Mercedes-Benz Eqb250 vs Mazda CX-3

What's the difference?

The EQB is a likeable yet complicated machine.

On one hand, the high pricing is a real hurdle, even in the base 250, while the 350 4Matic costing the wrong side of $110K driveaway can’t even be had with seven seats. What is the point of it? 

On the other, though, the EQB is roomier than its appearance suggests, way lovelier inside than anticipated, and – especially after allowed to really be driven hard and fast – a whole lot more Mercedes-Benz in the way the 350 4Matic moves, steers, grips, rides and stops.

As a result, we’d skip the capable but bland 250 and try to haggle hard on the price of the altogether too-expensive yet compelling 350 4Matic instead. It’s the EQB to be in.

‘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 EQB does not employ a dedicated EV architecture – sometimes referred to as a ‘skateboard’ platform – like the Tesla Model Y, or for that matter the brilliant Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6 and Genesis GV60 at around the Benz’s price points.

By this, we mean that it was originally designed as an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. In this case, what lies beneath is the MFA2 platform, first seen in the redesigned A-Class hatch back in 2018, and applied to all transverse-engined Mercedes models since.

The upshot here is that there are some compromises as a result compared to the aforementioned EV-only alternatives, namely concerning packaging as well as weight distribution in some cases.   

Like we said earlier, the EQB’s design is eye-catching and quite handsome. It is clear that the success of the GLB that spawned it is partly attributed to the chunky, almost function-over-form tall-boy utilitarian styling. That ‘W’ shaped window-line kink is an interesting visual feature too.

The changes from GLB to EQB do give the EV definite points of difference, from the front-end’s black flat panel and fibre optic light that connects the (blue-highlight) headlights, to the curved strip LED tail-lights and bumper-sited numberplate mount.

We reckon the 20-inch AMG turbine wheels really do enhance the EQB aesthetically as well, but of course they’re an option on the 250. Though probably not in Gold Rose.

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.

As with the popular GLB that spawned it, there’s more to the EQB than meets the eye.

Photos mask the German electric vehicle’s considerable length and height as well as the substantial space offered inside, giving the Mercedes a handy advantage compared to premium alternatives like the Volvo XC40 Recharge, the Genesis GV60 and BMW’s recently announced (and quite handsome in the flesh) iX1 due early next year.

In fact, the EQB’s lengthy 2829mm wheelbase accommodates the batteries as well as impressive cabin packaging flexibility. Its 4684mm body is actually 26mm longer and 37mm higher than the larger, current-shape (X253) GLC, though width is identical to the EQA, making this a long, tall but quite narrow SUV proportionally speaking.

That expansive feeling is boosted by deep side windows offering reassuring all-round vision, boosted by an excellent driving position. All launch vehicles had the AMG sports seats (optional on the EQB 250, so we can’t speak for the base model), but as tested, they provided hours and hours of comfort and support. Loads of adjustability also help.

The EQB’s dash design is attractive and contemporary, though it can also seem daunting at first, requiring time to learn and understand where all the switchgear and controls are. The ‘Hey, Mercedes’ voice command mostly works well, too, and can provide additional tuition. The multimedia screen can be swiped like a tablet/iPad, or controlled via a fiddly touchpad on one of the steering wheel spokes.

Once mastered, the layout is logical and operation clear… with the exception of the drive selector on the right-hand side, which can be confused for an indicator and so knocked out of ‘gear’ and into Neutral on a regular basis. This has been a two-decade-long criticism of Mercedes models.

As with most MFA2 vehicles, the interior design and quality are a big step forward compared to earlier efforts. Multi-configurable digital instrumentation (including an elegant uncluttered mode), gorgeous turbine-look vents, a row of classy toggle switches for the main buttons and a great steering wheel are highlights to behold. Storage seems endless, reinforcing the practical nature of this cabin.

Speaking of which, stepping into the rear (second row) seats further underlines the EQB’s spaciousness. Entry/egress is easy due to wide-opening doors, taller folk should find ample room for knees, legs and (especially) heads, and the (slightly reclinable) backrest does its job. Comfy if firm cushions also slide forward (by up to 140mm) when required.

That’s to aid third-row access (where applicable). To that end, the second-row seats also tilt to allow people to squeeze past. Note, though that this is really a kids-only area, rated for occupants no taller than 1.65 metres. Surprisingly cosy, both chairs are OK for short trips, but longer ones would be a stretch too far except for the smallest passengers. 

Keep in mind that all outboard middle and rear seats where fitted have ISOFIX latches for child seats.

