Mazda CX-30 vs Renault Kadjar

What's the difference?

I’m glad we checked in on our old friend, the Mazda CX-30. Despite being a car with two wheels planted in the future, and two firmly planted in the past, it manages to hold the line against many of its newer rivals, both on the cheaper and higher-tech end of the spectrum.

What you see really is what you get with this Mazda; it’s lovely to drive, looks fantastic, and punches above its weight when it comes to cabin ambiance. While what’s under the bonnet might no longer be in vogue, driving this car again has only reinforced its standing as small SUV royalty.

The Renault Kadjar Intens ticks a lot of the urban boxes. It’s small, which is good for navigating narrow city streets and parking in tight spaces, but it’s also spacious and practical. The Kadjar is fuel efficient for a four-cylinder petrol engine and it has that sophisticated French styling.

The Intens is expensive, though, and unless you absolutely have to have leather seats, a glass roof, and the Bose stereo I’d go for the mid-range Zen grade and save yourself $5K but still have all the same safety tech. That said the Intens has auto parking as standard which is a nice convenience for the city.

Safety could be better. The AEB system doesn’t have pedestrian and cyclist detection, rear cross traffic alert, or reverse emergency braking.

Finally, the dual-clutch automatic and 1.3-litre turbo-petrol engine while a fuel efficient combination, isn’t all that easy to live with and can make driving a less-than-smooth experience. The Nissan Qashqai’s combination of CVT auto and four-cylinder naturally aspirated engine is better suited to the urban jungle - something to think about there. 

Now the scores, the Kadjar Intens gets the same mark for daily driving and its urban talents – it could be smoother to drive, but there’s still lots to like. 

While the Haval Jolions of the world look ready to hit up the McDonald’s drive thru with their youthful flair, and cars like the Toyota Corolla Cross want to save money and dine at home with their conservative appearance, the Mazda CX-30 looks dressed to impress, as though it should be seen at the valet stand of your nearest Michelin-star restaurant.

A few years of age or not, the design of this car is still spectacular at this price, placing it right at the forefront of looks for the mainstream small SUV segment.

The delicate panel work, signature big grille, and large wheels at this Astina grade match nicely with the minimalist light fittings which themselves come complete with a soft-fade effect for the indicators.

It’s attention to detail like this which makes the CX-30 look like it belongs in a price-bracket above, and demands rivals pay attention.

The interior meets expectations, too, which is no small feat given some cars in this space prove it’s one thing to look great, and quite another to match it with a truly premium feel.

Mazda has done a fantastic job in the cabin which feels the part with an abundance of soft-touch materials, a dark, modern colour scheme, and an overall vibe which is ageing well even compared to more recently launched rivals.

I would go so far as to say, at the Astina grade the CX-30 feels more like it should be competing with Lexus, certainly punching above the mark, even at its mid-$40K price-point.

People talk about French design being good. Well if you want to see just how good take a look at the Nissan Qashqai, because the Kadjar is fundamentally the same SUV with Renault’s design spin applied.

Yep, as I mentioned about 15 seconds ago, Renault and Nissan are part of an alliance that allows them to share the same cars, but each brand has room to ‘make it their own’ with styling that delivers a very different look, inside and out.

Now, the Qashqai is not an ugly car, but I think the Kadjar is more stylish and premium looking in the same way the larger Renault Koleos SUV is gorgeous compared to the relatively straight-laced Nissan X-Trail it’s based on.

There’s no doubt the Kadjar is a Renault thanks to the giant diamond logo on the plunging grille. I like the way the front bumper rises up into the bonnet like it’s all one piece, but I’m not completely sold on the rear of the car which looks a bit like its shirt is tucked into the back of its pants, which makes no sense unless you look at the images.

Still, the tail-lights have a prestige feel and the Kadjar model name spelled out across the tailgate is a confident statement, also adopted recently by other brands such as Volkswagen (T-Cross) and Ford (Puma).  

Telling the Intens apart from the other two grades is fairly easy, it has 19-inch wheels (the others have 17-inch rims), there’s the enormous glass roof, and it also has a chrome effect on the front and rear bumpers, side skirts, and around the fog lights. It’s a more premium look.

That higher-end feel goes into the cabin as well with the Intens’ black leather upholstery and colourful ambient lighting. The touchscreen is tiny, though, and there isn’t a great deal inside that you don’t get in the entry-grade Kadjar’s cabin, which is also almost as stylish.

The Kadjar is classified as a small SUV, which means nothing really when it comes to wondering if it’s going to fit in your garage or in the tiny parking spaces we’re faced with in the city.

So, I’ve mapped it out for you. The Kadjar’s dimensions are, 4449mm long, 2058 mm across (including the wing mirrors), and 1612mm tall. 

Another interesting thing – each B-pillar is adorned with a little French flag. I’m not sure if they're a sign of Gallic national pride or to remind everybody that meets the Kadjar that Renaults are French.

Either way, you don’t see this type of thing on other cars and for many buyers the appeal of a Renault is having a car that’s not like everybody else’s.

