Mazda has added the CX 3 to their website.

I've been in a CX-3. If you liked the way the Protégé 5 drove, but hated the rust, this is the cute ute for you.

I think i started a previous thread on this where i said i wanted one, but only if i could get the 2.0 Skyactive or 2.5 Skyactive with a manual and AWD.

Sounds like a whole bunch of nope. Love the way it looks, though.

Swank Force One wrote: I think i started a previous thread on this where i said i wanted one, but only if i could get the 2.0 Skyactive or 2.5 Skyactive with a manual and AWD. Sounds like a whole bunch of nope. Love the way it looks, though.

Wait to see if they make a Mazdaspeed CX-3. From what I hear, it is possible.

In reply to ProDarwin:

Interesting. The CX-3 is barely an inch taller than a fit, about 2 inch longer wheelbase, about 8 inches longer and about an inch wider. Point taken. I just wish it wasn't trying to look like an off road moonbuggy or whatever styling they were going for. At least with the Fit, it looks like what it is. I'm going to guess a Fit has much better rear visibility. The Fit is listed with about an inch more front headroom but the rear headroom is just about the same, which is surprising given the Range Rover Evoque like roof line. The cargo capacity is not as close as you indicated. 12.4 vs 16.6 with rear seats up. 44.5 vs. 52.7 with rear seats folded. I suppose few will cross shop a Fit and a CX-3 though.

I don't have any hate for the CX-3 per se, I only don't understand the entire segment of cars it represents and don't see myself ever being interested in owning one.

You want to know what my problem is with this and many other small CUV/compact cars? NO CENTER ARMRESTS. I want to rest my right arm on something sometimes. I drove a family member's Kia Soul recently, another "no center armrest" participant, and it was infuriating.

Otherwise, I like it. I like the way it looks and I like the simple interior.

Cargo numbers seem to vary... numbers I got were from here: http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/mazda/2016-mazda-cx-3-review

16 seats up, 54 down. Pretty close to the Fit.

They styling is a bit 'different', however the Fit is hideous IMO. I don't think the CX3 is as bad.

G_Body_Man wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: I think i started a previous thread on this where i said i wanted one, but only if i could get the 2.0 Skyactive or 2.5 Skyactive with a manual and AWD. Sounds like a whole bunch of nope. Love the way it looks, though.

Wait to see if they make a Mazdaspeed CX-3. From what I hear, it is possible.

Waiting to see if they make a Mazdaspeed anything...

In reply to ProDarwin:

I took the numbers from Mazda's website, but I supposed there are different ways to measure the cargo capacity.

Tyler H wrote:

G_Body_Man wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: I think i started a previous thread on this where i said i wanted one, but only if i could get the 2.0 Skyactive or 2.5 Skyactive with a manual and AWD. Sounds like a whole bunch of nope. Love the way it looks, though.

Wait to see if they make a Mazdaspeed CX-3. From what I hear, it is possible.

Waiting to see if they make a Mazdaspeed anything...

The new CX-9 is going to debut soon, and it will have a turbocharged 2.5l Skyactiv I4. The plan is to reap the benefits of scale, so they're making a bunch of MS models. Or so I hear.

Not sure what all the mystery is about this and why it exists. It's the same reason there was a Ranger and a F150 or a BMW 3 series and & 7 series or a Cruze and Impala, well you get the idea. It's for people that don't want or need full size and/or bigger. It's cheaper to purchase, gets better fuel mileage, needs less space to park etc. It's not going to be for everybody but then no vehicle is. It's similar to the Mazda 3 but sits taller and has available AWD. So ya it is different enough. And it's available with a lot of options that don't come in other vehicles in this class.

It doesn't look half bad. I bet it will be remotely fun to drive unlike some of the other variants in this class.