"boxrocket" (boxrocket)
09/21/2015 at 16:33 • Filed to: None
0
10|
"boxrocket" (boxrocket)
09/21/2015 at 16:33 • Filed to: None | 0
| 10 |
and holy crap is it great. Amazing even.
The model I drove was a Grand Touring AWD. It’s a beautiful, bright day, and I kept it on the pavement, so no off road, inclement weather, or night driving.
Interior is miles ahead of anything else in the segment that I’ve yet encountered (haven’t been in the HR-V yet). Better than the Buick Encore by far. There isn’t much cargo room due to the sloping hatch, but it’s flat and no wasted space that I could find. Head room is acceptable (I’m about 5’10”) and outward visibility is surprisingly good. Nice big mirrors, too. The one I drove was Soul Red, and had a few pieces of red interior trim, which was a nice accent, but I wouldn’t want it. The HUD above the steering wheel seemed slightly redundant as large and clear as the gauges are, but it’s nice to have.
Exterior is quite good. Not quite as handsome as the CX-5, but still quite good-looking. I don’t like that the front turn signals are below the bumper (like the 3, 2, Miata, Mustang, MKZ, and others), but they seem well-placed. Soul Red is a great color, but I’d rather have one of the blue colors, with tan interior,
Ride quality was quite good, and it’s amazingly quiet, especially after my experiences in an early-release CX-5, which, while not as noisy or boomy as, say, a Trax, wasn’t the quietest modern vehicle I’d been in, especially with the 2.0 straining away.
Acceleration and highway composure were good - this is no slouch, and not a slab-sided box getting pushed about in the crosswinds.
Would I buy one? Certainly! I’m not sure I’d put up the $27K for one like the one I drove, or over $30K how I’d want mine built, as the CX-5 can be had for so damn close in price especially as a slightly older model (though the one I’d want is about $35K). If I’m dropping that kind of scratch, I’d also be considering a CarMax warranted Range Rover Evoque five-door.
Tripper
> boxrocket
09/21/2015 at 16:50 |
|
C&D loved it too. Mazda has a great lineup these days.
Takuro Spirit
> boxrocket
09/21/2015 at 17:03 |
|
Glad you liked it. I do too. I just wish they had a manual available. Maybe next year?
Textured Soy Protein
> boxrocket
09/21/2015 at 17:53 |
|
BUT DID YOU CHECK THE ARMREST FOR DRINK CLEARANCE ?
davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
> boxrocket
09/21/2015 at 18:19 |
|
It has the 2.0, right? How much lighter is it than a CX-5?
Looking forward to seeing what they come up with for the new CX-9. My wife’s ‘08 has 170k miles on it and will need a replacement before too long.
|
boxrocket
> davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
09/21/2015 at 20:41 |
|
It felt considerably lighter, more nimble, and more tossable than the CX-5. According to Mazda’s website, the 3900-ish pound CX-3 is about 400 pounds lighter than the CX-5. Not sure if that's both with the 2.0 or not. Great turning radius, too.
The CX-9 is in development and will probably be released next year, previewed by last week’s Koeru concept.
|
boxrocket
> Textured Soy Protein
09/21/2015 at 20:45 |
|
I did not. I rarely have drinks in my car, and when I do they’re usually bottles. I did notice the odd slot within the armrest which your linked article hinted as a smartphone holder? I did notice the volume knob (below the infotainment controller between the seats) was harder to reach with the armrest in place, but there are redundant controls on the steering wheel.
|
boxrocket
> Takuro Spirit
09/21/2015 at 20:47 |
|
Who knows? I’m glad Mazda still offers manuals - and darn good ones, too - but the take rate of the CX-3 has to be high enough o justify the manual, especially with autos getting better mileage lately. I did try the shift-for-yourself mode with the floor shifter, and it’s much faster than both of the Mazda6s at my house.
|
davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
> boxrocket
09/21/2015 at 21:16 |
|
My ‘05 3s hatch was only 2800 lbs! Didn't realize they were that hefty.
Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo
> boxrocket
09/25/2015 at 22:18 |
|
I’m going to guess that the CX-9 will be a big big car, considering I thought that the old CX-7 was approaching Chevy Traverse proportions?
|
boxrocket
> Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo
09/25/2015 at 23:12 |
|
The Travesty is a bloated land whale, bigger than an Explorer AFAIK but with less useful/usable space. The current CX-9 is a stretched Edge, but smaller than an Explorer/Flex/MKT. The CX-7 and CX-5 are roughly Escape/Equinox/RAV4/CR-V size.