Renault Kadjar vs Mazda 3

What's the difference?

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. 

Given how effortlessly it traverses the mainstream and premium small car classes, the Mazda 3 might be the best value small car on the planet.

With racy styling, sports car handling, classy interior presentation and impressive, intelligent efficiency, there’s plenty to sink your teeth into here.

Poor rear vision, a dark back-seat area and smallish boot aside, it doesn’t have any glaring faults.

In a world overrun with SUVs, props to Mazda for evolving the small car so brilliantly to mask a half-decade of existence. Continuous improvements have made the 2024 G25 Evolve SP Vision an essential small car shortlist proposition, regardless of price.

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.

How is it that the current Mazda 3 is already five years old? This hatchback is still stunning, the sort of car you look back at when walking away.

The shape is sleek and almost coupe-like, with a shark-like nose, cab-backward-style long bonnet, upswept shoulder line and a fastback silhouette.

More importantly, it’s the way the light dances across the sculptured sides that draw the eyes in. Bereft of clutter, it makes you wish all mainstream manufacturers had the courage to be so daring.

We’ve said it before – the 'BP'-generation Mazda 3 (Axela in Japan) is the brand’s boldest C-segment hatch since the 1993 'BA' 323 (Astina/Lantis/323F).

But there’s a price to pay for such timeless beauty…

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.

There is a price to pay for all this quasi-coupe styling flair, and that’s a comparatively snug-feeling interior, though you’d never call it cramped.

Actually, the Mazda 3 is no less spacious than most of its competition in all but one area, with enough room even for 200cm drivers, along with sufficient shoulder width and ceiling height to match.

If you’re really tall, maybe that missing sunroof isn’t such a bad thing, after all.

Sat so low-down on cushy, enveloping front seats that offer plenty of comfort and support, this is the anti-SUV. Maybe Mazda should have called this the MX-3.

Sporty and spot-on, the driving position is a laid-back affair, with an emphasis on better ergonomics, as emphasised by the thoughtful placement of switchgear that’s all within easy reach, ahead of a beautifully flowing and layered dash. Proudly Japanese in flavour, it brings to mind functional minimalism.

Drilling into some of the 3’s finer interior details, the analogue-look digital instrumentation is super-legible, ultra-classy and gorgeously lit at night. As previously mentioned, the dials and surrounding air vents are reminiscent of the later Porsche 944 and 968.

It’s not just all for the sake of aesthetics, either.

Yes, it’s lovely, but the thinned-rim three-spoke steering wheel feels great to grip, with nifty little paddle shifters that are a delight to prod.

Same goes for the physical volume knob and climate-control buttons, sidestepping the need to get distracted and frustrated by virtual sub-menus.

And having a conventional gear lever with old-school Tiptronic-style shifts suits the 3’s athletic vibe.

Plus, forward vision is A-OK, ventilation is faultless, storage is better than you might expect, and the fit and finish is as good if not better than any of this 3’s German premium opponents.

Out back, the split-fold rear backrest is set at a comfortable angle, the cushion is well padded, and you’re provided with USB ports, air vents, and an armrest with two cupholders. More thoughtfulness.

But while knee room is fair, rear headroom isn’t great if you’re tall or wear a beehive, as the falling ceiling line reveals.

Vision out is limited by that rising window line and fat pillars. Getting in and out of the back requires some contortionist moves. And the small windows mean it can be gloomier in the back than a Smiths album.

Finally, at just 295 litres, the 3’s cargo capacity is disappointing. Sure, it eclipses the Corolla hatch’s 217L cubby, but other rivals are far larger back there.

At least the floor is wide and flat and there are 60/40-split backrests for cabin access for longer items.

Note that a space-saver spare wheel lurks underneath. Mazda argues there’s always the closely-related CX-30 if you need (slightly) more space (317L).

Meanwhile, at the other end of the 3…

Mazda has rationalised the MY24 3 range, with fewer grades and no more manuals, sadly.

The pretty little piece of automotive industrial design you see here is the mid-range Evolve SP Vision, which sounds less like a car and more like a posh hairdryer from Vidal Sassoon.

Priced from $36,520 before on-road costs (or about $41K drive-away before you start haggling), this Mazda 3 is a sporty and well-equipped alternative to the likes of the speedy Hyundai i30 N-Line Premium, spacious Kia Cerato GT Turbo, new Subaru Impreza AWD 2.0R and evergreen Toyota Corolla ZR. All cost roughly the same money.

The thing is, do Mazda’s upmarket aspirations mean the 3 possesses the ride quality and chic to embarrass at times substantially more expensive hatchbacks with premium pretensions? We’re talking rivals like the BMW 1 Series, Mercedes-Benz A-Class, Peugeot 308 and VW Golf, here.

Stay with us, because we reckon you might be surprised by how far the 3 has come since its humble 323 predecessors.

Anyway, this version comes with most of the good gear, including a full suite of driver-assist safety tech like front and rear Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), blind-spot alert, lane-keep assist and adaptive cruise control, as well as keyless start and walk-away lock, powered driver’s seat with memory, 360-degree camera views, a head-up display, digital radio, sat-nav, auto tilt/folding exterior mirrors, dual-zone climate control, Bluetooth phone/audio connectivity and 18-inch alloys.

Oh, and for 2023, an upgraded version introduces a smartphone charger and wireless for the Apple CarPlay/Android Auto function, along with USB-C port access front and rear.

