Mazda CX-3 vs Subaru Crosstrek

What's the difference?

‘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.

The Crosstrek is good to drive with great ground clearance and an excellent all-wheel drive system for light off-road adventures. I’m also a fan of the styling and features for the money. But The letdowns comes in the form of limited boot space and cabin storage, a short warranty and pricey servicing. Still, it’s great to see Subaru has updated the car's safety systems, the most important part of any car.

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.

While SUVs tend to come in either a tall and boxy or coupe-like shape, the Crosstrek has a uniquely sleek and sporty wagon look that has stayed much the same over three generations.

Also while the Crosstrek competes with the Honda HR-V, Hyundai Kona, Mazda CX-30 and Toyota Corolla Cross the Subaru is the most off-road suitable thanks in part to its high 220mm ground clearance

As if to signal those adventurous aspirations the Crosstrek has a more rugged appearance with robust-looking plastic guards and chunky roof rails.

Inside the Crosstrek looks so much the same as most other new Subarus it's hard to work out which one you’re in. The materials are dark and soft, there is not much in the way of glitzy trimmings but there’s a high quality feeling throughout. 

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.

The Crosstrek is a small SUV but its low and sleek shape doesn’t do it any practicality favours in terms of exiting and entering or storage in the boot.

Boot capacity is 291 litres which is very small compared to its rivals which have capacities closer to 350 or 400 litres.

People space inside, however, is good, and even for a tall (189cm) person like me there’s plenty of space up front and behind my driving position.

Storage space is passable with three cupholders and thin door pockets and a decent-size console bin.

Given the Crosstrek’s adventurous intent, the cabin should be more reflective of that rugged aspiration.

The Crosstrek range is divided into three petrol variants and two hybrids. With a list price of $43,990, our test Crosstrek 2.0S sits at the top of the petrols and second from the top of the line-up under the Crosstrek AWD Hybrid S flagship.

Standard features on our 2.0S include 18-in alloy wheels, roof rails, LED headlights and tail-lights, dual-zone climate control, push-button start, proximity unlocking , 10-speaker audio, wireless phone charging, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, an 11.6-inch media touchscreen and leather-trimmed seats.

If you’re looking to save a few thousand dollars the 2.0R is almost as well equipped. 

Is it worth stepping up to the hybrid? Not in my opinion. The hybrid is the 'mild' kind and doesn't offer a great deal in terms of real-world fuel savings. You can read more on fuel efficiency below.

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 Crosstrek 2.0S uses a 2.0-litre, four-cylinder, horizontally-opposed 'boxer' petrol engine which makes 115kW and 196Nm. A continuously variable transmission (CVT) with eight 'speeds’ isn’t the most exhilarating automatic but all Subaru now use CVTs.

The boxer engine has advantageous in terms of a lower centre of mass and helps deliver better driving feel thanks to more adept handling. Boxer engines also sound better to my ears with their throaty burble.

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.

The Crosstrek 2.0S's combined cycle (urban/extra-urban) fuel consumption is 7.2L/100km which aligns closely with our real-world test average of 8.7L/100km returned over mainly urban and city driving. That’s not bad, but given the price of fuel as well as the availability of EVs and excellent hybrids from other brands the Crosstrek is seriously behind the times.

Yes, yes, there is a hybrid Crosstrek, but it’s a mild-hybrid and the electric motor doesn't drive the wheels and doesn’t save much fuel. The hybrid Crosstrek has a claimed combined cycle consumption figure of 6.5L/100km, so there’s not much difference between the efficiency of the two. When you consider the price premium you need to pay it’s not worth stepping up into the hybrid.

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.

I’ve never met a new Subaru that wasn’t good to drive, apart from that time a friend sent me his 30-year old Brumby minus brakes. But even that was fun, until it was time to stop… Anyway, in my view the Crosstrek is better than its rivals in multiple areas except one, which I’ll get to in a moment.

The Crosstrek 2.0S is comfortable to sit in and its ride and handling balance is exceptional for a vehicle in this class. Honestly, the ride quality, body control and steering outshines the HR-V, Kona, CX-30 and Corolla Cross in my view.

A big call out has to go to the Crosstrek's all-wheel drive system, which is exceptional. I have tested this vehicle in some pretty adventurous settings and the kind of terrain it can devour would frighten its rivals.  

But the one area that lets the experience down is the CVT auto. I feel this way about this type of transmission in any car and I’m not alone. CVTs provide smooth acceleration and deceleration but if you’re hoping for an engaging, sporty experience you’ll be left wanting.

That said, my wife also drove the car and thought it was perfect for city traffic. And I agree, it’s just on the motorway where you might notice the lack of oomph when overtaking.

Visibility is good and you sit quite high for a little SUV. That small size makes it easy to park and manage in the city’s tighter spaces.

Part of the reason we're testing the Crosstrek is because it was updated with more safety tech and equipment towards the end of last year. This safety boost means the Crosstrek continues to boast a maximum five-star ANCAP rating.

The big change was to the 'Eyesight' sensor system with better traffic sign recognition and enhanced AEB systems. An emergency vehicle stop system has also been added to bring the car to a halt if the driver becomes unresponsive.

The rest of the Crosstrek’s features carry over including AEB, lane-keeping assistance, front and rear cross-traffic alert (with braking) and blind-spot warning.

For child seats there are two ISOFIX points and three top tether anchor mounts across the second row.

There is a spare where but it's a temporary type which will get you to a repair place.  

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.

Subaru’s five year united kilometre warranty is becoming less appealing as other brands offer seven or even 10 years of coverage. 

Servicing is recommended every 12 months/15,000km and a capped schedule is pricey relative to its competitors at more than $2400 over five years or about $400 on average per service.

The brand is represented by a long-established and stable network of close to 130 dealers covering metro, rural and regional locations across every state and territory.