Mazda has been catching a lot of flak from several corners lately. The maker of the once-illustrious rotary-powered RX-7, and to an extent the 8, and even the perpetually engaging MX-5s of yesteryear, it does seem to have strayed from the path. The latest BT-50? Underpinned by the Isuzu D-Max and styled with a blunt crayon. Bakkie buyers voted that they’d rather spend their cash elsewhere.
The reason? There are several citations, more than I care to mention here (erm, insert an esteemed American manufacturer here), but without getting into a whole corporate whodunit, I’d wager it's Mazda’s stubborn allergy to turbocharging anything with a petrol engine when it was cool to do so—and slap a ‘turbo’ badge on the back in the process—that really set it behind the curve. Remember when 2.0-litre nat-asp engines were considered cool? In the hallways of Hiroshima, it apparently still is. More on engines later…
Not much to say about the styling, other than it looks good—really good. As good as the Mazda 3, but in a more polished, grown-up sort of package in spite of the cautious stylistic evolution from the CX-3. Instead, I’ll move on to the interior aspect since I’m rather confined to a word count here. Where were we? The interior, right. In this department, Mazda has thankfully caught up with the decade, unlike its spartanly dated CX-5 sibling that’s still stuck in the early 2010s.
The infotainment system effortlessly accepts Android Auto pairing, and having convinced myself that I prefer touchscreens over the course of the last decade, I’m forced to rethink that belief in favour of the ergonomically reachable rotary dial on the centre console. Look, an extra two inches couldn’t hurt on the screen front since everyone and their subsidiaries have 12-inch+ twin screens, but perusing the fit and finish and ultimately reaching the conclusion that it’s arguably class-leading makes up for the relatively compact-scale 10.25-inch display. It really looks smaller than that, but that could be due to its recessed positioning.
The two-tone leatherette and alcantara-type sports-inspired seats are comfortable, almost embracing, and from the front, the cabin feels exceptionally spacious. It’s not the case at the rear, sadly, with rather limited rear legroom.
But let’s talk engines… You’ll probably recall that 2min ago I lamented Mazda’s incessant use of a naturally aspirated engine in its petrol cars. It’s not that I’m being nitpicky, but rather that times have moved forwards and onwards. Compared to the CX-30’s antagonists in the shape of the Ford Puma 1.0T, VW T-Roc 1.4TSI and Peugeot 2008 1.2T it’s not only evident that it’s the only car on the relatively short list without that all-important T-designation, it’s also a clear-cut indication that buyers are spending in the turbo arena. Power? 121kW and 213Nm of torque. In terms of kilowatts it's the most persuasive of the bunch, but considering that 1,340kg heft, torque is arguably more important and it's here where it lags behind with both the T-Roc and 2008 having a considerable upper hand (250Nm and 230Nm). Since torque is what gets converted through the 6-speed auto gearbox and sent to the wheels, the 2.0-litre engine feels strained when mashing the loud-pedal and asking it to do any measure of acceleration beyond what a backseat driver would approve of. Naturally, this also translates to higher fuel consumption with a testing-period-best of 7.7l/100km when driving with utmost tight-buttoned conservancy. Realistically, you can look at 8.1.
And that’s about the only bad news I have to report. The rest of the driving aspect, beyond the uncertain grasping of the engine-gearbox combination to extract what it can, especially at altitude, the driver involvement aspect can’t be matched by any of the CX-30’s adversaries. The steering is involving and well-weighted, and as a driver, you can’t help but feel giddy with the engagement delivered by this crossover. Despite its inherent shortcoming on the engine front, Mazda clearly injected its handling know-how into its CX-30.
What of price then? Well, it will set you back R630,900, which is R1,000 more than the comparable VW T-Roc. The Ford Puma ST-Line, on the other hand, commands R614,400, although it is by all accounts overpriced relative to its statistical merits, while the 2008 GT is a comparative bargain at R577,900. With the CX-30’s price tag, you do get Mazda’s knack for solid engineering and reliability, and while the engine tends to misfire on the excitement metric, it does have predictable performance and should equate to lower long-term maintenance costs.
Overall, the Mazda CX-30 leaves me in a bit of a bind. On one hand, it’s fun-to-handle aspect and cabin space tick all the right boxes, but its naturally aspirated, somewhat outmoded engine architecture feels stuck in the past, detracting from the 9/10 score that I really want to give this car. Still, there’s a case to be made for the inherent simplicity that comes with it; it’s just not the most gutsy one.
Enter your email address to receive regular Top Gear SA newsletters
Enter your email address to receive regular Top Gear SA newsletters
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