Luggage space is another EQB bonus, offering 130 litres with all seven seats up, or 495L with the third-row folded. Drop the middle row and there’s 1710L (or 1620L in seven-seater versions). These figures are between 20L to 60L down compared to the GLB.

Note, too, there is no spare wheel fitted. Just a tyre-repair kit.

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.

As with the related EQA, the EQB uses an asynchronous motor and a single-speed reduction gear transmission under the bonnet to drive the front axle. In the 250, it makes 140kW of power and 385Nm of torque.

Moving on to the 350 4Matic, it delivers 215kW and 520Nm, since a second permanently excited synchronous motor is fitted on the rear axle. This slashes the 0-100km/h acceleration time from 8.9 seconds to 6.2s, though both offer a 160km/h top speed.

This is despite a heavier kerb weight (2153kg, up from 2059kg). Power to weight ratio for the 250 is 68kW per tonne, compared to the 350 4Matic’s 99.9kW/tonne. That second motor sure makes a difference!

Both models use a 66.5kWh lithium-ion battery pack fitted between the axles, with a maximum 11kW AC and 100kW DC charging capability.

As with most electrified MFA2 models, front suspension is via MacPherson-style struts while the rear brings a multi-link arrangement. Steering is by electrically assisted rack-and-pinion.

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.

Using WLTP figures, the EQB 250 has a combined consumption rating of 20.4kWh per 100km, down from the EQB 350 4Matic’s 21kWh/100km.

Maximum range is rated at 371km and 360km respectively. Note that due to challenging flood-water and torrential rain weather conditions, on-road real-world figures were not available during the launch drive.

The EQB offers varying levels of energy recuperation to help recharge the battery pack. In ‘D Auto’ it figures out the level of resistance automatically, but drivers can also choose to do this manually via ‘D+’ that provides coasting, ‘D’ that brings mild regeneration off-throttle, and ‘D—’ that activates maximising regen for close to single-pedal driving. These are paddle activated.

Cables for home charging with three-prong outlets are included – an eight metre long one plus a five metre public charging cable.

Mercedes says that using a 100kW DC charger will take an EQB from 10-80 per cent charged in 30 minutes, while an 11kW AC public outlet needs 4.1 hours and at home using a regular 3kW 10-amp socket requires at least 25 hours.

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 most remarkable thing about driving the EQB is how similar the 250 and 350 4Matic seem initially, until when push comes to shove.

Around town, both rise up to meet brand expectations. Easy and smooth off the line, acceleration is sufficiently brisk in the 250 and noticeably stronger driving the 350, as you’d expect in a two-motor EV. Progress is spirited, smooth and refined.

We're also grateful that the engineers seem to have cheekily dialled in connected and agile steering, imbuing the EQB with a likeable athletic attitude that’s just right for weaving in and out of tight traffic spots. Which is quite a feat really, given this car’s substantial size and mass.

Perhaps more surprising is how settled the ride is, no doubt aided by the sheer weight of these two-tonne-plus SUVs, as well as the standard-fitment adaptive dampers. Most bumps are quietly and effectively absorbed.

Out on the open road, the 250 remains sufficiently powerful, offering decent throttle response and quite a relaxed cruising gate. However, if you’re expecting Tesla-matching neck-snapping mid-range thrust, look elsewhere. Same applies to the other model. Though undeniably stronger throughout, not even the twin-motor 350 4Matic can be classed as especially quick.

However, while both EQBs display beautifully balanced steering that go exactly where you need them to be, only the 350 4Matic has the muscle to really explore the lofty dynamic capabilities available at higher speeds.

Across water-logged and desolate rural Victoria, the EQB behaved with exceptional athleticism given its role in life, providing outstanding steering precision, matched by brilliantly reassuring control. We’re talking planted confidence, as the 350 4Matic has the ability to really come together and move with the ebb and flow of a fast country road with outstanding aplomb. Despite teeming rain at times, the Mercedes behaved like you’d hope a swift, safe and sound grand tourer would. Who'd have figured?

Back on the highway, there was plenty of road noise intrusion coming up through the tyres, but otherwise, it seems obvious to us that though you pay more, you do get more with the twin-motor AWD version.

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.

Mercedes-Benz offers a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty. The battery pack warranty is also industry-standard, valid for the usual eight years/160,000km.

Service intervals are every year or 25,000km. The EQB Service Plan starts at $1625 for the first three years, $2225 for four years and $2650 for five years.

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.