There’s a baby on the way, and it’s time to trade in that prized sports car.
You know, the sports car that sits on blocks on the driveway more than it’s actually driven. Once a baby arrives, you can’t really justify walking a mile to the grocery store in scorching heat because the firing order hasn’t been sorted yet. It’s time to become a grown up and get a reliable vehicle with some space in it.
But the money tree in the backyard hasn’t matured yet, and the thought of being relegated to the minivan lane of life is cringe-worthy. So what to do? Well, a new wave of practical, little crossovers is invading the market.
Vehicles like the 2016 Honda HR-V and 2016 Mazda CX-3. Based on their company’s respective subcompact cars, the HR-V and CX-3 represent a new league of small crossovers that we first got a taste of with the Nissan Juke and Mitsubishi Outlander Sport.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
What’s a Subcompact CUV?
Subcompact crossovers are basically for anyone who finds compact crossovers like the CR-V and CX-5 too big or too pricey. The HR-V may be based on the Fit platform, but it uses the Civic’s 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine and makes 141 hp and 127 lb-ft of torque. Power can be sent to the ground through either a six-speed manual transmission or a CVT. If all-wheel drive is selected though, then the CVT is the only choice.
The CX-3 also uses a four-cylinder engine lifted from the company’s compact car; a 2.0-liter making 146 hp and 146 lb-ft of torque. Unlike the HR-V, the CX-3 is automatic only, but it uses a conventional six-speed transmission instead of a CVT.
Power and Efficiency
Aside from the power advantage, the 2,951-lb CX-3 is also roughly 150 pounds lighter than a fully loaded HR-V. At slow speeds, the power to weight advantage is apparent, as the CX-3 feels much quicker off the line. But neither vehicle is what can be considered powerful and by highway speeds, things have pretty much evened out.
SEE ALSO: 2016 Mazda CX-3 Review
And speaking of even, these two crossovers have identical fuel economy ratings of 27 mpg city and 32 mpg highway when equipped with all-wheel drive. During real-world testing, the CX-3 did have a minor advantage averaging 30.6 mpg compared to the HR-V’s 29.7-mpg average.
Fun vs Familiar
In terms of driving pleasure, it’s all about the CX-3. It’s far more fun to drive and really behaves like a compact car more than a crossover. Corners can be taken with some speed and the CX-3 is relatively capable at tackling them.
Even if the mechanics aren’t the same as the CR-V, the HR-V sure drives like a scaled-down version of that compact crossover. Power is adequate and the CVT is smooth, blending into the background. But on the highway, it can hunt around at times trying to find enough power to keep the HR-V up to speed. The good news is that, for such a small crossover, the HR-V rides quite smoothly – more so than the CX-3.
|Vehicle||Honda HR-V||Advantage||Mazda CX-3|
|Engine||1.8 L Four-Cylinder||-||2.0 L Four Cylinder|
|Horsepower||141 HP||CX-3||146 HP|
|Torque||127 lb-ft.||CX-3||146 lb-ft.|
|Weight||3,109 lbs.||CX-3||2,951 lbs.|
|Cargo Space Seats Up||23.2 cubic feet||HR-V||14.4 cubic feet|
|Cargo Space Seats Dn||55.9 cubic feet||HR-V||52.4 cubic feet|
|Fuel Economy (US)||27 MPG city, 32 MPG hwy||-||27 MPG city, 32 MPG hwy|
|Fuel Economy (CDN)||8.8 L/100 km city, 7.2 L/100 km hwy||-||8.8 L/100 km city, 7.3 L/100 km hwy|
|Observed Fuel Economy||29.7 MPG||CX-3||30.6 MPG|
|Top Trim Price(US)||$26,720||HR-V||$29,040|
|Top Trim Price(CDN)||$31,685||HR-V||$32,390|
What Are They Like Inside?
The interior design of the HR-V is a bit boring, except for the trio of passenger side slit vents that remind me of Geordi La Forge’s eyewear. Even if this is a baby crossover, a lot of grown up equipment is available like push button start, lane watch camera and navigation. But unlike HR-Vs available in Canada, Americans are denied two options – lane departure warning and the front collision alert system.
But the biggest issue with the HR-V is one I’ve complained about in a lot of modern Hondas – headroom. With the standard sunroof, two inches of driver headroom is lost and my head is brushing against the headliner. It’s as if the seat won’t adjust low enough. It’s strange, as the Mazda is actually listed as having less headroom, but I fit in there no problem.
Besides the extra cranium capacity, the CX-3 has an aura of being more upscale inside, which makes sense since it can be equipped with a lot of features not found in the HR-V like a head-up display, adaptive cruise control, forward crash avoidance and lane departure warning. This does, however, drive up the price. As tested, the CX-3 GT AWD with the i-ACTIVSENSE safety package comes in at $29,040 after destination charges, some $2,320 more than a loaded HR-V EX-L Navi.
But Can They Carry?
And pricing is just the start of the pendulum swinging back in favor of the HR-V. For how small it is, the HR-V offers a ton of rear passenger space. With almost 40 inches of legroom, a six-foot adult can easily sit behind another six-foot adult. Oddly, headroom isn’t an issue in the back and seat comfort is pretty good. All of this space makes installing a rear-facing baby seat a non-issue for the front passenger.
In the CX-3, legroom is down more than four inches and it’s noticeably tighter. Fitting a baby seat in there will have the front seat passenger eating the dashboard. Headroom for rear passengers is on par with the Honda, but the side windows in the Mazda aren’t nearly as big and airy feeling as the HR-V’s.
SEE ALSO: 2016 Honda HR-V Review
And when it comes to cargo space, the HR-V wins hands down. Forget for a second that the Honda, at 23.3 cubic feet, offers nearly 40 percent more cargo space behind the rear seats. Its real party trick is the magic seats. Just like the Fit, the HR-V’s rear seat cushions can flip up to fit taller items. Or, the entire seat surface can fold flat into the footwell, leaving a nice, big load area.
The CX-3 can’t match the HR-V’s hauling ability, and it also has a much smaller hatch opening. Trying to fit the base of an infant stroller is a chore and a half while the HR-V swallows it up without issue. And it’s not like the HR-V is a massively larger crossover; it’s less than inch longer in total length than the CX-3.
The Verdict: 2016 Honda HR-V vs 2016 Mazda CX-3
Deciding between these two really comes down to a question of where your current priorities lay. If kids aren’t in the picture and won’t be for the foreseeable future, grab the fun-to-drive and stylish CX-3.
But if you do have kids or plan to soon, the Mazda is just too small for a young family. The better choice is the Honda HR-V. Small in stature, the surprisingly spacious and capable HR-V is a baby crossover, ready to haul babies.
2016 Honda HR-V
2016 Mazda CX-3