Mazda CX-3 vs Volvo C40

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 C40 becomes a compelling option in the electrified small SUV space, offering a premium look and feel, great range and tech inclusions at the price, as well as awesome on-road dynamics.

Its main downsides are the rear seat, which is compromised by its platform and design-led roofline, and the overwhelming power and added traction of the dual-motor makes the single motor less attractive on the value front.

Still, regardless of variant chosen, the C40 looks to offer a stand-out balance of price, range, and performance, against its traditional rivals and newcomers alike.

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.

Volvo has become a brand with a distinctive and consistent design language which embodies the kind of beautiful minimalism normally associated with Scandinavian brands.

I have always liked how Volvo says more with less design elements, with only gentle touches of chrome or gloss black, and a lack of over-the-top sporty pieces avoiding the temptation to over-sell the sporty potential of the brand’s range.

The C40 takes the small SUV formula, well established by its XC40 relation, and gets a bit weird and experimental. It’s slightly lower and has a more coupe-styled rear, with a strongly raked rear window giving it a sportier and more aggressive look than the rest of Volvo’s SUV range.

The styling is sold by an angular spoiler piece running atop the boot, and the rear light clusters have gone all minimalist, constructed of individual pieces rather than a single transparent housing, and they give a nod to the C30 hatchback which this car is the spiritual successor to, by name and nature.

The interior offers up no surprises, sticking to the formula Volvo has established across all of its current models. An effortlessly premium space with, again, a minimalistic dash dominated by the portrait touchscreen, the C40’s premium nature is confirmed by its finely patterned inlays, simple chrome pieces, and abundance of soft-touch surfaces.

The big upright vent fittings with clever rhomboid patterns on their adjustment dials are always a highlight piece of modern Volvos, and the pattern work is continued on the central volume adjust dial and even on the little rotating pieces of the light and wiper stalks. Clever.

Even the software is paired back on the multimedia suite and digital dashboard, with easy to use shortcuts and simple menus which suit the car.

Volvo might turn off some buyers with the more unconventional shape of the C40. But for those looking for a more traditional SUV it also offers the XC40 in the same two variants, and the Polestar 2 caters to those not looking for an SUV at all.

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 C40 is essentially a XC40 with a cropped down roofline, and there are some obvious downsides which this new shape brings.

The front seat throws no surprises, though, offering plenty of room for two adults with a welcome level of adjustability for the seat and wheel. The seats could be more comfortable, though, with a notable lack of padding in the base compared to some luxury (or even non-luxury) rivals. 

I’m a fan of the fabric trim which comes on both grades, bucking the trend of needing to have leather or leather-like trim for a car to feel ‘premium’.

The ample window space up front, including the massive glass roof helps the C40’s cabin feel spacious, but the view out the rear with its aggressive design is all but a very limited letterbox aspect, particularly if the rear seat headrests are in the upright position. 

While some controls are exclusively via touch interface, there is a physical volume dial, and shortcut buttons for the defogger functions. 

Temperature is controlled by touch, however, and the detail settings have some smaller toggle adjustments. Tricky to jab at when you’re on the move.

The digital dash is refreshingly simple, but minimally adjustable, with the choice of either a nifty navigation screen, a blank screen, or trip details being the only options.

Cabin storage is good but not stellar. There are bottle holders and big pockets in the doors, a set of two cupholders in the centre (beats the Polestar 2’s single cupholder), a small tray with a wireless charger under the multimedia screen, and a smallish console armrest box.

The rear seat is where the real problem exists. Unlike the XC40, the C40’s cropped roofline means my head was hard up against the roof (I’m 182cm tall). 

I did have decent knee room behind my own seating position, however the seat comfort in the back still isn’t as good as some rivals. 

The middle position is also compromised, thanks to the raised centre floor piece the C40’s platform needs to facilitate all-wheel drive in its combustion relations.

A bottle holder appears in each door pocket, and in a rare inclusion, there are heated outboard rear seats, adjustable air vents, and USB-C charging ports.

The boot has a quoted capacity of 413 litres with the rear seats up. The floor is comparatively high suggesting a smallish space when loaded with luggage cases, for instance. Stay tuned for a follow-up review so we can see how well it holds our three-piece demo set.

The floor itself has an adjustable, pop-up divider and multiple luggage hooks, making it quite versatile, and there is a cavity beneath which can hold your charging cables as well as the inflator kit in place of a spare wheel.

When it comes to electric vehicles, it’s impossible to consider price alone, as you also have to consider driving range, and the C40 manages to impress on both fronts.

Its refreshingly simplified range consists of just two highly-specified variants, a single motor which starts from $74,990, offering a 434km driving range, or a dual motor starting from $82,490 which offers a 420km driving range.

There’s much more devil in the detail, but to set the scene there are now quite a few direct rivals in this price-bracket, including everything from the Tesla Model Y (from $72,300), Mercedes-Benz EQA (from $78,513), Polestar 2 (from $63,900) and even the Kia Niro which is similarly sized and specified (from $65,300).

Interestingly, the C40 is closely related to the Polestar 2, but has a much higher base starting price. Volvo says this is because it carries a higher standard specification, and offers the C40 without option packs.

Standard gear on the base single motor C40 includes 19-inch alloy wheels, a 9.0-inch portrait multimedia touchscreen (running a Google-based always-online software suite), LED headlights, dual-zone climate control, a fixed panoramic sunroof, electrically adjustable front seats, heated seats for the front two and outboard rear seats, a powered tailgate, as well as keyless entry with touch-free ignition.

