Why you Might be Better Off with a Mazda CX-30 over a Mazda 3
This Graham Hill-driven, ultra-rare Ferrari will be shown for viewing this month before it hits the auction block in January 2026.
The Mazda CX-30 is a compact, sporty, utilitarian, and economically minded crossover SUV — and oddly enough, it's only marginally more expensive than an equivalent Mazda 3. That surprised me.
The CX-30 is a great deal in its base trim, especially since it includes standard all-wheel drive (AWD) — something you have to pay extra for on most Mazda 3 models. When comparing them side by side, the CX-30 often offers more bang for your buck. That's not to say the Mazda 3 is lacking — far from it. It's one of the best compact cars on the market. However, its platform mate, the CX-30, offers nearly the same experience with added utility and easier day-to-day livability.
Source: ND Adlen
A few trade-offs come with that. The CX-30 is slightly less efficient, a bit pricier, and not quite as sharp to drive. And while I'm focusing on the hatchback version of the Mazda 3 (not the sedan, which is about $1,000 less), it's still curious that Mazda has priced the two so closely, especially given how consumer demand continues to lean toward crossovers.
Mazda 3 2.5 Hatchback (Starting at $25,150)
Although it starts at a slightly higher price than some of its rivals, the Mazda 3 offers a premium feel inside and out. Top trims, like the 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus hatchback, can climb above $38,000, but you're paying for one of the nicest interiors in the compact class, paired with refined driving dynamics that punch well above their weight.
Source: Kyle Edward
Powertrains mirror those in the CX-30. The standard engine is a 2.5L naturally aspirated four-cylinder making 191 hp and 186 lb-ft of torque. It's paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission, which — despite sounding outdated on paper — performs beautifully. If you want a manual, it's only available on the 2.5 S Premium hatchback with front-wheel drive.
The available turbocharged 2.5L engine produces 250 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque (on premium fuel) and is paired with AWD. Fuel economy for the base front-drive model is 26 mpg city / 36 mpg highway. Opting for AWD, turbocharging, or the manual will lower those numbers slightly.
I like the external shape and proportions of the Mazda 3, but it may be getting a bit dated for some. The rear pillar is a bit thick on the hatchback, which can be polarizing to some. Internally, the upscale-looking interior is driver-focused, with excellent use of higher-end materials throughout. Mazda 3's infotainment screen size varies depending on the trim level. Base models feature an 8.8-inch display, while some higher trims, like the Turbo models, have a larger 10.3-inch screen.
Source: Mazda
Driving the Mazda 3 Hatchback
Right out of the gate, the standard 2.5L engine impresses. It's more powerful than many base engines in this class, and the 6-speed auto complements it well. Mazda's choice to avoid CVTs or overly complicated 8- and 9-speed gearboxes pays off in smooth, responsive performance.
The Mazda 3's handling is among the best in its segment. Ride comfort is excellent, and its composure on the highway gives it the feel of a more expensive vehicle. Its low ride height (just 5.5 inches of ground clearance) helps with agility, though it also makes scraping curbs or speed bumps more likely. Cornering is sharp, but if pushed too hard, the Ford-derived E-link rear suspension can show its limits.
Mazda CX-30 2.5 (Starting at $25,195)
If you guessed the CX-30 is essentially a lifted Mazda 3 with a different body, you'd be right. It rides on the same Skyactiv platform and shares the same engine lineup. The base 2.5L four-cylinder makes 191 hp and 186 lb-ft of torque, and the available 2.5L turbo delivers up to 250 hp and 310 lb-ft (on premium). The major difference is that AWD is standard on all CX-30 trims, and there's no manual transmission available.
The base engine's fuel economy is rated at 26 mpg city / 33 mpg highway. The turbo model returns 22 mpg in the city / 30 mpg on the highway. These numbers are slightly lower than the Mazda 3, but surprisingly close given the CX-30's extra weight and taller stance.
Speaking of its taller stance, I find the CX-30 to be a handsome little package externally, with the exception of the black fender extensions. They almost look like they were added as an afterthought. Inside, the interior is nice, but not as driver-centric as the Mazda 3. Entry-level and mid-tier trims feature an 8.8-inch display, while higher trims, including those with the turbo engine, are equipped with a 10.25-inch screen, which has some touch-screen capability.
Driving the Mazda CX-30
I've driven everything from the base CX-30 to the loaded $37K Turbo Premium Plus — and across the board, it's an enjoyable drive. The base engine is plenty capable for most drivers, and the turbo adds serious punch. While it doesn't feel quite as nimble as the Mazda 3, the CX-30 compensates with a smoother ride over rough roads.
Thanks to its 8 inches of ground clearance, it's much easier to get in and out of, and the elevated driving position provides better visibility. Despite having similar cargo space to the Mazda 3 hatchback, the CX-30 feels more spacious overall. Mazda's AWD system is intelligent — it primarily operates in front-wheel drive mode to conserve fuel, but instantly activates the rear wheels when needed. It's one of the better systems in this class.
