratios, leaving you in awe that a heart so small can possess such deep lungs.

Where the Ford really leaves an indelible mark is its enthusiasm to corner just as keenly, armed with brilliantly slick steering and a planted chassis that is set up to both encourage and interact with the driver. Minimal body roll and lots of grip from a quality quartet of Continental tyres ensure the Puma can be punted about like a sporty little hatchback, while the electronic safety tech allowing just enough leeway for lots of fun before they gently reel everything back into line.

We cannot think of a more enjoyable small SUV. And, by the way, those same driver-assist systems provide exceptionally nuanced lane-keep and adaptive cruise-control intervention – certainly they're right up there with the premium SUV brigade.

Given that our Puma wore 215/50R18 rubber, on a 'sports' suspension tune, the ride around town is commendable, with ample cushioning from the rough stuff. There is some tautness to the ride, but it isn't hard or rough; the ST-Line V walks a fine line between urban-agility and surface-decay isolation. In other words, it's commendably relaxing to travel in.

At higher speeds, some road and tyre noises do permeate through inside, and those Dumbo door mirrors do create some wind whoosh, but overall, given how dynamic the chassis is, the Puma feels grown up and sophisticated.

The light SUV category is an interesting one, as it feels somewhat like a gateway to bigger SUVs for those who get a taste of the higher seating position. But in city and urban areas, a light SUV should be as much car as someone needs - unless they have two kids or a bunch of equipment to get around with.

This comes down to the fact cars like the CX-3 are more efficient and easier to manoeuvre than their larger counterparts. And as light SUVs go, the CX-3 feels solid, confidence inspiring and more capable when outside its inner-city comfort zone.

Its naturally aspirated engine is big for the class. Even if it doesn’t feel the punchiest off the line it offers plenty of flexibility at higher speeds and makes overtaking on the highway feel less daunting than it would otherwise be in a car this small.

Its steering is light, which is an advantage in everyday driving, but has enough feedback that more dynamic driving is still engaging. It’s not sportscar-sharp, but you wouldn’t want it to be.

While its age would suggest the CX-3 should feel unrefined compared to newer small cars and light SUVs because of what lies underneath, Mazda’s work on the little SUV over the years has resulted in a car that feels mature and capable.

The suspension isn’t perfect, but it manages low-to medium speeds elegantly and does a decent job of maintaining stability at high speeds. It feels better than you’d expect from a car this size on the highway.

The 1294kg kerb weight and small-enough 18-inch wheels mean there’s not too much weight to manage, and there’s enough cushion in the tyres that harsh bumps don’t come crashing into the cabin.

While the CX-3 feels refined for its class, don’t expect a dead-quiet ride, as some road and wind noise make their way in above 80km/h. Then there’s the fact its engine and transmission will sometimes need to get a bit raucous when accelerating quickly. Aside from this, the CX-3 around town and in suburban areas feels nice and calm.

The Mazda CX-3 is technically unrated by ANCAP, though only because its original maximum five-star rating expired after seven years. While this means it easily passes many of ANCAP’s main criteria for safety (and strict Australian Design Rules - ADRs - to be able to be sold here), the CX-3 is missing some recent, more complex safety features.

Not everything is standard across the line-up, either. The Evolve misses out on adaptive headlights, a surround-view parking camera and traffic sign recognition. The base Pure variant also misses out on a front parking sensor.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other key features like seven airbags, dual-front and front-side plus curtain airbags spanning the sides. The CX-3 also has ABS and emergency braking with forward pedestrian detection and rear cross-traffic alert.

There’s lane departure warning, forward obstruction warning, blind-spot monitoring and a driver attention alert for those times you might miss something or - hopefully not often - are distracted.

All these systems are programmed well to minimise interference while driving, making the CX-3 refreshingly trusting of the driver to actually do the job of driving.

Ford offers the industry-average warranty of five-years/unlimited kilometres. Services intervals are every 12 months or 15,000km.

There is also a capped-price servicing scheme under the 'Ford Service Benefits' banner, with the first four years/60,000km of 'A and B' logbook services pegged at $299 per visit, and then between $320 and $560, for up to 12 years.

There is also a Ford loan car program, SYNC 3 map updates and Motoring Club Membership included during that time frame.

Mazda offers a five-year, unlimited kilometre warranty, which is behind the curve for a mainstream brand these days. Rival brands like Kia and Hyundai offer seven years, for example, with some offering up to 10.

Servicing is undertaken every 12 months or 15,000km, whichever comes first, with servicing costing between $353 and $633 per visit. Total cost over the first seven years currently sits at $3233, averaging $462 a service, which is pricey considering the relatively simple mechanicals under the CX-3.

Mazda says there are more than 150 certified service dealerships across the country, with a tool to find the most convenient one for you. Given the CX-3’s advanced age, chances are there won’t be too many mechanical issues that haven’t been worked out in the last decade.