Mazda CX-3 (2017) vs. GMC Terrain (2018) Specs

vs.

◆

2017 Mazda CX-3 and 2018 GMC Terrain Specifications

Model Year	2017	2018
Model	Mazda CX-3	GMC Terrain
Engine
Transmission
Drivetrain
Body	4dr SUV	4dr SUV
			Difference
Wheelbase	101.2 in	107.3 in	-6.1 in
Length	168.3 in	182.3 in	-14 in
Width	69.6 in	72.4 in	-2.8 in
Height	60.7 in	65.4 in	-4.7 in
Curb Weight	2809 lb.	3449 lb.	-640 lb.
Fuel Capacity	12.7 gal.	14.9 gal.	-2.2 gal.
Headroom, Row 1	38.4 in	40.0 in	-1.6 in
Shoulder Room, Row 1	53.5 in	57.2 in	-3.7 in
Hip Room, Row 1	52.3 in	54.4 in	-2.1 in
Legroom, Row 1	41.7 in	40.9 in	0.8 in
Headroom, Row 2	37.2 in	38.5 in	-1.3 in
Shoulder Room, Row 2	50.4 in	55.6 in	-5.2 in
Hip Room, Row 2	49.0 in	51.8 in	-2.8 in
Legroom, Row 2	35.0 in	39.7 in	-4.7 in
Total Legroom	76.7 in (over 2 rows)	80.6 in (over 2 rows)	-3.9 in
Cargo Volume, Minimum	12.4 ft³	29.6 ft³	-17.2 ft³
Cargo Volume, Maximum	44.5 ft³	63.3 ft³	-18.8 ft³

Return to top

TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2017 Mazda CX-3

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

What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2017 Mazda CX-3

None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2017 Mazda CX-3.

Be the first!

TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2018 GMC Terrain

2018 GMC Terrain Seat Room and Comfort: Pros
Year	Comment
2018	The first-generation GMC Terrain took advantage of a long, 112.5-inch wheelbase to offer exceptional rear legroom--nearly 40 inches of it. On paper, the 2018 Terrain has only a half-inch less combined legroom despite a wheelbase shrink of 5.2 inches (to better align the vehicle with competitors and open up space for the downsized Acadia). In reality, rear legroom seems ample but no longer outstanding. The rear seats in the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 are similarly roomy. But the Terrain does pull ahead when evaluating rear seat comfort. Its high-mounted rear seat cushion provides better leg support than others. The Compass's rear seat is lower and firmer. The Terrain's rear seat can even recline a little. Based on their specs, the Jeep is nearly as roomy inside as the GMC. Headroom, shoulder room, and combined legroom specs all differ by less than an inch. In reality, the Jeep's interior feels significantly narrower. And the Jeep Cherokee? All of its interior specs are also within an inch of the Terrain's, though often in the other direction. Why does Jeep offer two crossovers so close in size? This isn't clear. In terms of specs, they differ most in combined legroom and cargo volume. The Cherokee has 1.3 inches more of the former--good to have, but hardly justification for an additional model--and about ten percent LESS of the latter. How can the larger Jeep have less cargo volume? I suspect that the Compass was measured more creatively, and cannot actually hold as much cargo. Based on their specs--and I always take cargo volume specs with more than a little salt--the new Terrain can swallow a few more cubic feet of cargo than the Compass (63.3 vs. 59.8) but falls well short of the RAV4 (70.6 in hybrid form, 73.4 otherwise). A Honda CR-V can fit a couple more cubes than the RAV4. The GMC Terrain and the Jeeps compensate for not having the most spacious cargo areas with front passenger seats that fold forward. If your cargo is long but not wide, one of these is the way to go. Though closely related to the GMC, the Chevrolet Equinox does not offer this feature. see full GMC Terrain review

What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2018 GMC Terrain

None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2018 GMC Terrain.

Be the first!

See TrueDelta's information for all SUVs

See TrueDelta's information for all Mazda models.