If the introduction of the CX-30 to the lineup has you a little confused about where it fits into the whole lineup, let us help. The new-for-2020 CX-30 slots right in between the CX-3 and CX-5 (why they didn't settle on CX-4 is beyond us) and is based on the same underpinnings as the current Mazda3.
That means a 2.5-liter …
My wife is jonesing for one of these to replace her CX-7. The transmission is electronically controlled, right? Can the issues that you describe be addressed with a simple software upgrade?
I've experienced a bit of similar action with my sons new Sonata. The transmission's fine in light driving, but when you push it, it can get flustered.
Mazda likely made this to compete with the crosstrek sport (I own a 2021). The sport comes with 2.5 L 180 hp engine.
That they named it the CX-30 pisses me off. By their own naming convention, it should be called a CX-4. If it was truly a CX-30, it should be a bus. Why do manufacturers spend all this time developing naming systems and then just randomly say "berkeley it, never mind"?
In reply to NickD :
Yeah I agree. Also, the numbering system is dumb. May as well make it a barcode that's only used by technicians to designate. give the freaking car a NAME. Something to personally invest in. It's hard to connect with a number. "I own a cx-30!"- said no one ever.
"I own a camaro!"- every cramit owner ever.
NickD said:That they named it the CX-30 pisses me off. By their own naming convention, it should be called a CX-4. If it was truly a CX-30, it should be a bus. Why do manufacturers spend all this time developing naming systems and then just randomly say "berkeley it, never mind"?
From Wikipedia:
According to Naohito Saga, the CX-30's program manager, the new model is targeted to drivers who are still single or are married and starting a family in the United States. Mazda chief designer Ryo Yanagisawa said that it will be more acceptable as a family car in Europe and Japan.[5] Saga also noted that Mazda named the vehicle CX-30, to avoid confusion with the China-only CX-4.
NickD said:Why do manufacturers spend all this time developing naming systems and then just randomly say "berkeley it, never mind"?
I don't know. Let me look it up on my I-phone SE.
In reply to Vajingo :
I'm with you on the naming thing. Yes, some number/letter names envoke passion: 911, M3, XKE. But almost everyone knows Camaro, Mustang, Thunderbird, Miata.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:My wife is jonesing for one of these to replace her CX-7. The transmission is electronically controlled, right? Can the issues that you describe be addressed with a simple software upgrade?
I've experienced a bit of similar action with my sons new Sonata. The transmission's fine in light driving, but when you push it, it gets all flustered.
Not sure about transmission upgrades. Up until today we had a CX-9 (spoiler alert) and I found that transmission to be dead-on, even in just the default mode.
I too find the auto trans in these Mazdas to be lovely. Maybe the CX-30 has a different unit, but I doubt it as Mazda basically makes one trans and engine for its entire non-Miata lineup.
It’s not as fast to up shift as a DCT, but it doesn’t feel as sloppy on tip-in as the (limited number) DCTs I’ve driven.
When I was recently car shopping, I found myself in a Mazda showroom. In the showroom was a CX-3, CX-30, CX-5, and CX-9 (I was shopping the new 3 and 6). I'm intimately familiar with the CX-5; we have a 2018 that has been fantastic in every way. The CX-30 is a weird addition to the lineup. It looks great, but looks like all the others, but a model generation newer. And that's basically what it is; it's a 9/10's next gen CX-5. It costs nearly the same as the CX-5, so it's competing in-house with its own stablemates. Since it's based on the redesigned 3, it has a slightly newer version of the CX-5's drivetrain with different programming, which may account for the transmission issues when comparing to other Mazda products. That's not a good sign.
And yes, the name is confusing and dumb.
In reply to Tony Sestito :
Tony! Long time member! Where ya been man?
He’s been around a lot talking about his new Forte!
I agree that pretty much nothing about the CX-30 makes sense. But it doesn’t matter because everyone seems to want CUVs of this size. Mazda knows this.
I wouldn’t be shocked if it sells more than the 3 by 150%, despite all our confusion.
Vajingo said:In reply to Tony Sestito :
Tony! Long time member! Where ya been man?
Ha, haven't gone anywhere! I can be found mostly talking about my new Forte GT (like CyberEric said), detailing the hackery on my Power Wagon, or complaining about my Trans Am. 
In thread-related news, I saw a CX-30 in traffic yesterday. Every time I see one, I have to do a double take, because they look so similar to the CX-5. And that's the weird thing about the entire Mazda line, save for the MX-5: they all look nearly the same, inside and out. Hell, when I was testing out a 6 recently, the interior was immediately familiar, as much of it is shared with the CX-5. The steering wheel, gauges, seats, shifter, infotainment and HVAC controls were all exactly the same as our CX-5. This can be seen as both a plus and a detriment; having nearly everything be the same can give that immediate sense of familiarity (like I experienced) or turn off buyers who are looking for something more distinctive. The CX-30 does share the interior with the current 3, and in higher trims, it is one of the nicest interiors in ANY mass-produced car that I have ever been in. Seriously. Hopefully they figure out that whole driving dynamics thing and don't lose their way.
