Subaru Outback vs Mazda CX-3

What's the difference?

Over 30 years and seven generations of Outback in Australia, the latest might just be the best.

It's great to drive, even better to sit in, very easy to live and willing to go further than most equivalent large SUVs at its price point.

The styling is definitely divisive, with purists unhappy that the long, crossover wagon silhouette is now gone, but what we have instead is a family-friendly vehicle that pleases on so many fronts.

We’d go as far as saying the latest Outback might be the most-rounded Subaru currently available, and great value to boot. And the base AWD is all the SUV most people will ever need.

That’s not bad for something this square!

Note: CarsGuide attended this event as a guest of the manufacturer, with travel, accommodation and meals provided.

‘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.

Historically, Subarus have majored on quirky. Kooky even.

Think buggy ‘60s 360, offbeat ‘70s 1400, spacey ‘80s Vortex, futuristic ‘90s SVX, Alfa-esque ‘00s pre-facelift Tribeca, dorky ‘10s Exiga. We’d go as far as saying that, in over 50 years, only a handful of Subarus have looked normal. And they’ve all been boring. The beautiful ones, like the original Impreza and ’03 Liberty, remain stunning.

But quirkifying such an important family car in such a mainstream segment… that's risky. And we’re here for Subaru’s boldness. We just wish the details weren’t so heavy handed.

Longer, larger and wider than any prior version, the 2026 Outback shares its stretched platform architecture fundamentals with the latest Forester. That’s a sound basis. Just Xeroxed up by about 15 per cent. Boxy shape. Deep glass. Wide doors. Form over function. This is designed to make life easier.

What you make of the Wilderness’ visual features, including the dramatic grille mask, SUBARU wording, painted trim surrounds and cladding-on-cladding (behold the Kia Tasman-like squared-off wheel arches if you dare) is down to personal taste. Eyes be damned! But it is so far-removed from the elegant grace of the previous model that some might argue a name change would at least have silenced the critics.

On the other hand, besides fugly being in Subaru’s DNA, a large, lofty SUV is probably truer to the term ‘outback’ than on any elegant and gracefully-silhouetted crossover wagon.

Meanwhile, the polar opposite is true inside. It’s as if the interior designers strove for class and calm, with none of the exterior styling’s visual noise, or shouting in the Wilderness’ case. And there is the luxury of space, vision and scope, further enhancing the Outback’s usefulness. That you can’t see the body, just the beautiful cabin’s detailing, elevates this Subaru. Unlike in the previous model, which was a bit of an aesthetic and functional mess inside.

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.

Like all Subarus, Outback boasts an interior of very high-quality craftsmanship, being built beautifully, without rattles or noises or jarring trim.

The difference here is just how pleasingly practical and easy yet attractive this environment is, from the moment that wide-opening door opens and shuts with reassuring solidity.

The horizontal dash layout departs from the Tesla-aping portrait screen domination of the previous generation, banishing the confusing and annoying virtual controls for real, live buttons.

But is it original? The layered presentation is attractive and distinctively Toyota… err Subaru. Yes, it is very much like the bZ4X-based Solterra EV’s look inside.

That’s no bad thing from an ergonomic point of view. The driving position is flawless, the seat/wheel/controls relationship considered and the placement of the climate controls, audio system, armrest and storage just right. We’re also happy to see the instrumentation display incorporate various visual choices, including digital analogue-style dials.

A particular callout goes to the slick and speedy tactility of the brand’s latest touchscreen, as well as the (again suspiciously Toyota-like) interface and graphics layout. It’s all good.

But wait, there’s more. The Outback’s front seats are claimed to be particularly supportive, and after hours in them on and off road, they seem to exceed Subaru’s claims.

If you’re expecting regular mid-sized SUV levels of interior space, be prepared to be impressed, because the Outback’s extra sizing outside seems to be multiplied inside. There’s ample room for long legs, big hats, broad shoulders and buxom hips. It all works so well. This is probably one of the best modern SUV interiors, period. Nothing seems to have been overlooked.

The rear seat is presented to please, too. It can seem a bit drab in the lower-line models, but the same virtues of effortless entry/egress, seat comfort, convenience (including air vents, USB ports, cupholders and armrest placement) apply. We noted the lack of road/tyre noise intrusion at speed, too.

Behind the very sixties Jeep Wagoneer-looking rear is a vast luggage area, complete with a low floor, remote rear-seat folding handles, 12V outlet and quality trim. And that space-saver spare lives underneath.

Subaru seems to have designed this car from the inside out and it shows. A rare 10/10 from us.

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.

Don’t worry, Subaru traditionalists. The Outback again offers a pair of horizontally-opposed 'boxer' four-cylinder engines.

The regular Outback versions are powered by a 2.5-litre twin-cam petrol unit making 137kW of power at 5800rpm and 254Nm of torque at 3700rpm.

