Toyota Prius (2017) vs. Mazda CX-3 (2017) Specs

vs.

◆

2017 Toyota Prius and 2017 Mazda CX-3 Specifications

2017 Toyota Prius Seat Room and Comfort: Pros
Year	Comment
2016	For a compact hatchback, the new Toyota Prius feels very roomy inside. It helps that the tall, sloping console of the third-generation Prius has been replaced by one with a much less intrusive (if also less sporty) design. The deep instrument panel is scooped out on top, while the windshield is large and distant. The view forward from the driver seat is very open, but anyone who isn't a goldfish will find it unusual. It's like driving a spaceship, in two senses. Or a small minivan. The Ford C-MAX has a crossover-like driving position and the most comfortable seats. The front seats in the Prius are nicely shaped, but less firm. Those in the Volt could use more contour. I found the Civic's front seats somewhat uncomfortable. The Volt feels far tighter inside. Up front the windshield seems far smaller than that in the Prius. The back seat, while its cushion is comfortably positioned, threatens to induce claustrophobia. Both the Prius and the Volt have restricted visbility to the sides and especially to the rear. The view is much better from the driver seat in the C-MAX. see full Toyota Prius review

2017 Toyota Prius Seat Room and Comfort: Cons
Year	Comment
	Rear seat passengers in the Prius have far more knee room than those in the Volt, and feel far less closed in. Despite a low-mounted seat cushion, though, headroom is limited. Rear seat passengers in the C-MAX enjoy a much more comfortably positioned seat cushion, significantly more headroom, and better outward visibility. see full Toyota Prius review

None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2017 Toyota Prius.

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

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

See TrueDelta's information for all Hatchbacks

See TrueDelta's information for all Toyota models.