Final Thoughts
To be honest, I don't fully understand why Mazda priced the CX-30 so close to the Mazda 3. The CX-30 offers more versatility, standard AWD, and easier usability — all for just a tiny premium. Unless you strongly prefer a lower ride and sportier feel, the CX-30 is likely the better all-around value. That said, both vehicles remain excellent choices in their respective categories, especially for drivers who value quality, driving engagement, and style without breaking the bank.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Rival copies Hertz with giant laser tunnel that makes up fake damage costing hundreds of dollars
Damage scanners are taking over more rental car return lots — and customers aren't happy. Since Hertz rolled out AI scanners in April, it has faced backlash for charging almost $1,000 for tiny scuffs. Now Sixt, a premium rival with 100 locations in the US, has in recent weeks begun using a similar tool called Car Gate. Already, it is creating problems. One customer told The Drive he returned a Mazda CX-50 at Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport only to be billed $605.82 for wheel damage. Documents sent to the renter showed that the damage occurred before the rental period. 'They were using the wrong photo,' Badi said. 'After escalating to management, they dropped the claim entirely.' Sixt scans each rental car when the driver picks it up and again when return it — with a powerful computer highlighting even the slightest damage. There are fears Avis will adopt similar tech. Meanwhile, Enterprise — America's biggest rental firm, which owns National and Alamo — is testing it in Europe. Vehicle scanning companies defend the technology, and say it makes cars safer by spotting issues like tire wear and undercarriage damage more reliably than human inspectors. Sixt told Daily Mail: 'Our customers value transparency — and we take that seriously. 'We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience to the customer. This experience does not reflect our high service standards.' The Daily Mail asked the company twice if the fees paid by customers are used to fund vehicle repairs rather than boost profits. Sixt didn't respond. Hertz was the first to roll out damage scanners in April. Since then, six customers have told Daily Mail that they've incurred similar charges for minor dents picked up by scanners, which are built by AI startup UVeye. 'It's a shakedown that is extremely off-putting,' Adam Foley, a driver who received a $285 charge for two small spots, said. Unlike Sixt, which employs humans to review all damage scanner fees, when Foley attempted to dispute the charge, Hertz only offered a chatbot. Every Hertz customer has said the chatbot offered lower damage rates if they paid the fine immediately. The AI scanner picked up two small 'dents' on Foley's Buick rental 'This basically seems like a money-grabbing exercise by Hertz,' Neil Saunders, a retail expert at GlobalData, said. 'If there is no way to discuss with a human, then that is also extremely poor customer service.' Foley is not alone. Other drivers received a $440 damage charge for a small scuff on the wheel, $190 charges for minor dents, and $935 for nearly invisible blemishes. Dr Ramnath Chellappa, a technology scholar who coined the term 'cloud computing,' said the AI-based scanners aren't being used ethically. 'If anything, AI should be reducing the human effort in assessment and walk-through with the vehicle,' he said. 'It should end up offering cost savings.' Since July 2, has asked Hertz representatives six times to clarify whether damage charges fund actual repairs or compensate for diminished vehicle value. Hertz declined to comment on the record and did not directly answer whether fees collected from customers are always used to fund repairs. Meanwhile, other major rental firms are testing AI scanners into their vehicle lots. Avis has previously said that a majority of its damage assessments remain 'human-led,' but hasn't explained what that means. The company did not respond to Daily Mail's request for comment. Meanwhile, Enterprise said it does not use computer-powered inspection tools in the US. 'There are some limited instances, such as the Berlin and Munich airports, where this technology is being implemented airport-wide,' a spokesperson told the Daily Mail. 'But we are not utilizing this technology without an internal review of the image capture.'
Auto Car
4 hours ago
- Auto Car
Modern cruise control systems aren't as clever as they think they are
Occasionally you see people giving their dog a stern talking to for tugging at the leash, barking at a goose or engaging in other dog-typical behaviour. Part of me wants to say 'the dog doesn't understand!', but I don't, because that would be weird. Also I do understand the urge to chastise something for only doing what its innate but relatively simple evolutionary programming tells it to do – particularly given that many modern cars come with adaptive cruise control. I often find myself shouting at a test car: 'Just go 70mph, you bastard!' Who decided that adaptive cruise control is a superior version of normal cruise control, rendering the latter obsolete? Some cars still let you switch between the two, but adaptive is the default and only option with most these days. Adaptive cruise control can be quite useful in dense traffic, when you've got no choice but to just stay in your lane and go with the flow. At almost any other time on the motorway, though, I find 'dumb' cruise control far more relaxing: Just set it to 70mph, and when the distance to the car in front becomes uncomfortable, indicate right and overtake. Advertisement If you want to do that and maintain good lane discipline with adaptive cruise control, you need to guess when the car ahead is going to start to slow and either override it with the accelerator or move to the right lane sooner than would be ideal. That's not to mention the stress caused by the sensors seeing ghosts and applying the brakes for no reason or deciding to slow down because there's a slight curve in the road.
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Reuters
Toyota cuts full-year operating profit estimate by 16%
TOKYO, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Toyota Motor (7203.T), opens new tab cut its full-year operating profit forecast by 16% on Thursday as an appreciating yen and higher U.S. import tariffs weighed on its financial results. The world's biggest automaker cut its full-year operating profit forecast to 3.2 trillion yen ($21.7 billion), down from a previous outlook of 3.8 trillion yen, on the heavy fallout from the tariffs, higher material prices and currency fluctuations. Toyota said it expects the U.S. levies to reduce its profit by 1.4 trillion yen for the entire fiscal year. It had previously estimated a hit of 180 billion yen for April and May, but it had not issued a full-year projection until now. For the April to June first quarter, Toyota reported an operating profit of 1.17 trillion yen, down from 1.31 trillion yen a year earlier, but above the 902 billion yen average of seven analyst estimates compiled by LSEG. ($1 = 147.2300 yen)