Choosing the Wilderness switches things up to a 2.4-litre turbo version delivering 194kW at 5600rpm and 382Nm between 2000rpm and 3600rpm.

Both use a continuously variable transmission (CVT) with eight artificial ‘steps’ for a more torque-converter-like experience. Sadly, no manual gearbox is available.

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.

Where the Outback regresses compared to its predecessor is efficiency.

Despite a modest 50kg weight rise, the substantially boxier shape is probably behind the jump in petrol consumption, rising nearly one litre per 100km compared to before in the Outback, and nearly 2.5L/100km, in the heavier Wilderness.

The combined average consumption figure for the 2.5-litre naturally aspirated engine is 8.1L/100km, for a carbon dioxide emissions rating of 183 grams per kilometre, while the 2.4-litre turbo manages 9.7L/100km and 228g/km.

Filling the 63L tank, expect an average range of about 777km in the former and just 648km in the latter. Surely, the coming hybrid version can’t arrive soon enough for some buyers.

At least both engines can drink from the standard 91 RON petrol bowser.

So much for the theory. Out in the real world, over a solid day's testing on- and off-road, we found there was a difference of about 1.5L/100km between the regular Outback and the Wilderness.

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.

Confession time. The way the previous Outback drove was profoundly disappointing. The steering felt numb, the ride was too stiff and the car seemed wilfully dull, even in the turbo version.

The contemporary Forester ran rings around it for driving pleasure and refinement.

But Outback number seven is completely different and maybe the best-driving non-WRX Subaru right now.

From the moment you climb on board this vast SUV from Japan, everything feels right – from the driving position and relationship with the controls, to the sumptuously comfy seats and commanding vision all around the vehicle. That’s a promising start.

Push the ignition and press the accelerator down, and the regular Outback 2.5 quietly, gently and smoothly moves off the line. With modest power outputs and a CVT, you might expect it to also sound revvy and droney, but instead the acceleration is strong and throttle responses determined.

We drove this for hundreds of kilometres and never found the performance lacking, even with three adults and their luggage on board, over hilly and even mountainous terrain. Yes, it is possible to have the CVT whining at higher revs, but not within normal driving scenarios. And the quietness and lack of road noise is terrific.

Moving to the Wilderness and its 2.4-litre turbo powertrain, the same applies, except of course mid-range response is significantly faster and with a slicker, more refined delivery. Press and squirt, this is deceptively quick, because the car does a great job in masking the noises and vibrations that working an SUV hard often elicit.

We only wish there was a manual option. With steel wheels, cloth seats and without the Wilderness' add-on gargoyles.

Now, it also seems that Subaru listened and learned from previous criticisms like ours, because the Outback’s newly-redesigned steering is a delight, with a natural, fluent sweetness and ease that’s combined with a pleasing connection with the driver.

The result is balanced, controlled and enjoyable handling, backed up by reassuringly stable road holding. We drove through a sudden, heavy thunderstorm near Bathurst on the first, hot summer afternoon’s test session, and found the Outback to feel impervious through such slippery conditions.

And this all largely applies to the Wilderness as well, though its 20mm-higher ground clearance (to 240mm) makes it feel a little less composed than the glued-down regular model. Both feature a stiffened body and multi-link rear suspension, by the way.

More progress has been made in the Subaru’s ride quality. Gone is the hard suspension feel, for a far-less firm set-up, providing a comfortable and queasy-free ride. Even in the loftier Wilderness. This is the model’s greatest advance over its predecessor and we’re extremely happy with the outcome.

Finally, other than the at-times over-eager driver-attention monitor, the ADAS tech provides subtle, nuanced back-up, with quiet lane-keep intervention, a measured adaptive cruise-control functionality and no jarring buzzes and warnings.

We also enjoyed a session taking both grades off road, to show off their 4WD prowess. The clearances are ample, the hill-descent tech effective and the ability to scramble over wet rocks impressive. The Wilderness especially may even live up to its name!

This is a difficult SUV to fault. The Outback’s breadth of capability on and off the beaten track give it an unusually wide bandwidth for what is a monocoque bodied family convenience. That there is so much sophistication and fun to be had as well make this so much better to drive and live with than the disappointing old version.

We can’t wait to get to know the latest Subaru better on more familiar roads.

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.

Subaru offers a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty, and that also comes with 12 months of roadside assistance.

Now, that's pretty average nowadays, so nothing special, particularly when other SUV companies like Mitsubishi, Nissan and MG offer conditional 10-year warranties.

Service intervals are at 12 months or 15,000km for both engines. There is a capped-price servicing offer covering this timeframe. They are currently listed at approximately $350, $530, $405, $705 and $370 for an average of $472 per workshop visit.

There are 128 dealers or authorised Subaru service centres across Australia as of January 1, 2026.

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.