Mazda CX-3 (2016) vs. Toyota Venza (2012) Specs
How powerful is the engine? How much room is in the back seat? Get the 2016 Mazda CX-3 and 2012 Toyota Venza specs.
2016 Mazda CX-3 and 2012 Toyota Venza Specifications
| Model Year |
2016 |
2012 |
|
| Model |
Mazda CX-3 |
Toyota Venza |
|
| Engine |
|
|
|
| Transmission |
|
|
|
| Drivetrain |
|
|
|
| Body |
4dr SUV |
4dr SUV |
|
| |
|
|
Difference |
| Wheelbase |
101.2 in |
109.3 in |
-8.1 in |
| Length |
168.3 in |
189.0 in |
-20.7 in |
| Width |
69.6 in |
75.0 in |
-5.4 in |
| Height |
60.7 in |
63.4 in |
-2.7 in |
| Curb Weight |
2809 lb. |
3760 lb. |
-951 lb. |
| Fuel Capacity |
12.7 gal. |
17.7 gal. |
-5 gal. |
| Headroom, Row 1 |
38.4 in |
39.6 in |
-1.2 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 1 |
53.5 in |
60.0 in |
-6.5 in |
| Hip Room, Row 1 |
52.3 in |
56.0 in |
-3.7 in |
| Legroom, Row 1 |
41.7 in |
40.2 in |
1.5 in |
| Headroom, Row 2 |
37.2 in |
39.3 in |
-2.1 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 2 |
50.4 in |
59.0 in |
-8.6 in |
| Hip Room, Row 2 |
49.0 in |
56.5 in |
-7.5 in |
| Legroom, Row 2 |
35.0 in |
39.1 in |
-4.1 in |
| Total Legroom |
76.7 in (over 2 rows) |
79.3 in (over 2 rows) |
-2.6 in |
| Cargo Volume, Minimum |
12.4 ft3 |
34.4 ft3 |
-22 ft3 |
| Cargo Volume, Maximum |
44.5 ft3 |
70.1 ft3 |
-25.6 ft3 |
Return to top
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2016 Mazda CX-3
| 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 |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2016 Mazda CX-3
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2016 Mazda CX-3.
Be the first!
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2012 Toyota Venza
| 2011 |
4dr SUV 268-horsepower 3.5L V6
6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
Have had many adult passengers in the rear seats - all have commented without prompting on the ample leg room, comfortable seats, and attractiveness of the panoramic glass roof.
see full Toyota Venza review |
See TrueDelta's information for all
SUVsSee TrueDelta's information for all
Mazda models.