It looks good and feels good, but is it practical? While the CX-30 is larger than its smaller CX-3 sibling, it still leaves space to be desired, especially compared to some other segment-bending small SUVs it competes with.

The front seat is not where the bad news starts though. It feels spacious enough inside for a couple, with large seats, plenty of space separating the front two occupants, and plenty of comfort on offer with padded armrests on both sides.

There are big bottle holders in the doors and in a flip-open bay in the console (wouldn’t want to interrupt this design… ), and there’s additional storage once you slide and flip open the armrest.

To keep things tidy, your USB and 12V power connections are also located in the console bay. No need for messy cables, and there’s a little divider, too.

On the downside here, there’s a chunk of dead space under the climate unit, which looks like it could be filled with a shelf or, better yet, wireless charger. As it is, it’s just a plastic panel with a small bay underneath which barely fits a phone.

Adjustability is great for the driver, with a reach- and tilt-adjustable steering wheel, and high belt-line offering a sporty hatch-like feel, which I instantly felt comfortable with.

The rear seat isn’t as impressive. While the fancy seat trim and soft-touch points mostly continue, some of the padding in the doors has been replaced with hard plastic, and there’s a raise in the floor to facilitate all-wheel drive on some variants which eats into the centre occupant’s foot space.

Behind my own seating position, my knees have a tiny amount of room, and so does my head, at 182cm tall. Technically, I fit, but it’s close, and feels it.

Rear occupants get a padded drop-down armrest with two bottle holders, an extra two surprisingly large ones in the doors, but no power outlets. There are two adjustable air vents on the back of the centre console.

The coupe-like design also has a cost when it comes to boot space. There’s 317-litres (VDA) of space available, although we could only fit the CarsGuide luggage set when the parcel shelf was removed.

The space is suitable for a couple on a weekend adventure, but a bit tight if you have more requirements, like a pram-age child, for example.

There is an under-floor space which houses a space-saver spare wheel and part of the Bose sound system.

The Kadjar is a big-small SUV, in that it’s longer than many in the same segment at 4.4m with a wheelbase of more than 2.6m, which means more space inside for people and their stuff.

That said, don’t expect limousine legroom, but at 191cm (6'3") tall, I can sit behind my driving position with my knees only just touching the front seat back, which is pretty darn good for a small SUV.

Making life a bit more comfortable back there, too, are directional air vents, two USB charging ports and a 12V power outlet. There are another two USB ports and a 12V up front, too.

Cabin storage is okay. The door pockets in the back are big enough for a 500ml bottle, while there are larger ones in the front, along with two cupholders and another circular hole, which looks like it’s for coins, if anybody still uses those?

The centre console bin is pretty decent in size and so too is the boot which has a cargo capacity of 408 litres with all seats up and 1478 litres with the second row folded flat.

The Intens is the highest grade of Kadjar you can buy and has a list price of $37,990. As a point of reference, the entry-grade Kadjar with an automatic transmission is $29,990. So, what are you getting for an extra $8K?

Well, the entry-level Kadjar comes with a 7.0-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, cloth seats, dual-zone climate control, privacy glass and 17-inch alloy wheels. The Intens gets 19-inch alloys, leather seats (heated up front), a seven-speaker Bose sound system, leather steering wheel, panoramic sunroof, as well as LED headlights and fog lights.

The Intens also comes standard with auto parking, and even the most determined DIY parkers will appreciate that in the city.

The Intens also has more advanced safety equipment than the entry-grade, although the same tech also comes on the mid-spec Zen for $32,990.

You may already know this, but the Kadjar and the Nissan Qashqai are essentially the same car. Renault and Nissan have an alliance which lets them share technology and as well as entire models.

So, you might want to compare the Kadjar Intens to a Qashqai Ti which lists for $38,790. Other models to check are the Mitsubishi ASX and Toyota C-HR.

This is where the Mazda is really showing its age. G25 variants are powered by a 2.5-litre four-cylinder engine, which isn’t turbocharged, nor is it assisted at the wheels by electric motors in a hybrid arrangement.

It’s punchy enough to keep the pace with most of its turbo rivals, putting out 139kW/252Nm, and some will love the fact it’s paired with a traditional torque converter automatic instead of a rubbery continuously variable or glitchy dual-clutch set-up, but it’s certainly not for the eco-conscious.

Not only is it a relatively large displacement engine, but aside from a start-stop system there’s little to mitigate your emissions. In fact, this unit only complies with Euro 5 emissions regulations, well behind the pace today.

While the Renault Kadjar and Nissan Qashqai are essentially the same car, they don’t share the same powertrain. The Kadjar has a smaller but more powerful engine – a 1.3-litre turbo-petrol four-cylinder making 117kW/260Nm.

Shifting gears is a seven-speed dual-clutch auto. There’s no manual available, and all Kadjars are front-wheel drive.

Frankly, the Qashqai four cylinder with less grunt and CVT are a smoother combination. The dual-clutch auto and turbo lag means power delivery and acceleration are delayed, while low-speed gear shifts can be jerky.

Some bad news, of course, comes at the fuel pump. The official claim for this relatively large engine is a bit bold, at 6.8L/100km on the ADR combined cycle, but if you’re using it for mainly urban duties as we did for this review I wouldn’t be surprised to see figures more in the region between 8.0 and 9.0L/100km.

