Audi A4 / S4 (2016) vs. Mazda CX-3 (2017) Specs

vs.

◆

2016 Audi A4 / S4 and 2017 Mazda CX-3 Specifications

2016 Audi A4 / S4 Seat Room and Comfort: Pros
Year	Comment
2017	Before the 2009 model year redesign, the Audi A4's back seat was too tight for adults of more than average size, and marginal even for these. With the 2017 the back seat has grown yet again. Not only this, but the cushion is higher off the floor than in previous A4s or in competitors, such that it's now the most comfortable in the class. This said, the rear doors could open more widely, such that I struggled to get a decent photo of the rear seat. Since its 2014 model year redesign the Lexus IS has had a passably roomy rear seat, but it can't match the Audi's for comfort. see full Audi A4 / S4 review

2016 Audi A4 / S4 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons
Year	Comment
	Pressed to come up with another con, I might offer the front seats. There's nothing bad about them. There's just nothing outstanding about them, either. Those in the sport-trim Lexus provide more lateral support and feel more comfortable to me. (With seats personal impressions are bound to vary, so definitely evaluate them yourself.) see full Audi A4 / S4 review

None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2016 Audi A4 / S4.

2017 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

2017 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 2017 Mazda CX-3.

See TrueDelta's information for all Sedans, Wagons, and Convertibles.

See TrueDelta's information for all Audi models.