2014 Mazda Mazda3 I Sport on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Mazda CX-3 First Drive

If there's any doubt in your mind about the importance of B-segment crossovers, consider this: our review of the 2016 Mazda CX-3 arrives on your screen less than 24 hours after our first test of the 2016 Honda HR-V. Both of these vehicles are hugely important entries for their respective automakers. And while they take a similar shape and will compete head to head, the truth is, they're very different products. The HR-V is a knockout because of its excellent packaging and added versatility over Honda's own Fit and Civic. It's a wholly competent product, and we imagine it'll be one of, if not the best-selling vehicle in the class. In terms of being desirable for customers, it checks all the necessary boxes: frugal, functional, efficient, and affordable. Mazda takes a similar approach, but focuses instead on its key strength of offering cars that are great to drive, and look damn good. What's more, the CX-3 won't have to share showroom space as the HR-V does with the Fit – the all-new Mazda2 isn't slated for the US right now. Instead, the new CUV will serve as an entry point into the brand. Because of this, Mazda is betting big on the CX-3. That all starts with a product that's appealing to the eye. Design director Derek Jenkins says Mazda "didn't want to do the funky route" with its compact CUV – a nudge to the Nissan Juke and Fiat 500X, right there. Instead, the CX-3 uses the Kodo design language that Mazda has perfected since its production debut on the CX-5 in 2012. Across the board, the company's products look incredible, and the CX-3 is right at home amongst Mazda's latest beauties. Notice the long hood with a flowing character line that runs over the front fender and down the body side, chiseled off at the end with tight rear proportions and a small overhang. Huge arches draw focus to the premium 18-inch wheels found on our Grand Touring CX-3, but swallow up the 16-inch rollers used on lesser models. The glass area is kept to a minimum, but visibility from inside is still quite good. Details like the LED accents in the head- and taillamps look premium and aggressive. From all angles, this is an attractive crossover. It's a bold, dynamic entry in a class filled with cutesy, oddball, and bland designs. Underneath the CX-3 is the Skyactiv chassis found in the new Mazda2. At 168.3 inches long, 69.6 inches wide, and 60.7 inches tall, the CX-3 is smaller than the Mazda3 in every dimension except height.

2016 Mazda CX-9 First Drive

Automotive enthusiasts tend to obsess over spec sheets. How else could we know which cars and trucks are the quickest in a straight line, hold the road with the greatest tenacity, or tow the biggest trailers? More succinctly, what ammunition would we have in the seemingly endless back-and-forth of Internet forums if it weren't for specifications? Mazda's engineers think they've found a better way. The 2016 CX-9 has less horsepower than its primary competitors. The only engine available is a turbocharged four-cylinder, hooked to a six-speed automatic. Drivers won't miss the 23 horsepower (or more, as we'll soon explain) lost in the changeover from 2015 to 2016, because Mazda applied its holistic Skyactiv approach to the largest vehicle it offers. That means less weight and, ultimately, more fun. Or so they say. Are they right? Yes. And no. Most of the time, in normal on-road driving conditions, the 2016 CX-9 is the most fun you can have with three rows. But the real-world tradeoff didn't go off completely without a hitch. Reasoning that real-world performance is more important than ultimate horsepower, Mazda specified a four-cylinder for its big, three-row SUV instead of a more traditional V6. Let's get those all-important specifications out of the way: All 2016 Mazda CX-9s are fitted with a 2.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder with 250 horsepower and, impressively, 310 pound-feet of torque at just 2,000 rpm. Unless you decide to use 87 octane, in which case you'll be limited to 227 horsepower. Mazda doesn't think owners will actually notice the difference in power levels, so there's no Premium Fuel Recommended sticker on the back of the fuel door. Mazda utilized some clever turbo trickery to deliver a diesel-like torque curve from its gasoline-fueled engine, which makes the small-displacement powerplant feel lively at low engine speeds. The flipside is that the CX-9 runs out of breath as the needle swings across the upper reaches of the tach. While that simply wouldn't do for a sportscar like the MX-5, in the CX-9 it's not necessarily a deal breaker. One benefit to the downsized engine is that it doesn't guzzle fuel. The EPA rates the CX-9 at 22 miles per gallon in the city and 28 on the highway. Drop one mpg all around for the all-wheel-drive model. Those figures beat out all the CX-9's most natural competitors, including the Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander. The turbo-four Ford Explorer matches the 28-mpg highway figure, but loses by three in the city.

J.D. Power dependability survey is out, but you shouldn't depend on it

J.D. Power has just released its latest automotive dependability survey, which of course has usual suspects Buick and Lexus ranking high. Those are safe and solid findings, surely. But when you look a little closer, there are curiosities. Our Consumer Editor, Jeremy Korzeniewski, offered an explanation a couple of years back for why this survey should be viewed with a degree of skepticism, and his take is worth a re-read. What jumped out at Jeremy were the relatively low spots assigned to Mazda, Subaru and Scion among the ranking of makes. Back in 2016 when he wrote his piece, they were ranked 21st, 23rd and 24th respectively. In this year's survey, Mazda ranks 15th and Subaru 26th, both below the industry average of 142 reported problems per 100 vehicles. (And Scion, of course, is in car-brand heaven.) Now, part of what is going on here is surely the fact that all automotive brands are producing dependable vehicles compared with years gone by, so the degree of variance between the best and worst on the list is not as great as it once was. "For the most part, automotive manufacturers continue to meet consumers' vehicle dependability expectations," Dave Sargent, a J.D. Power vice president, said in a statement. "A 9 percent improvement is extremely impressive, and vehicle dependability is, without question, at its best level ever." That said, when a brand like Subaru, regarded by many as mechanically bulletproof, ranks 26th, it leaves people who know cars scratching their heads. Something there does not compute. The problem, as Jeremy pointed out, is one of methodology: When he wrote his piece, there was no weighting assigned to the problems reported in the survey. And that still appears to be the case. Therefore, a problem with an infotainment system or a loose piece of trim is deemed as serious as a blown engine or leaky transmission. (And yes, infotainment is still the biggest problem across the board.) Jeremy's point: If the categories of problems were weighted, you'd see a different picture. When you look at the Consumer Reports brand rankings (subscription required), you get a very different picture. in CR's rankings, Subaru is No. 6 among brands, which, well, sounds a lot more like it. CR singles out the redesigned 2017 Impreza as a car with some new-model problems. (The BRZ had the fewest.) The two surveys jibe a little more closely when it comes to Mazda, which CR ranks 12th, a drop of six places from previous-year rankings.