[Billy]

2016 Mazda CX-3 vs 2015 Jeep Renegade
2016 Mazda CX-3 features
One of the hottest-selling vehicles in the auto industry today is the crossover SUV. Tehere popularity comes from their ability to offer tremendous amounts of value and versatility. Not only can they give you the all-around capability you are looking for in this type of vehicle, they also provide you with the fuel efficiency you want and need to save money on gas. Which subcompact crossover SUV is the best choice for you? Keep reading this comparison between the 2016 Mazda CX-3 vs. 2015 Jeep Renegade to find out.

There are many things that that drivers search for when looking for a new vehicle in this category and both the 2016 Mazda CX-3 and the 2015 Jeep Renegade offer them, but one of them goes above and beyond the other in many categories. After reviewing both subcompact crossover SUV’s, the new Mazda CX-3 quickly stood out as the best performer. This all do to it’s innovative use of Mazda’s SKYACTIV engine technology and sport-tuned suspension. If you are looking for a sporty and fun drive every time you sit behind the wheel, the 2016 Mazda CX-3 is the perfect choice.

http://www.beachmazda.net/clp-2016-..._medium=press release&utm_campaign=2015July27

 

[dontpanic13]

Seeing as this is from a Mazda dealer its not too surprising that they chose the CX-3. It will be interesting to see more independent and unbiased reviews in the future.

 

[raz-0]

I like how they say it's better and has more features without telling you what they are. I haven't tried the cx-3, but if it has the same touch screen, it is laggy as ****.

I think the dealer is stupid for comparing them. Cx-3 vs juke is probably a much better match up.

 

[twigaman]

I came very close to pulling the trigger on a mazda cx5, it was very peppy and drove great. I finally decided to take a chance on the trailhawk. I'm a Boy scout leader and get out in the sticks. The 4x4 with four low, rock, sand, mud, and snow modes, tow hooks, skid plates, and tow package (optional) plus safety and security package where the difference. The backup camera with the lines to direct is awesome. I ordered mine about three weeks ago, black and black.

 

[bwbike]

But the CX-3 is not good looking to me. And it looks so similar to many other cars on the market today. I couldn't care less if the CX-3 had twice the number of bells & whistles.

Life is too short to drive a boring, ugly car.

 

[mjd1001]

We are going to be buying something new within the next couple of months, and right now the Renegade and CX-3 are our top 2 choices. Also considering a HR-V or Juke..but they are currently behind the CX-3 and Renegade.

We are not doing any off-roading. We live up near Buffalo NY, but I really want FWD only. In my experience, I am MUCH happier with FWD and winter tires than I am with AWD (and the loss of performance, extra cost, worse fuel economy, etc.)

Anyway, The CX-3 is nice for what we want, but the inside is a 'bit' snug. Basically, it is a Pontiac Vibe with a bigger grill and higher hood. For me it would still be better than a car/sedan (higher seating position) but the seating position isn't THAT much higher.

Biggest problem for us now with the CX-3 is that there are ZERO FWD models in the area now. No dealers (it appears in the entire northeast) has FWD..only AWD and that is all that is currently Available.

So, wiith me driving 30,000+ miles a year for work (mostly highway) is it the Higher seating position (and better long-drive comfort) of the Renegade (although the CX-3 isn't bad)...vs....the much better fuel economy and much cheaper navigation system of the CX-3 vs the Renegade?

Still trying to figure that out.

 

[MetsFan]

We are going to be buying something new within the next couple of months, and right now the Renegade and CX-3 are our top 2 choices. Also considering a HR-V or Juke..but they are currently behind the CX-3 and Renegade.

We are not doing any off-roading. We live up near Buffalo NY, but I really want FWD only. In my experience, I am MUCH happier with FWD and winter tires than I am with AWD (and the loss of performance, extra cost, worse fuel economy, etc.)

Anyway, The CX-3 is nice for what we want, but the inside is a 'bit' snug. Basically, it is a Pontiac Vibe with a bigger grill and higher hood. For me it would still be better than a car/sedan (higher seating position) but the seating position isn't THAT much higher.

Biggest problem for us now with the CX-3 is that there are ZERO FWD models in the area now. No dealers (it appears in the entire northeast) has FWD..only AWD and that is all that is currently Available.

So, wiith me driving 30,000+ miles a year for work (mostly highway) is it the Higher seating position (and better long-drive comfort) of the Renegade (although the CX-3 isn't bad)...vs....the much better fuel economy and much cheaper navigation system of the CX-3 vs the Renegade?

Still trying to figure that out.

Personally, I would never make a vehicle purchase decision based on a radio feature or any other feature that is interchangeable.

 

[raz-0]

So, wiith me driving 30,000+ miles a year for work (mostly highway) is it the Higher seating position (and better long-drive comfort) of the Renegade (although the CX-3 isn't bad)...vs....the much better fuel economy and much cheaper navigation system of the CX-3 vs the Renegade?

Still trying to figure that out.

Honestly, if the cx-3 is snug, try the CX-5. If you like boxy and FWD, I'd have to say you might want to check out the scion xB and kia soul as well.

