If you read some technical data, you can watch the engineers a little at work. Case of the Mazda CX3 we have the phenomenon, that exactly the of all with the stronger engine and all-wheel drive has the smaller tank. Sure, the car is so compact that you had to reduce the tank in connection with the driven rear axle. Less severe: The otherwise identical petrol engine has to content itself with less performance, because there remained not enough space for the elaborate exhaust manifold of the CX5.
Yes, it's really compact compared to its bigger brother CX5, not in the payload, but in the external dimensions, weight and, of course, then also in the load volume. Unlike petrol engines, the diesel engines have relatively low power. Do not be surprised about the different displacements. The gasoline engine needs it because it does not obey the downsizing concept with charging, but it's one of the dwindling number of aspirated engines that join together to the kind of 'free' aspirated engines.
Here we are on the platform of the Mazda 2 and that results in losses, especially in the knee-room rear. Despite, the CX3 competes in its external dimensions with the Opel Mokka, though with a more coupé-like shape.
In summary, can be stated: The CX3 is praised because of its combination of a sleek SUV shape, the lightweight body and a corresponding driving dynamics. Inside, you are looking for hard plastic mostly in vain and has the chance on unusual assistants for the B-segment. Based on its good processing it will undoubtedly push the class of small SUVs. The only question is, when these vehicles have become finally so flat that they can no longer be distinguished from 'normal' compact cars? 05/15