Chevrolet SS (2014) vs. Mazda CX-3 (2016) Specs

vs.

◆

2014 Chevrolet SS and 2016 Mazda CX-3 Specifications

2014 Chevrolet SS Seat Room and Comfort: Pros
Year	Comment
2015	Despite its slightly more compact exterior, the Chevrolet SS has a roomier back seat than the Dodge Charger. Rear headroom is in unexpectedly short supply in the latter. The Chevrolet also has a couple more inches of rear hiproom, so three adults won't have to get quite as cozy in its back seat. Both cars have about 16 cubic feet of trunk space. A good amount, but you'll find as much in most midsize sedans. Unlike the Charger's, the SS's rear seat cannot fold to expand the trunk. But a pass-through in the center is far larger than most. see full Chevrolet SS review

2014 Chevrolet SS Seat Room and Comfort: Cons
Year	Comment
	The front seats in the Chevrolet SS are comfortable. They also look like they'd provide generous lateral support, but don't, at least not for those of us who aren't built like linebackers. Thankfully the upper seat back features some synthetic suede trim, and this prevents sliding in hard turns. Still, a car with such high handling limits should have seats with much larger and more effective side bolsters--like those available in the Dodge Charger. see full Chevrolet SS review

None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2014 Chevrolet SS.

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 Sedans

See TrueDelta's information for all Chevrolet models.