| 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
2016 Mazda CX-3 and 2011 Ford Focus Specifications
| Model Year | 2016 | 2011 | |
| Model | Mazda CX-3 | Ford Focus | |
| Engine | 2.0L I4 DOHC-4v 146 hp@6000 146 lb-ft@2800 |
2.0L I4 DOHC-4v 140 hp@6000 136 lb-ft@4250 |
|
| Transmission | 6-speed shiftable automatic | 4-speed automatic | |
| Drivetrain | FWD | FWD | |
| Body | 4dr SUV | 4dr Sedan | |
| Difference | |||
| Wheelbase | 101.2 in | 102.9 in | -1.7 in |
| Length | 168.3 in | 175.0 in | -6.7 in |
| Width | 69.6 in | 66.7 in | 2.9 in |
| Height | 60.7 in | 58.6 in | 2.1 in |
| Curb Weight | 2809 lb. | 2645 lb. | 164 lb. |
| Fuel Capacity | 12.7 gal. | 13.5 gal. | -0.8 gal. |
| Headroom, Row 1 | 38.4 in | 39.2 in | -0.8 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 53.5 in | 53.5 in | 0 in |
| Hip Room, Row 1 | 52.3 in | 50.4 in | 1.9 in |
| Legroom, Row 1 | 41.7 in | 41.7 in | 0 in |
| Headroom, Row 2 | 37.2 in | 38.3 in | -1.1 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 50.4 in | 53.7 in | -3.3 in |
| Hip Room, Row 2 | 49.0 in | 50.9 in | -1.9 in |
| Legroom, Row 2 | 35.0 in | 36.1 in | -1.1 in |
| Total Legroom | 76.7 in (over 2 rows) | 77.8 in (over 2 rows) | -1.1 in |
| Cargo Volume, Minimum | 12.4 ft3 | 13.8 ft3 | -1.4 ft3 |
| Cargo Volume, Maximum | 44.5 ft3 | 13.8 ft3 | 30.7 ft3 |
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.
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2011 Ford Focus
| 2011 Ford Focus Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
| Year | Comment | |
| 2010 | The rear seat is fairly comfortable--if you fit. Many compacts have roomier back seats. see full Ford Focus review | |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2011 Ford Focus
| 2011 Ford Focus Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 4-speed automatic FWD |
I am ranking the driver's seat high in comfort even though 10 minutes is not enough to be sure. The seat has a lot of adjustability, including height. It feels like sitting on a platform rather than a hammock. The seat felt supportive without being hard. I can imagine it would allow for long distance travel in comfort. see full Ford Focus review |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 5-speed manual FWD |
Head room was great and the seat adjusted vertically with an easy to use lever. see full Ford Focus review |
| 2011 Ford Focus Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2012 | 4dr Hatch 160-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed automated manual FWD |
Driver seat cushion very uncomfortable after 30 minutes; feels like no cushion in seat see full Ford Focus review |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 4-speed automatic FWD |
It's tight in the back. Entry and egress are a bit cumbersome in particular for the feet. My shoe size is 9.5. see full Ford Focus review |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 5-speed manual FWD |
Like sitting on concrete. One minor positive was that the lumbar support was decent, but overall lacking in comfort. see full Ford Focus review |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 140-horsepower 2.0L I4 4-speed automatic FWD |
Air conditioner doesn't cool car. see full Ford Focus review |
See TrueDelta's information for all SUVs
See TrueDelta's information for all Mazda models.
