| 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
2023 Ford Transit Connect and 2016 Mazda CX-3 Specifications
| Model Year | 2023 | 2016 | |
| Model | Ford Transit Connect | Mazda CX-3 | |
| Engine | |||
| Transmission | |||
| Drivetrain | |||
| Body | 4dr Minivan, ext. | 4dr SUV | |
| Difference | |||
| Wheelbase | 3,063 mm | 2,570 mm | 1 mm |
| Length | 4,826 mm | 4,275 mm | 0 mm |
| Width | 1,834 mm | 1,768 mm | 0 mm |
| Height | 1,819 mm | 1,542 mm | 0 mm |
| Curb Weight | 1,813 kg | 1,274 kg | 0 kg |
| Fuel Capacity | 60 L | 48 L | 12 L |
| Headroom, Row 1 | 1,191 mm | 975 mm | -974 mm |
| Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 1,463 mm | 1,359 mm | 0 mm |
| Hip Room, Row 1 | 1,377 mm | 1,328 mm | 0 mm |
| Legroom, Row 1 | 1,024 mm | 1,059 mm | 0 mm |
| Headroom, Row 2 | 1,161 mm | 945 mm | -944 mm |
| Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 1,486 mm | 1,280 mm | 0 mm |
| Hip Room, Row 2 | 1,481 mm | 1,245 mm | 0 mm |
| Legroom, Row 2 | 955 mm | 889 mm | 66 mm |
| Headroom, Row 3 | 1,064 mm | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| Shoulder Room, Row 3 | 1,430 mm | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| Hip Room, Row 3 | 1,194 mm | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| Legroom, Row 3 | 889 mm | 0 mm | 889 mm |
| Total Legroom | 2,868 mm (over 3 rows) | 1,948 mm (over 2 rows) | 1 mm |
| Cargo Volume, Minimum | 705 L | 351 L | 354 L |
| Cargo Volume, Behind R2 | 1,702 L | 12.4 | -11.4 L |
| Cargo Volume, Maximum | 3,002 L | 1,260 L | 2 L |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2023 Ford Transit Connect
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2023 Ford Transit Connect.
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2016 Mazda CX-3
| 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 | ||
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.
See TrueDelta's information for all Minivans
See TrueDelta's information for all Ford models.
