Porsche Cayenne vs Mazda CX-3

What's the difference?

Of all the super SUVs I've piloted, the Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT is the best all-rounder in terms of performance, comfort, cabin technology and style.

As a family car it's roomy, practical and easy to use and drive daily.

As a performance car the Turbo GT is stupidly quick, with the agility of a sports car. Sure, a 911 would leave it behind on a twisty race track, but this SUV is close to having that sportscar experience and keeping your family, as well.

‘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.

This might be a personal thing but to me nearly all Porsches look better from the back than the front.

It's the wide stance and powerful haunches, the hunkered down suction-capped-to-the-road look that does it for me and the Cayenne Turbo GT, despite being an SUV, passes this important Porsche checklist item.

The GT aero kit only serves to make this SUV look more of a beast, and the gold-bronze looking satin Neodyne wheels are a Porsche theme that I've not always been a fan of, but I get the historic connection.

If only the Turbo GT could look a little less like other Cayennes from the front. This is the king of the SUV range and despite the apron and bumper already being exclusive to this model, there should be more.

Vents in the wheel arches, carbon bonnet with nostrils GT3-style perhaps? Or is that going too far? If you do want something more lairy then there's always the Urus.

The Cayenne Turbo GT's cabin is stunning in its plushness and modern surprises such as the passenger display, the hoodless instrument digital cluster, the lashings of Race-Tex upholstery everywhere. It's perfectly Porsche. High-performance meets high-end.

It's also highly practical. Let's talk about that.

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.

The Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT only makes one compromise on practicality and that's the removal of the middle seat in the back, which, with just two kids isn't used all the time but on average we might need it once a week for school mates and cousins.

Instead of a middle seat there is a shallow tray, which will fit a phone or in our case leaves and rocks found at the park.

So, yes, the Turbo GT is a four-seater only, but this is a spacious, large SUV with good head and legroom, wide-opening doors for easy entry and exit, and air suspension which can raise and lower the height for easy access.

Storage is excellent with enormous door pockets in the front and back and there are four cupholders.

There's a wireless phone charger in the front and two USB-C ports as well, plus two USB-C sockets in the back.

Four-zone climate control means the kids in the back can set their own temperatures. They also have heated seats.

I was disappointed to see there aren't sunshades for the rear windows - pretty vital in Australia where it feels like we're only about 50 metres away from the sun.

The Turbo GT's 576-litre boot just managed to fit our pram and a week's shopping, which is our minimum standard for living. Any more space is a bonus.

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 a middle-aged parent with two children, a Porsche that I don't have to crawl into and out of like a cubby house is a great thing.

What's even better is that this ‘easy access' Porsche is every bit as brutally powerful and fast as the quintessentially ‘pure' Porsche, the 911. Actually, it's more powerful and faster.

The Turbo GT's twin-turbo 4.0-litre V8 petrol engine makes 485kW and 850Nm with drive going through an eight-speed transmission to all four wheels.

In comparison, a Porsche 911 GT3 RS, arguably the most brutal and anti-social 911, has 386kW/485Nm.

I haven't made a mistake. Those are the real numbers. And it's only when you step on the accelerator in the Cayenne Turbo GT, and it feels like somebody's sat down on your chest, that you realise what a big deal this is.

That is such a colossal amount of oomph that this 2.2-tonne family SUV can accelerate from 0-100km/h in 3.3 seconds.

The 911 GT3 RS can do it in 3.2 and it has a roll cage and a fixed rear wing the size of a bedroom door.

And yes, we're now coming into a digital age where Teslas and other electric SUVs are quick, too, but can they go around corners like a Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT?

Do they have the same rumble and roar as a twin-turbo V8 that's terrifying and enticing at the same time.

The correct answer is, absolutely not.

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.

Seriously? This is a 2.0-tonne twin-turbo petrol V8 with a 90-litre fuel tank. Even the Porsche specs sheet doesn't understand the question because in the column for fuel efficiency there are three letters - tbc.

My own testing saw me record 22.5 L/100km at the fuel pump, which means I enjoyed driving the car very much.

A little digging around reveals Porsche globally claims the Turbo GT will use 12.6L/100km, over a combination of open and urban roads.

You might not have as much fun as I did but easing back a little might get you closer to the 700km of range this more frugal consumption figure appears to offer.

While efficient it isn't, I'm not going to mark the Turbo GT too much here because compared to its petrol rivals the fuel consumption is what I'd expect from such a high-output heavy 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.

Never have I met a car this powerful and superbly athletic that is as pleasurable to drive alone on great, fast roads as it is to pilot at 50km/h in the suburbs with a family on board.

It exceeds my understanding of engineering that something this large can move so quickly. That in an instant can turn and tip into a corner with such precision and effortlessness.

Yet it can switch seamlessly and happily to coping with speed bumps and potholes, delivering a ride so comfortable it'll send babies off to sleep. And it did.

The only issue, and this is such a tiny thing, is the dash-mounted gearshift, which means having to reach up and select Drive or Reverse or Park, which, when executing a three-point turn, is necessarily frustrating.

Still, I'm giving the Turbo GT a 10 out of 10 for driving under all conditions, and we didn't even go off-road, which of course you can do, as long as it's not too wild.

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.

The Cayenne Turbo GT is covered by Porsche's three-year, unlimited kilometre warranty, which is lagging behind in terms of duration even compared to other luxury brands such as Mercedes-Benz, which offers five years.

Servicing is recommended annually or every 15,000km, although there isn't a capped price maintenance plan with final costs determined at the dealer level (in line with variable labour rates by state or territory).

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.