Suzuki Fronx vs Mazda CX-3

What's the difference?

If you’re considering a small car, particularly if an SUV is the goal, a Suzuki should in most cases be on the shopping list. Back-to-basics motoring is key to the brand’s identity. Its most popular model is a tiny ladder-frame 4X4, for example. Hi Jimny.

The Fronx doesn’t break new ground in any practical sense, but it does come in with a decent price and list of features that should sway plenty of small-car fans in the showroom.

It’s decent to look at, comfortable for the segment, and easy to get used to and drive. The numerical rating on this review betrays just how likeable the car is.

It’s not extremely refined and it starts to lose its dynamic shine on rough roads, but in an urban setting the Fronx should excel.

Note: CarsGuide attended this event as a guest of the manufacturer, with 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.

‘Fronx’ as a name doesn’t exactly scream ‘cute’, but the little SUV has a pretty classically Suzuki design. This is not a complaint at all.

The Fronx is 3995mm long, 1765mm wide and 1550mm tall, but despite its diminutive dimensions the brand has opted to lean into a ‘coupe’ style with a sloping roofline that creates a relatively sporty look, especially for something with a two-digit power figure.

So while some of Suzuki’s designs have been divisive in Australia (Ignis, anyone?) the Fronx takes a slightly more conservative approach by leaning into more design trends than just the coupe-back SUV shape. 

For example, its tail-lights span the width of the tailgate rather than simply flanking the boot as was standard for decades.

The LED daytime running lights at the front are also arranged in a slim, high-up position with a set of headlights below.

Inside is arguably more conservative than out, as the Fronx goes with a fairly standard formula in terms of its layout, with few premium materials (the synthetic leather on the seats feels cheap for example) or adventurous design elements to be found.

But that’s not such a bad thing.

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.

Because for all the conservative, even outdated, styling in the cabin, the fact is it’ll be refreshingly familiar to someone who’s getting out of a car from perhaps even before the year 2000.

Suzuki’s place at the budget end of the new-car market means its customers are likely either quite young and buying their first new car, or relatively old and looking for a cheap, rarely used runabout as the ‘last car’.

For the former, a lack of techy distractions is paramount. For the latter, ease of use wins over cutting-edge tech in most cases. Which is why it’s probably okay that the Fronx’s multimedia touchscreen and software wouldn’t feel out of place almost a decade ago.

It can be a tad fiddly to use at speed, but it’s still more straightforward than the ‘iPad-like’ systems Tesla has made popular, and there are physical controls for important functions like climate control.

There’s also a row of ever-present haptic buttons for volume controls and navigation shortcuts.

The ergonomics of the interior are quite basic, but there are no red flags in terms of visibility, reach, or placement. 

The head-up display is a bonus, but the physical dials on the dash rather than a digital driver display are clear enough, despite again feeling nabbed from a time before head-up displays even existed. 

Space for the front passengers is decent, it’s not cavernous but it’s far from cramped. Elbow rests and seating positions allow for a relaxed ride.

The back seat is a slightly less comfortable place, but at 178cm I can sit behind my own seating position without my knees touching the seat in front, and my head has just enough space above to accommodate the top of a mullet.

Behind that, luggage capacity in the boot is 304 litres, or 605 litres with the rear 60/40 split seats folded.

There’s also no space-saver spare tyre, just a repair kit as standard.

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.

The Fronx is powered by a 1.5-litre four-cylinder engine with mild-hybrid assistance, driving the front wheels via a six-speed automatic transmission. 

Its outputs are quoted at 76kW and 137Nm, not exactly high-grade stuff and part of the reason the Fronx feels like it takes more than 10 seconds to hit 100km/h.

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.

Suzuki claims fuel consumption at 4.9L/100km. With its 37-litre fuel tank, the Fronx should be able to manage more than 600km on a single tank, though theoretically its maximum range given its claimed fuel efficiency is 755km.

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.

How you plan to use the Fronx will make a big difference in whether what you’re about to read is a good thing or not. 

The Fronx is a light SUV for a start, so expecting brilliant handling, effortless acceleration and a dead-quiet cabin is going to mean you’re disappointed.

But if you want something easy, engaging and fun, the Fronx might work for you.

Our brief test loop wasn’t entirely indicative of what the Fronx is likely to face day-to-day. With limited time and no preset drive program, the roads within a 20-or-so minute drive of Nagambie, Victoria had to suffice.

The Fronx fared well on the average road, it turned out, with the 1064kg Suzuki managing to feel planted enough to hurl along 100km/h back-roads without complaints. It rides on the same platform used recently by the Suzuki Baleno, something I’ll admit to not having driven.

The rougher roads didn’t faze the light SUV too much, though consistently uneven surfaces made it feel unsettled in some cornering.

Its steering and suspension give enough feedback to make the right inputs easily, though the nature of its light weight and minimal accoutrement in terms of driver assistance make the Fronx feel very rudimentary from the driver’s seat.

At low speeds around the centre of town, the Fronx manages the state’s terrible roads well, though taking off from intersections can be laborious. Much like overtaking, the drivetrain will complain.

And don’t expect its mild hybrid system to do a lot in the way of hard work - or any work at all, really. You could take the hybrid badge off the car, let someone have a drive, and they’d be none the wiser.

From the limited observations on the launch, the Fronx would feel best at home in suburbia or a metropolitan centre more so than on the Hume Highway or the towns dotted alongside it.

Essentially, this is not a refined road trip car for the highway, but its no-fuss approach to getting around means you shouldn’t be surprised if you start seeing them in the car parks at universities or bowls clubs.

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.

Suzuki has a five-year, unlimited kilometre warranty for its new cars, which is a little behind the curve compared to many budget-friendly brands these days. 

Suzuki does have a five-year servicing schedule, with intervals every 12 months or 15,000km, whichever comes first. Total cost is $2005 over the five years, with services averaging $401, which is not particularly cheap.

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.