Mazda CX-3 (2016) vs. Mercedes-Benz GL (2012) Specs

vs.

◆

2016 Mazda CX-3 and 2012 Mercedes-Benz GL Specifications

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.

2012 Mercedes-Benz GL Seat Room and Comfort: Pros
Year	Comment
2013	The Mercedes-Benz GL-Class is just a little longer than the Audi Q7 (201.6 vs. 200.3 inches), and isn't as wide (76.4 vs. 78.1 inches). But the Mercedes is considerably taller (72.8 vs. 68.4 inches) and not nearly as curvy. Which might explain how it is far roomier than the much sleeker Audi. Combined legroom for all three rows is 107.6 inches in the Q7 vs. 113.8 inches in the GL-Class, a large difference. The Q7's space deficit grows the farther back you sit. For adults to even fit in the Audi's third row without extreme discomfort, those in the second row must slide their seats forward to the point that they are themselves short on knee room. While the new GL350's third row sits too low to provide thigh support, it's not nearly as cramped. Further evidence that Audi didn't intend the Q7's third row for frequent use: the second-row seat doesn't do a good job of getting out of the way, making the path in and out of the way-back perhaps the tightest I've experienced. The second-row seat in the GL-Class tips forward to open up a much wider path. If manually tipping the seat is too much of a chore (perhaps because you'e a five-year-old and haven't yet learned to read this), $400 buys a power assist. But even with this option the seat must be manually returned to its upright position, so the point eludes me. see full Mercedes-Benz GL review

None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2012 Mercedes-Benz GL.

See TrueDelta's information for all SUVs

See TrueDelta's information for all Mazda models.