Toyota C-HR vs Mazda CX-3

What's the difference?

There’s not much in terms of practicalities that are going to convince you the C-HR is a better option than Toyota’s other small SUV, the Corolla Cross.

Even other ‘stylish’ small SUVs like the Mazda CX-30, fuel savers like the electric MG ZS EV, or performance small SUVs like the Hyundai Kona N are more affordable than the GR Sport version of the C-HR.

In the case of this car, unlike most of its Toyota stablemates, buyers will likely be making a decision from the heart based on exterior styling and its interior rather than value or practicality.

And who would anyone be to tell you not to buy a car you like for its styling?

‘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.

There’s a fair bit going on here compared to most of Toyota’s other products, much like the first generation, but being designed with Europe as the key market and Australia as a secondary means the styling team needed to take on some fairly fashionable brands.

All three variants of the C-HR are relatively close in aesthetics, with major differences being two-tone paint or specific trim elements for the top-spec GR Sport.

It uses new Toyota design elements that have been seen on some models already, the ‘c-shape’ lights have been used on the new Prius, which we no longer get in Australia, for example.

The black roof was also available on the previous generation, where this car has carried over the ‘egg-like’ silhouette from.

The overall relatively aquatic styling and shape must be for aerodynamic advantage - its chief engineer told us the drag coefficient is just 0.318Cd - but the removal of the rear wiper to lower drag might have been unnecessary for a city-focused small SUV.

The cabin isn’t as wild as the outside, which may be a let-down in some ways, though it’s still a little more visually interesting than its more mainstream stablemates.

The 64-colour ambient lighting changes based on settings including time of day or drive mode, but can be set to a specific single colour if you wish.

The centre stack on the dash is gently angled towards the driver with a small separation between it and the passenger, creating a slight ‘cockpit’ feeling.

Seats are made from different materials depending on the grade, though no real leather is used even in the GR Sport, where synthetic suede and leather are the main upholstery.

The cloth textiles are made from entirely recycled materials, while the synthetic suede is made from a little less than half recycled materials.

They don’t look cheap, but they also don’t look particularly luxurious.

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.

When it comes to interior layout and ergonomics, there’s never much to criticise in a Toyota, unless playing it safe is a downside for you.

The buttons you’re most likely to use regularly, across the climate control, centre console and steering wheel, are all very obvious and easy to find, if a little uninspiring, as is wheel design itself - form definitely doesn’t sacrifice function here.

Welcome are the two large screens, the multimedia touchscreen a large 12.3-inch unit and the driver display either 7.0-inch or another 12.3-inch version depending on variant.

Toyota’s software is simple and accessible, using a few main menu sections, though many will likely bypass this with wireless phone mirroring.

Everything’s in a sensible place: a tall bottle in the cupholders won’t block access to anything, the phone charging pad is tucked away to minimise distraction, and Toyota has kept things like the gear selector and stalks behind the steering wheel relatively traditional.

While the interior feels a little dated by its many buttons and some of its simple graphics, there’s certainly something to be said for a welcome change from distracting screens and menus - if the aim was to not exclude Toyota’s older market, it seems like mission accomplished.

In terms of comfort and space, the C-HR makes pretty good use of its interior from the front, the seats are relatively comfortable and visibility is fine, though the back seat starts to feel a bit cramped.

While cupholders and door bottle storage is plentiful in the front, there’s no armrest and no bottle storage in the rear, only relatively shallow cupholders on the armrests in the doors.

Visibility is also relatively poor with high windows, a narrow rear window, and not a lot of light unless there’s a sunroof.

Behind that, with the seats up, the C-HR’s boot has a claimed VDA capacity of 388 litres in the GXL and Koba, or 362L in the GR Sport. Total volume with the seats down is 1154L and 1490L respectively.

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 difference in boot space is likely because the hybrid-only C-HR comes with two drivetrain options, depending on which variant you have.

The GXL and Koba both use Toyota’s 1.8-litre four-cylinder engine aided by a front-mounted electric motor to produce a 103kW output at the front wheels via a continuously variable transmission.

The GR Sport, however, gains a rear electric motor (taking up some boot space) and a more powerful front motor, helping a larger 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol engine make a total 146kW - still via a CVT.

Don’t expect to be getting to 100km/h from a standstill in any less than 8.0 seconds in either variant, but both have a claimed top speed of 170km/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.

Toyota says the C-HR uses just 4.0L/100km on the combined cycle test, which is 0.3L less than the previous generation’s claim, but it should be noted the 2.0-litre in the GR Sport drinks a claimed 4.1L/100km.

During testing on the launch drive, but without being able to measure properly from fill to fill, one quite spirited leg of driving netted a 6.9L/100km reading on the trip computer, while a more sedate drive returned 5.4L/100km.

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.

There’s nothing particularly offensive about the way the new C-HR drives, but there’s nothing riveting either.

If you’ve driven anything on the Toyota TNGA platform, this will feel familiar to you - and that’s not a bad thing, it’s generally pretty stable, comfortable and controlled.

The modified Corolla platform it rides on is a very good thing, but the C-HR doesn’t have anything in the way of sporting tendencies its styling might suggest.

The hybrid drivetrain in the two 1.8-litre versions of the small SUV don’t offer up a whole lot in terms of keen acceleration, but even the GR Sport and its 146kW drivetrain need a push to get things feeling properly quick on a twisty road.

The added stability of the all-wheel drive in the top variant is noticeable, the front-drive variants feeling a little less planted when pushed.

Steering is on the slightly lighter side of still being well-weighted - it doesn’t wow, but Toyota’s engineers know what they’re doing and it does everything it needs to in terms of communicating feeling to the driver.

Some particularly rough roads on the test drive showed the suspension to handle short, sharp bumps well and not feel crashy over larger imperfections.

The suspension has been retuned in this TNGA-C platform to be stiffer for more control but also more compliant in terms of comfort.

But it’s around urban and suburban streets where the C-HR will spend most of its time, and neglected streets, speed bumps, or tram lines won’t shake you too much from in the cabin.

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.

Toyota has a five-year/unlimited-kilometre warranty which covers the C-HR, as well as capped-price servicing for the first five years or 75,000km, whichever comes first, with each 12-month/15,000km service costing $250.

The C-HR also comes with a 12-month subscription to Toyota Connected Services, with features accessible through the myToyota Connect smartphone app.

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.