Model Year | 2006 | 2016 | |
Model | Toyota Tundra | Mazda CX-3 | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | |||
Difference | |||
Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
2006 Toyota Tundra Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2007 | 4dr Extended Cab 6.5ft bed 271-horsepower 4.7L V8 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
Plenty of room for 3 adults see full Toyota Tundra review |
2007 | 4dr Extended Cab 6.5ft bed 271-horsepower 4.7L V8 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
Long trips no problem see full Toyota Tundra review |
2006 | 4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 236-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
Good comfortable drivers seat high enough to avoid leg fatigue with easy access to the seat belt . see full Toyota Tundra review |
2005 | 2dr Regular Cab 8ft bed 282-horsepower 4.7L V8 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
Only full-size pickup available with a true full bench seat. All others are split design that do not fit three grown men easily. see full Toyota Tundra review |
2006 Toyota Tundra Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2005 | 4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 282-horsepower 4.7L V8 5-speed automatic RWD |
rear seat back is bolt upright and has limited legroom. see full Toyota Tundra review |
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.