Model Year | 2016 | 2014 | |
Model | Mazda CX-3 | Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban | |
Engine | 2.0L I4 DOHC-4v 146 hp@6000 146 lb-ft@2800 |
5.3L V8 OHV-2v 320 hp@5400 335 lb-ft@4000 |
|
Transmission | 6-speed shiftable automatic | 6-speed shiftable automatic | |
Drivetrain | AWD | 4WD | |
Body | 4dr SUV | 4dr SUV | |
Difference | |||
Wheelbase | 101.2 in | 116.0 in | -14.8 in |
Length | 168.3 in | 202.0 in | -33.7 in |
Width | 69.6 in | 79.0 in | -9.4 in |
Height | 60.7 in | 76.9 in | -16.2 in |
Curb Weight | 2952 lb. | 5567 lb. | -2615 lb. |
Fuel Capacity | 12.7 gal. | 26.0 gal. | -13.3 gal. |
Headroom, Row 1 | 38.4 in | 41.1 in | -2.7 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 53.5 in | 65.3 in | -11.8 in |
Hip Room, Row 1 | 52.3 in | 64.4 in | -12.1 in |
Legroom, Row 1 | 41.7 in | 41.3 in | 0.4 in |
Headroom, Row 2 | 37.2 in | 39.2 in | -2 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 50.4 in | 65.2 in | -14.8 in |
Hip Room, Row 2 | 49.0 in | 60.6 in | -11.6 in |
Legroom, Row 2 | 35.0 in | 39.0 in | -4 in |
Headroom, Row 3 | 0.0 in | 37.9 in | -37.9 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 3 | 0.0 in | 61.7 in | -61.7 in |
Hip Room, Row 3 | 0.0 in | 49.1 in | -49.1 in |
Legroom, Row 3 | 0.0 in | 25.6 in | -25.6 in |
Total Legroom | 76.7 in (over 2 rows) | 105.9 in (over 3 rows) | -29.2 in |
Cargo Volume, Minimum | 12.4 ft3 | 16.9 ft3 | -4.5 ft3 |
Cargo Volume, Behind R2 | 12.4 | 60.3 ft3 | -47.9 |
Cargo Volume, Maximum | 44.5 ft3 | 108.9 ft3 | -64.4 ft3 |
2016 Mazda CX-3 Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Comment | |
2016 | The CX-3's driving position is very good, more car-like even than the HR-V's. The view forward is open. The view rearward, not so much, as the racy styling yields rear windows that are quite a bit smaller than the front ones. To help compensate, the outside mirrors are large plus blind sport warning is standard on the Touring and Grand Touring. The CX-3's driver seat is very comfortable and provides good lateral support in turns. The cloth center pocket is cushy without being mushy. Unlike in the HR-V and some others, the headrest does not jut uncomfortably far forward. But the lumbar bulge is not adjustable. As is, it fit my back well, but many people will wish for more of a bulge. The HR-V's also non-adjustable lumbar bulge was too pronounced for my taste. The JUKE's seats are comfortable, but for effective side bolsters (and then some) you must step up to the NISMO. Worth noting for those of you who get your coffee to go: the cup holders are located beneath the armrest (optional on the Sport, standard on the others). If you want to use them, then you can't use the armrest. see full Mazda CX-3 review |
2016 Mazda CX-3 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Comment | |
For people who have no interest in a manual transmission (the great majority), the Mazda CX-3's largest shortcoming is a rear seat that is tight even by small car standards. Sitting behind my 5-9 self, my knees pressed lightly against the front seat backs. I wasn't uncomfortable, but felt a little closed-in. A shame, as rear headroom is relatively plentiful and the rear seat is otherwise very comfortable. The HR-V provides about four inches more rear legroom, a big difference. According to their specs, the JUKE has three inches less rear legroom than the Mazda. In reality, though, I had perhaps an inch more rear knee room, but less rear headroom. The Nissan's rear seat might be slightly more adult-friendly than the Mazda's, but neither is a good choice if people taller than me will be sitting in both rows. see full Mazda CX-3 review |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2016 Mazda CX-3.
2014 Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Comment | |
2015 | Some (perhaps more than some) people are drawn to large SUVs because they like to feel like the king of the road when behind the wheel. Others need a lot of space while driving, or at least feel they do. Few vehicles have more front seat room than the new Tahoe. With an inch-and-a-half less shoulder room, the Ford's front-row dimensions aren't quite as generous, and its taller, shifter-festooned console is more intrusive. The front seats are comfortable in both. The Expedition's are a little wider and softer, and they're upholstered with especially rich hides in the King Ranch and Platinum (vs. the most recently tested and photographed Limited). Whether this is preferable is a matter of taste. see full Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban review |
2014 Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Comment | |
Both the Tahoe and Expedition have roomy, comfortable second-row seats, with a slight edge to the higher cushions in the Chevrolet. Bonus points to the Tahoe for automatic rear climate controls (they're manual in the Expedition). Move to the third-row seat, and you'll wonder why, despite redesigns for 2007 and 2015, General Motors has stubbornly refused to follow Ford's 2003 switch from a solid rear axle to an independent rear suspension. With a solid axle, the rear floor must be high to permit the rear differential to travel up and down when a wheel hits a bump. Consequently, the Tahoe's third row seat must be very thinly constructed and mounted very close to the floor. Even pre-teen children won't be comfortable in it. In sharp contrast, the Expedition's third-row seat is higher off the floor than its second-row seat, much less the ridiculously low third row in the Tahoe, and is--surprise--considerably more comfortable as a result. The Suburban's third-row seat is roomier than the Tahoe's but still far inferior to the Expedition's. see full Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban review |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2014 Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban.