1980 Mazda Rx-7 1st Gen Rotary Engine 5 Speed Rx7 No Reserve! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mazda CX-30 Luggage Test | How much cargo space?

The Mazda CX-30 is pretty much a lifted Mazda3 hatchback. Same platform, awfully similar dimensions, and the interior's a spitting image (if not identical). Ditto cargo capacity. On paper, the two have virtually the same amount of space behind their raised back seats, with the CX-30 at 20.2 cubic-feet and the 3 with just a teensy less at 20.1.  Now, before I go any further, let's see how much that 20.1 cubic-feet relates to in the Mazda3. I wasn't yet doing this test format back then, hence the video.  For reference, both tests used my standard luggage selection of two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). The bag of baseballs shown in the video is slightly smaller than my new small-bag go-to, my wife's fancy blue overnight bag (21L x 12W x 12D). So, the mark to beat is therefore all the bags minus the smallest roller.  Here is what 20.2 cubic feet looks like in the CX-30. To move beyond the Mazda3 comparison, that figure is in keeping with the CX-30's niche placement between subcompact (the teens) and compact SUVs (upper 20s to upper 30s). The Mazda CX-5 has 30.9 cubic-feet.  Now, typically, I start off by seeing how much I can fit inside with the cargo cover in place. Sadly, this particular CX-30's cargo cover is missing. We'll just have to hope it doesn't rob the CX-30 of as much space as the CX-5's does.  First off, it's immediately noticed that the CX-30's cargo area is not as long as the 3 hatchback's. The largest bag just barely squeezed inside, whereas there was some room to spare in the 3. Now, let's keep loading.  Whattya know? All of the roller bags fit inside. That includes the smallest one, which didn't fit in the 3, fitting atop the stack with perhaps 30% of it over the back seat line. Now, I could've done the same Tetris stack in the 3, but I'm virtually certain the hatch wouldn't have closed. Advantage, then, to the CX-30 and its extra height.  And surprise, the fancy bag also fits. Technically. It robs rear visibility, is pretty far above the seat line and it just barely fits under the back light. If it was filled, I have my doubts about its inclusion. Nevertheless, with or without it, there's still a bit more space on the right side for that bag of baseballs.  Now let's discuss the power liftgate.

Sorry, rotary fans, Mazda's RX Vision probably won't happen

Mazda is doing a lot of things the right way in this age of beige-ness. It just crammed a turbocharged inline-four into the improved CX-9, a bold move unto itself, and one that should also be heartening for Mazdaspeed fans. Wouldn't that engine make for a swell Mazdaspeed3 or Mazdaspeed6? There's a reasonable ray of hope there, but not necessarily a guarantee. The RX Vision, though, is a pipe dream. Mazda is smart to keep the rotary dream alive. It's smart to keep developing it in back rooms and to keep the idea on the public's mind. Credit where credit's due: Mazda has solved some of the stickiest issues the rotary engine has, through savvy engineering and perseverance. We've seen promising patent filings for the Skyactiv-R engine, which is supposed to be found in the RX Vision concept. Mazda uses every opportunity to remind us that development is continuing and that the company would love to bring a rotary-powered sportscar to production. I believe it. But the RX Vision is just a design study. And there are some harsh realities about rotary engine emissions and fuel economy standards that are difficult for modern piston engines to achieve without expensive componentry. Emissions and fuel economy are both bugbears of the rotary, in case you've forgotten. And that explains Mazda's interest in running rotaries on hydrogen, but down that road lie infrastructure challenges as daunting as making a gasoline-powered rotary burn as clean as one of Mazda's Skyactiv piston engines. All this is meant to put Mazda's recent comments to Top Gear in context. Mazda's design director, Kevin Rice, spoke to TG at the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa D'Este, and was waving Mazda's rotary flag quite enthusiastically. "In the back rooms at Mazda, we're still developing it," Rice said, "and when the world's ready to buy another rotary, we'll be ready to provide it." I'd like that to be a comforting statement, but given the realities of fuel economy and emissions regulations and Mazda's position in the market, it seems like a hollow platitude. "When the world's ready" is just another way of saying "when we solve the fundamental issues with this engine layout, and there's an unambiguous market study that shows we can build these cars and make a profit, we'll consider it." That seems like a lot of "ifs". Perhaps Mazda does have a clean-burning, efficient, cheap-to-produce rotary running on an engine dyno in Hiroshima, and it's prepping an RX-9 for the next auto show.

Toyota Yaris iA, Mazda CX-3 sales show crossover formula isn't an automatic win

While 2017 was another watershed year for crossovers, in one interesting case, a crossover had its lunch eaten by its sedan counterpart. In the past year, Toyota sold nearly 36,000 Yaris iAs, a sedan that is identical to the foreign-market Mazda2 in everything but Toyota's ugly front bumper. In the same time frame, Mazda sold just over 16,000 CX-3s, a subcompact crossover based on the Mazda2. Not only that, but the Yaris iA saw an increase of around 8,000 units over 2016, and the CX-3 sold about 2,000 fewer units than in 2016. View 29 Photos There are a few reasons this is surprising. First of course is that the crossover market is surface-of-the-sun hot right now, so much so that primarily crossover-building brand Subaru saw its best sales year ever last year. Even Mazda's other crossovers, the CX-5 and CX-9 saw better sales in 2017 than in 2016. But on paper, the CX-3 has a number of advantages compared to the Yaris iA. The CX-3 has a larger 2.0-liter four-cylinder that makes about 40 more horsepower than the 1.5-liter engine in the Toyota. Also, while the cargo area behind the rear seats in the CX-3 is about one cubic foot smaller than the iA, it has the added flexibility of being a hatchback, and thus having more capability when it comes to large, bulky items. And of course, the CX-3 is quite a shapely machine compared with the awkward, angry-looking iA. That's not to say the iA doesn't have any of its own advantages. It gets 3 more mpg in the city and 6 more on the highway than the CX-3. It also costs roughly $3,000 to $4,000 less than a CX-3 and can be found at more dealers than the Mazda. But it's still surprising that a car, especially a sedan, can outsell a mechanically very similar crossover. Apparently the formula of adding more ground clearance and plastic fenders isn't foolproof. Then again, maybe it's not such a big deal to Mazda, since the CX-3's total sales were just over a tenth that of the Mazda CX-5. Related Video: