2016 Honda HR-V vs. 2016 Mazda CX-3
In the battle of compact crossovers, which is better?
EPA ratings (both) 27/32mpg; 29mpg combined.
0-60mph: Honda 9.3 seconds; Mazda 8.1 seconds
Price as tested: Honda $26,720; Mazda $29,890
Compact crossovers are the latest white-hot sales segments. Two of the newest entries are also two of the best: the Honda HR-V and Mazda CX-3.
Honda HR-V
A chunky stance, upsweeping window line and lots of character make this one of Honda’s better styling efforts; few will know this is a Fit underneath. Inside the HR-V is of much higher perceived quality than expected based on the last Civic; most materials are really quite nice for the price, its logically laid out, roomy and the brilliant, second row Magic Seat gives it much more cargo room than the Mazda. The infotainment interface is touchscreen only, but at least it is intuitive and fast-acting.
Dynamically, the Honda is more comfort-oriented than the Mazda. The HR-V rides really well over Denver’s broken urban pavement (this type of crossover’s natural habitat), and it is quiet and refined in terms of wind and road noise. This only throws into starker relief the racket from the engine, exaserbated by the awful continuously variable transmission, which makes sure you know there’s not a lot of torque (127lb-ft at 4300rpm) as it moans its way towards the 1.8L’s 141hp power peak, which occurs at 6500rpm.
Taking about 9.3 seconds to hit 60mph means the Honda’s over a second slower in this yardstick than the Mazda, no surpise as it weighs almost 200 pounds more and has substantially less torque. Puttering around, the powertrain is fine; but merging onto a freeway and passing at higher speeds show up the HR-V’s limitations. Thankfully steering and braking response and linearity are excellent. Both averaged 23.9mpg in mixed, mainly urban use at Colorado’s elevation, where reduced power output made their engines work harder. The HR-V would be a very bad choice for people planning on going to the mountains often.
Mazda CX-3
The Honda will probably outsell the Mazda by a substantial margin, but for those who care more character, poise and style—not to mention speed—the CX-3 is clearly better than the HR-V. It looks aggressive and more expensive (at least in top Grand Touring trim) than the Honda, and its interior is much more bold. Quality appears about equal, but the Mazda has much less space for cargo and humans aft of the front row, though its infotainment interface is better.
The CX-3 is clearly the more sporting drive. The steering is superb, offering a level of feedback and interaction that eludes most everything else in the class; handling is in another league entirely; as we found out on the launch in California, the Mazda is a canyon carver of amazing ability. The penalty one pays is in ride quality; the Honda smothers bumps much better, though they seem equally refined in most areas of NVH.
Where the CX-3 gets clear air is in the way its superb six-speed transmission keeps the driver and passenger from being bothered overmuch by the 2L 146hp/146lb-ft engine, which is harsh and noisy in this vehicle (some insulation under the hood might help). Like the HR-V, driven sedately it is fine, but floor the accelerator and an underlying harshness emerges. At least the Mazda can get to 60mph in just over 8 seconds, which still returning the same real-world fuel economy as the Honda, and actual gears mean the engine noise is less objectionable. But again, it isn’t the best choice for those who engage in hiking, skiing or other high-altitude activities—in fact, none of this new breed (with one exception) are.
Conclusion
Pricing is very similar, unless you load the Mazda up with all the available options—many not available on the Honda—in which case it becomes several thousand dearer. Avoid that, and value-wise there isn’t much to separate them, as the two companies are on par for reliability, resale value and customer satisfaction these days. Both are better choices than the twinned Buick Encore/Chevy Trax and Fiat 500X/Jeep Renegade, though the Nissan Juke and Subaru XV Crosstrek remain excellent alternatives.
The Honda makes a superb all-season carryall, and is really quite pleasing as long as you don’t push it too hard, where the CVT’s machinations and its slowness become very frustrating. But for those who prize driver interaction and performance the CX-3 is clearly superior. And for those who do go to the mountains to play a lot, the turbocharged Nissan or Mazda’s more powerful CX-5 make more sense.
Here is what Honda and Mazda have to say.
Contact Isaac Bouchard for help saving time, money and hassle when buying or leasing either one at [email protected].
