Model Year | 2013 | 2019 | |
Model | Mazda Mazda3 | GMC Terrain | |
Engine | turbocharged 2.3L I4 DOHC-4v 263 hp@5500 280 lb-ft@3000 |
turbocharged 2.0L I4 DOHC-4v 252 hp@5500 260 lb-ft@2500 |
|
Transmission | 6-speed manual | 9-speed shiftable automatic | |
Drivetrain | FWD | FWD | |
Body | 4dr Hatch | 4dr SUV | |
Difference | |||
Wheelbase | 2,639 mm | 2,725 mm | 0 mm |
Length | 4,506 mm | 4,630 mm | 0 mm |
Width | 1,755 mm | 1,839 mm | 0 mm |
Height | 1,471 mm | 1,661 mm | 0 mm |
Curb Weight | 1,488 kg | 1,616 kg | 0 kg |
Fuel Capacity | 55 L | 56 L | -1 L |
Headroom, Row 1 | 968 mm | 1,016 mm | 967 mm |
Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 1,394 mm | 1,453 mm | 0 mm |
Hip Room, Row 1 | 1,364 mm | 1,382 mm | 0 mm |
Legroom, Row 1 | 1,067 mm | 1,039 mm | 0 mm |
Headroom, Row 2 | 958 mm | 978 mm | -20 mm |
Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 1,372 mm | 1,412 mm | 0 mm |
Hip Room, Row 2 | 1,326 mm | 1,316 mm | 0 mm |
Legroom, Row 2 | 919 mm | 1,008 mm | 918 mm |
Total Legroom | 1,986 mm (over 2 rows) | 2,047 mm (over 2 rows) | -1 mm |
Cargo Volume, Minimum | 481 L | 838 L | -357 L |
Cargo Volume, Maximum | 1,212 L | 1,792 L | 0 L |
2013 Mazda Mazda3 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Comment | |
2012 | The Mazda3 also isn't a clear choice if a roomy rear seat is a top priority. Sitting behind my 5-9 self, I had little room to spare. The rear seat in the Ford Focus is at least as tight, but has a more comfortably positioned cushion. A Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra, or Toyota Corolla has far more rear seat room. If you like how the Mazda3 looks and drives, but need more rear seat legroom, the Mazda6 offers another three inches for another $2,100 to $3,700 (depending on trim level). see full Mazda Mazda3 review |
2013 Mazda Mazda3 Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2013 | 4dr Hatch 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
Nice contoured, form fitting seats offer plenty of support, quite comfortable. see full Mazda Mazda3 review |
2013 Mazda Mazda3 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2013 | 4dr Hatch 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
Rear seat a bit tight, needs more room back there. see full Mazda Mazda3 review |
2012 | 4dr Hatch 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
It's a joke. You can't fit anything in the back seat aside from children and/or groceries/shopping. Putting an adult back there will require a sincere apology, and possibly a written note and gift bottle of wine. see full Mazda Mazda3 review |
2012 | 4dr Sedan 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
Non of either if the front seats are all the way back, but rear seat room is NOT a factor for me. see full Mazda Mazda3 review |
2012 | 4dr Sedan 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
I bought this car to replace a 2004 Mazda 6i Hatchback that I truly loved (got rear-ended and totaled). I did not like the 2012 Mazda 6 at all (or the milage it got), so I went the 3 with Skyactiv. The rear seat and rear legroom is just a bit too small. If it were a tad larger, this would be a awesome car, but the great mileage I get offsets this to a certain degree. see full Mazda Mazda3 review |
2012 | 4dr Hatch 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed manual FWD |
Rear seat is rather tight, worse than my old Protege5 see full Mazda Mazda3 review |
2019 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 |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2019 GMC Terrain.