Interestingly, Volvo also told us some 90 per cent of customer interest so far has been for the more expensive dual-motor variant, which is particularly impressive for doubling the power output while adding 20-inch alloy wheels, a 360-degree parking suite, premium Harmon Kardon audio, and an alternate interior trim.

Both variants score safety equipment and items which are otherwise part of expensive option packs in the Polestar 2 range. We’ll take a look at the full safety gear later in this review.

Overall, the C40 impresses on the premium car value front compared to rivals, bolstered by solid range and impressive performance.

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.

Great news here, the C40 can be chosen with two powerful layouts, either a front-wheel drive 170kW/330Nm set-up, or a dual-motor all-wheel drive arrangement, able to make use of nearly double the power at 300kW/660Nm. The dual-motor is capable of sprinting from 0-100km/h in just 4.7 seconds.

The front-drive is backed by a 69kWh battery allowing it a 434km range, while the dual motor ups the battery size to 78kWh to allow a 420km driving range.

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.

Surprisingly, energy consumption is quite high for both C40 variants. The single motor is the more efficient of the two, consuming 16.8kWh/100km on the more lenient ADR testing schedule, while the dual motor officially consumes 22.2kWh/100km to the same standard. I saw around 23kWh/100km overall in my short test of the dual-motor variant.

Energy consumption could be better for both, as I have achieved more consistently impressive results particularly from Hyundai and Kia electric cars.

Where the C40 is more impressive though is its charging specs, which are exactly where they need to be for a car this size. On a rapid DC charger, the C40 can charge at a rate of 150kW meaning a 10 - 80 percent charge in 40 minutes for the dual motor, or 32 minutes for the single motor.

On the slower AC standard, the C40 charges at a rate of 11kW. Expect a 10 - 80 percent charge time of around five or six hours on this standard. 

The C40 uses a European-standard Type 2 CCS charging port, although it misses out on the handy two-way charging feature offered by some rivals.

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.

If you’ve driven any kind of XC40 or even a Polestar 2 before, the C40 will offer no surprises. It’s pretty much exactly the same from behind the wheel with a few subtle tweaks.

This is a very good thing. The C40 is quiet, easy to drive, and its electric motor and regen system offer a smooth single-pedal experience.

It is also alarmingly, overwhelmingly, rapid. While its massive set of batteries under the floor make it feel heavy off the line in stop-start traffic, sticking your boot into the accelerator will remove any doubt, particularly in the dual-motor variant, that this Volvo means business.

The dual-motor also has an incredible torque-vectoring system, making it extremely difficult to elicit so much as a squeak from its tyres. It also feels as though torque is distributed quite evenly between its two driven axles, making it feel neither prone to over- or understeer.

This has the effect of making the C40 feel somewhat indestructible in the corners, with absurd levels of grip. 

The same feeling is present in top-spec versions of the Polestar 2, only the feeling of ever-present weight is more noticeable in the higher-riding C40, which can make it unsettling to take corners at the kinds of speeds it is capable of.

The steering tune is interesting. Volvo offers two software-controlled modes, either heavy or standard, and the standard mode is heavy enough. 

Despite its electrical assistance, the wheel does continue to offer some organic feedback, making the C40 a pleasure to steer on countryside roads.

The ride is also surprisingly good, despite massive wheel options. I was impressed how easily the C40 handled most bumps and undulations, communicating little to the cabin. 

The ride can approach its limits with such big wheels and the weight of its batteries, generally these are communicated via unsettling thuds from underneath the car. Regular undulations at higher speeds also had the C40 bouncing around a little.

On the whole, though, the cabin is kept relatively insulated and serene, adding an element of total confidence, similar to that offered by Teslas, whilst offering better ride quality with a softer edge. At higher speed, at least on the 20-inch wheels, road noise does pick up, however.

In terms of electric driving, there is a single adjustable setting for regen. The car either offers a full single pedal mode with maximum regenerative braking to bring the car to a halt with the motor alone, or a ‘standard’ mode which tones the regen down and offers it blended in via the brake pedal. 

Single pedal mode is more efficient. I suggest you stick to it if you want to make the most of this car’s efficiency.

I was surprised to have so few complaints about the C40’s drive experience. This is a balanced and capable EV which is yet another example of how even vehicles which use combustion platforms are improved out of sight by full electrification.

Sticking to its brand promise, Volvo offers the full range of active safety equipment on the C40 regardless of variant.

This includes freeway-speed auto emergency braking, rear auto braking, lane keep assist with lane departure warning, blind spot monitoring with rear cross-traffic alert, and one of the best adaptive cruise control systems on the market.

The only item the single motor misses out on is a 360-degree parking camera, which is exclusive to the dual motor variant.

It is notable how the adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitoring rear cross-traffic alert, and rear auto braking are on the options list for the Polestar 2.

These active systems combined with eight airbags (the standard dual front, side, and curtain, as well as a driver’s knee and centre airbag) make for a five-star ANCAP safety rating to the latest 2022 standards.

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.

The C40 is covered by Volvo’s five year and unlimited kilometre warranty, with a separate eight-year, 160,000km warranty for the battery. There is also eight years of roadside assistance attached.

It is pleasing to see the service intervals for the C40 are long, as they should be for an electric car with so few moving parts, set at two years or 30,000km. 

The first 24 month service is free of charge, and Volvo tells us service pricing after this period will average out to around $100 a year ($200 per visit).