As it stands, our car produced an average of 7.8L/100km, which is better than expected, but still painful in the era of hybrids and fuel-sipping turbos, especially when fuel is close to $2.00 a litre in most capital cities.

Mercifully, the lack of complexity from this engine does mean you can put bog-standard 91 RON unleaded in the tank.

Renault says after a combination of open and urban roads the Kadjar will have used 6.3L/100km. In my own testing I measured 6.5L/100km at the fuel pump. That’s outstanding.

The CX-30 is awesome to drive. In a sea of lacklustre small SUVs, it’s instantly easy to connect with this Mazda. Yes, the engine and transmission here aren’t the most recent additions to the landscape, but they are predictable, smooth, and easy to deal with.

In fact, one thing Mazda is particularly good at is making its entire range feel homogenous in terms of the drive experience, maintaining the great dynamics which the brand has become synonymous with.

The touchpoints continue to be fantastic on the move. The steering feels light and easy to turn at low speeds, but becomes purposeful and full of feel at higher speeds.

The direct feedback on offer from the rack and the firm springs up front give a great handle on what the front wheels are doing.

The overall feel is firm and reactive, ready for action, and while not everyone will love the hard edge to the suspension, it helps the car feel springy and agile in the corners.

You can feel the Mazda 3 DNA on full display when you’re driving this car in haste, and it’s a kind of dynamism which most rivals can’t match, even if the Mazda’s drivetrain is feeling a little low-tech.

You certainly don’t need to worry about the six-speed transmission, which is a smooth-shifting unit.

There’s no glitchy behaviour on hills or from a stop like you might get in a dual-clutch, or rubbery surging under acceleration often delivered by a CVT, just the feeling of the car riding each gear out, and shifting between clearly defined ratios.

Drivers of older vehicles especially will appreciate its instantly familiar feel.

Ergonomically, it’s pretty straightforward, with the one major downside being the dial set-up. We like physical controls rather than touch controls, but Mazda has taken this to the extreme by not making the main multimedia screen a touch unit.

Instead, you’re forced to negotiate with phone mirroring software using a rotary dial, which is at best clumsy, and at worst distracting.

It’s also a tad difficult to see over this car’s high beltline, making it hard to tell where the corners are, front and rear, and a common Mazda problem is the wing mirrors which seem to have a zoom factor on them. Why? It limits your view into the lanes next to you.

Thankfully the active safety suite spends most of its time in the background and unlike some more recent offerings in the small SUV space, not interfering with the excellent drive experience.

The lane keep software is light handed, and the driver monitoring tech is more basic, which is honestly all you should need.

Overall then, the CX-30 is predictable, familiar, and has a fantastic quality to its handling which fits the Mazda brand promise.

Aside from a few blemishes then, it’s one of the best cars to drive in the segment, just don’t expect it to feel as cutting-edge as it could.

Renault’s Kadjar may be a better-looking version of Nissan’s Qashqai, but it doesn’t drive as well. This comes down to the engine and transmission Renault has gone with.

There’s turbo lag with that small four-cylinder and this delay is made more pronounced by a dual-clutch transmission that causes the vehicle to lurch during shifts.

This type of shemozzle is not uncommon, the Ford Puma and Nissan Juke behave in the same way with their similar powertrains.

There’s nothing wrong with them, it’s just that for a car that’s probably going to spend its life mainly in the city, the Kadjar won’t provide the smoothest driving experience.

The Qashqai has a CVT automatic and while these transmission aren’t as sporty feeling as a dual-clutch, they’re smooth and good for easy city driving.

The Kadjar does have a comfortable ride and good handling, so if you’re able to get used to the antics of the engine and transmission there’s more to like than not about the way this Renault drives.

The Kadjar hasn’t been given an ANCAP safety rating, but it did score the maximum five stars when tested by its European equivalent Euro NCAP in 2015.

But beware, the Kadjar isn’t equipped with much in the way of advanced safety equipment. Yes, there is AEB on all grades, while the mid-spec Zen and top-of-the-range Intens come with blind spot monitoring and lane departure warning. But that’s about it. No lane keeping assist, or rear cross traffic alert, or adaptive cruise.

There are front and rear parking sensors, which are almost vital in the city, and a reversing camera.

It’s for this reason the score here is so low – charging $38K and not having anywhere near the level of safety tech on a new car that costs much less is disappointing.

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

Under the boot floor is a space saver spare wheel.

As with all Mazdas, the ownership proposition is pretty straightforward. There’s five years of warranty, five years of roadside assist, and five years of capped price servicing.

Service costs are pretty tame, too, with our front-drive G25 Astina working out to an average of $360 per year for the first five years.

You’ll need to visit a workshop once every 10,000km or 12 months, whichever comes first.

The Kadjar is covered by Renault’s five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty.

Service intervals are every 12 months or 30,000km and capped at $399 for the first three services, followed by $789 for the fourth then back to $399.

There’s also up to five years roadside assistance, if you service your Kadjar with Renault.