BMW X3 (2013) vs. Mazda CX-3 (2016) Specs

vs.

◆

2013 BMW X3 and 2016 Mazda CX-3 Specifications

2013 BMW X3 Seat Room and Comfort: Pros
Year	Comment
2013	Thanks partly to power-adjustable side bolsters, the X3's optional sport seats are both supportive and comfortable. They're firm where you want them to be firm, yet (unlike those in the Audi and Mercedes-Benz) cushy where you want them to be cushy. The Volvo XC60's seats are also very comfortable, but can't quite match the BMW's lateral support. You sit substantially higher than in a BMW sedan, both relative to the ground and to the instrument panel. The windshield is more distant than in the original X3, making the current one seem considerably larger, but it remains more upright than in most recently designed crossovers. The forward visibility many people buy a crossover to get can be gotten here. Rear seat legroom increased by an inch with the 2011 redesign, and is now competitive. A couple of adults will fit, so there's no compelling functional reason to step up to the X5 unless you require tall people to be comfortable back there. see full BMW X3 review

None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2013 BMW X3.

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.

See TrueDelta's information for all SUVs

See TrueDelta's information for all BMW models.