 

[PAK325]

The CX-3 and CX-5 are the cars that I was probably most interested in other than the Renegade.

 

[Traceee]

Does the Mazda CX3 only have 6.1 ground clearance? The Renegade has 7.9 and the Subaru Crosstrek has 8.7. I think these differences are considerable and the CX3 may be too low to the ground which doesn't appeal to me as a rugged winter CUV or SUV. Although I would love to sit in one and take it for a spin to see for myself!

 

[syzygy]

Does the Mazda CX3 only have 6.1 ground clearance? The Renegade has 7.9 and the Subaru Crosstrek has 8.7. I think these differences are considerable and the CX3 may be too low to the ground which doesn't appeal to me as a rugged winter CUV or SUV. Although I would love to sit in one and take it for a spin to see for myself!

The trailhawk has 8.9

 

[Jeepers]

CX3 is only a SUV because of its ride height. Really its a CUV and should be taken as that, not a SUVish vehicle. The Renegade actually can do offroading. The CX3 cannot.

 

[kaidomac]

So, wiith me driving 30,000+ miles a year for work (mostly highway) is it the Higher seating position (and better long-drive comfort) of the Renegade (although the CX-3 isn't bad)...vs....the much better fuel economy and much cheaper navigation system of the CX-3 vs the Renegade?

Personally, I would never make a vehicle purchase decision based on a radio feature or any other feature that is interchangeable.

To be fair though, there's so much integration that it's kind of hard to do that these days. My Renegade has the 6.5" screen with Uconnect & a ton of car settings are built into it, including simple stuff like whether or not the horn honks when it auto-locks, so if I were to replace it with a different in-dash system, I'd lose access to that on the touchscreen. So I'd say it's actually a fairly valid requirement these days due to the enhanced electronic features we're stuck with, for better or for worse.

 

[MetsFan]

To be fair though, there's so much integration that it's kind of hard to do that these days. My Renegade has the 6.5" screen with Uconnect & a ton of car settings are built into it, including simple stuff like whether or not the horn honks when it auto-locks, so if I were to replace it with a different in-dash system, I'd lose access to that on the touchscreen. So I'd say it's actually a fairly valid requirement these days due to the enhanced electronic features we're stuck with, for better or for worse.

I hear ya. I wouldn't want to swap out the radio in these things either, although I think there are ones that will allow you to retain the factory functions. My thinking is that for something like navigation, there are lots of other options besides the in-dash version which don't require swapping the whole audio system - so for me, the fact that a vehicle does or doesn't have navigation is weighted much less than other considerations. Plus, if there are advances in navigation systems, it's much easier to swap out your portable system or your phone app, etc., than to change the one in your dash. Sometimes, for what a manufacturer will charge you to just update your maps for the in-dash system, you could get a whole new system with current maps and better features. In that regard, I almost look at in-dash navigation systems as a negative if you plan to keep the vehicle for a while.

 

[lamont]

Does the Mazda CX3 only have 6.1 ground clearance? The Renegade has 7.9 and the Subaru Crosstrek has 8.7. I think these differences are considerable and the CX3 may be too low to the ground which doesn't appeal to me as a rugged winter CUV or SUV. Although I would love to sit in one and take it for a spin to see for myself!

The CX-3 has the exact same ground clearance as the Mazda 3. So while getting in and out of the higher CX-3 is more convenient, it has less cargo room and not even marginal better off-road capability than a Mazda 3. A CX_5 on the other hand has nice high seating position and pretty good ground clearance.

During my search for a new car, I have sat in pretty much anything from Impreza to GLA, and while I liked the GLA best, the Renegade Trailhawk is very likely what I will get. It was the car with the most all-over appeal, not the least due to its off-road capabilities. My second choice would be the CX-5. The GLA is just too pricey, but very very nice.

 

[21Jeep]

We put a new Grand Touring CX-3 in the stable the other day for the wifey. CX-3 obviously was not engineered for an off-road vehicle much like all CUV's made today. All-in-all we really like the CX-3 ...

 

[lamont]

I don't see the U in the CX-3 S"U"V. Cargo room is almost absent. I'm sure it drives nice and it may well be an SV, just not an SUV. Is it a crossover? Crossover from sporty hatch to the same with less cargo area? Beats me.

 

[vava]

I also looked at the CX-3. But you cannot have a spare wheel of any type, definitely not a full size, there's nowhere to store it! The space is really cramped too, due to it's design, there's little luggage space and rear passenger space is more cramped than Renegade. I don't think you can tow with it either

Also look of CX-3 lacks character, and follows similar lines to so many cars of this type. Renegade for me please!

 

[Spitfire]

When I was cross-shopping, I stopped by a Mazda dealer to check out the CX-5. It was a short visit...on the CX-5, you can get a manual transmission, or you can get AWD, but you cannot get both. "Goodbye."

 

[Julian Osborne]

What a great comparison:

"Likely standard and available features and options being given to the new Mazda CX-3 include a rearview camera, Bluetooth connectivity, 7-inch touchscreen infotainment interface, voice controls, heated seats, navigation system and many active safety features"

So basically they aren't sure of what it'll be equipped with, but "likely" to have features that are also on the Jeep as standard...