NickD said:That they named it the CX-30 pisses me off. By their own naming convention, it should be called a CX-4. If it was truly a CX-30, it should be a bus. Why do manufacturers spend all this time developing naming systems and then just randomly say "berkeley it, never mind"?
And the CX-5 isn't a Miata wagon.
There seems to be no end to how many times you can split the SUV category - but the general public is buying them like a kid in a candy store so there are only more to come.
However, I did actually find someone to recommend the CX-30 for, my Dad. He is getting older and wants a comfortable car at a reasonable price, the CR-V he picked up last year has seats that don't agree with his back pain. (If anyone wants a 2019 CR-V with 3,000 miles let me know!) My wife and I are big fans of the 19' Mazda3 hatch we picked up and the CX-30 is more or less a lifted Mazda3 hatch that gives him better ingress and egress with the subperb interiors Mazda has been putting together on their latest cars.
I have no insider information but I suspect the "zero" added to the end of the name will be a standard naming convention indicating "upscale" so we'll be seeing CX-50's that'll be premium versions of CX-5's, etc.
I bought a CX-3 Touring with the preferred equipment package in April of 2019 and I now have ~34,500 super satisfying miles on it. The GRM writers pretty much panned the car saying there wasn't much reason to buy it over a CX-5. I have nothing but respect for GRM but I humbly disagree...I don't need the extra space the CX-5 offers...the 2.0 in the CX-3 gives about the same power to weight ratio as the 2.5 in the CX-5 and the CX-3 is just prettier (I'm an engineer but I let pretty count).
I'm at a point in my life where I could afford a much more expensive car but I find tremendous beauty in efficiency (get what you need and nothing more). To this day, I park way out at the end of lots - doesn't that say it all?
I love the styling of the CX-30 and I've got two young daughters (13 & 16) in line to give my CX-3 to which was my intent when I bought it. Right now, the only problem is the option packages...I want premium tires / rims, sun roof, and an upgraded sound system but I don't want gimmicky stuff like HUD and I'm not finding the perfect package like I was able to with the CX-3.
Bottom line, I'm reminded of what is said about Aristotle "best at nothing - second best at everything" when I think about the CX-30...does it pack maximum utility into it's physical space "no"...is it a pure expression of beauty regardless of utility "no"...does it strike an excellent balance between utility and beauty "Yes". Add to that high reliability, low repair costs, world-class fit & finish, surprisingly extensive features, and being a good steward of the environment and I'm ready to buy yet another Mazda.
Again, I always park way out at the end of the lot even though my Mazda is coming up on being two years old and I could easily afford a much more expensive car - I think that pretty much signals how satisifying these cars are.
In reply to RX Reven' :
For some reason I really like the looks of the CX-3 so your testimonial is useful to me. Did you get a manual or automatic? How is the NVH? Small low end cars tend to be very noisy and I'm too old for noisy...
OHSCrifle said:In reply to RX Reven' :
For some reason I really like the looks of the CX-3 so your testimonial is useful to me. Did you get a manual or automatic? How is the NVH? Small low end cars tend to be very noisy and I'm too old for noisy...
If you got arrested for being a good craftsman, would there be enough evidence to convict you?
Hi OHSCrifle,
Although manual transmissions were available in other countries, the U.S. only got six speed automatics. I drove easy for it's first 3,000 miles which taught the transmission to shift early but once broken in and I started driving more aggressively, the transmission started shifting right about where I want it to. It has a sport mode and a manual gear selector on the shifter but I don't bother with either. The last car I bought was an RX-8 and this one only has 148 Hp so it's about getting 32 mpg on 87 octane rather than trying to be something it isn't.
In terms of NVH, the engine is pretty loud and doesn't have a pleasing note but the vibration level across all speeds and conditions is super low.
The CX-3 has a torsion rear suspension system which is inexpensive and considered low-end but it works brilliantly in this application, saves weight, and frees up space allowing for a hidden compartment behind the rear seats. The preferred equipment package includes a parcel cover but those that didn't get that option can at least hide purses, electronics, bootleg, etc. I'm at about 2,910 Lbs. but I want for nothing in terms of vibration even when compared to much heavier and more expensive cars.
In reply to RX Reven' :
Great. Thanks for the detailed reply. I hear you regarding the low power and mileage being the priority. I purchased a new mazda3 in 2014 with the very same objective (40mpg from 87 octane) but had to sell it due to seats that I just could not get comfortable in on long trips. It sucked because I loved the car otherwise.
You'll need to log in to post.