What’s missing at the Evolve SP Vision’s price point? Some mainstream rivals offer leather and a sunroof, available respectively in the more-expensive GT Vision, from $40,000, and flagship Astina grades, from nearly $42,500.

Still, that’s quite a lot of small car for the money, given the quality of the presentation and design. Speaking of which…

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.

When you think about it, shoehorning a big torquey engine in a light and agile small car is a recipe for fun. Ford did just that with the Escort RS2000 in the 1970s… and Mazda’s now an expert at it, too.

The engine in question is the G25, a 2.5-litre four-cylinder naturally aspirated twin-cam petrol engine, delivering 139kW of power at 6000rpm and 252Nm of torque at 4000rpm.

As this Evolve SP Vision hatch tips the scales at 1415kg, it makes for a healthy, and consequently very lively, power-to-weight ratio of over 98kW/tonne.

That’s if you decide to use all the available revs, which the six-speed torque-converter auto makes great use of.

Driving the front wheels, it offers a 'Sport' mode to extend the revs even more, which is keeping in line with this Mazda’s sporty character.

Less so is the company’s decision to ditch the old multi-link independent rear suspension system a few years back for a more prosaic torsion beam arrangement. We’ll get to how that affects ride and handling in a moment.

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.

Mazda claims the G25 averages 6.6L/100km on the combined cycle… for a carbon-dioxide emissions rating of 154g/km. On a 51L tank, that gives a potential distance of over 940km!

Driven good and hard in our hands, we managed 7.5L/100km, which isn’t bad given the speed and conditions it was subjected to.

Plus, the Mazda’s happy on 91 RON 'standard' unleaded petrol.

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.

Ask yourself. What do you want from a new small car?

Since the first Familia of the early 1960s, Mazda’s been at it constantly, through the 1300 and 323 eras and into the modern age of the 3.

The Hiroshima brand knows its stuff. Space, practicality, comfort, ease, reliability and affordability. But a small car has to offer more, specifically in the way it makes the owner feel.

That’s why, while the Focuses, Lancers, Astras and Pulsars are gone, the 3’s still here. And it isn’t just the lush visuals inside and out that are, well, sensory-rich.

As older Alfa Romeo owners know, there’s something special about an engine that sounds alive, and the moment you push the 3’s starter, it purrs into life. That’s the first clue.

Slot the refreshingly old-school lever into Drive, and the G25 leaps into action, and, if you need it to, will keep pulling forward strongly, engine buzzing, like it’s on a mission.

That describes the torquey urge of this big 2.5L four, paired perfectly with the sensibly-geared auto.

We miss Mazda’s magnificent manual immensely, but the 3’s instant response reflects its favourable circa-100kW/tonne power-to-weight ratio.

And, as we’ve harped on in the past, the twin-cam unit’s extra oomph beyond 4000rpm delivers muscular high-speed responses akin to a good turbo – or a great old-school Alfa. You can keep your laggy dual-clutch transmissions, Europe.

Now, sweet, smooth and speedy performance is one thing, but having the chassis tuned with precise and fluid steering for tactile handling, and confident roadholding, backed by nuanced driver-assist and traction controls, are another.

There is a consistent and unifying control to the 3’s linear and forgiving dynamics, reminiscent of past masters like the Focus (and today’s brilliant Peugeot 308) that makes it a joy to drive enthusiastically through fast corners, with the knowledge that it won’t suddenly snap-oversteer and bite an unalert driver back.

For a Mazda, the ride is quiet enough, but there is still some droning transmitted through the cabin, via the Bridgestone Turanza (215/45) tyres, on coarse-chip bitumen surfaces.

And while suspension comfort is pretty impressive for the most part, larger bumps reveal the torsion beam’s limitations, as the car can occasionally thud over them in a way that we remember the multi-link rear end wouldn’t.

Anyway, what we’re saying is that, overall, the 3 Evolve SP Vision is an immersive and interactive driving experience that is right up there with the best of them.

Brawny performance, exquisite agility and a refinement that, collectively, have eluded every small Mazda in living memory until this generation’s 2019 debut. This 3’s right on the money. Still.

Tested way back when this generation was new in early 2019, the Mazda 3 scored a maximum five-star ANCAP crash-test rating.

On the driver-assist front you’ll find front and rear AEB (with a working range of 40km/h to 200km/h) with pedestrian and cycle detection available between 10-80km/h, while the 'Forward Collision Warning' operates from 40-200km/h.

Blind-spot monitoring, lane departure warning, lane-keep assist, 'Forward Obstruction Warning', rear and front 'Cross-Traffic Alert', 'Secondary Collision', auto high beams, breakaway pedals, adaptive cruise control (with full stop/go functionality and cruising/traffic support), parking sensors front/rear, 360-degree round-view monitor, reverse camera, traffic sign recognition, driver monitor and tyre-pressure monitors are also included.

The lane-keep support systems work between 55-200km/h.

Seven airbags – front, side, curtain and a driver’s knee bag – are fitted, along with anti-lock brakes with 'Electronic Brake-force Distribution', 'Emergency Brake Assist', stability control, traction control, hill-start assist are also fitted, seat-belt pretensioners, and two rear-seat ISOFIX points as well as three top tethers for child seat straps.

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.

Mazda offers a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty, with five-years roadside assistance… and that’s nothing special nowadays.

Service intervals are at 12 months or every 15,000km.

A fixed-price service scheme is available, averaging out to $434 annually over the first five years. Mazda shows pricing right up to 16 years and 240,000km on its website.