I stand corrected :)

I’d be looking at one of these if driver enjoyment was high on the list of wants. The diesels are known to be troublesome but the Skyactiv petrols are vice free and good on fuel. Great handling and ride plus handsome looks for a big estate seal the deal for me.

Other than the fact that the Mazda 6 petrol is not that great to drive unless you rev the nuts off it there is another issue, its not that big inside either. Stick a spare in the boot and you loose space. Its nowhere near as big as the Octavia let alone the Superb (even the hatches are bigger). I was very disapointed when we looked.

Amazes me that you describe the CRV as a good ‘big’ family wagon, it’s a small crossover at best. Not bad for what it is, but definitely not a big family wagon.

If you think a CR-V is a compact crossover, i'd be interested to hear what you think classifies as a large one, not to mention how you'd class a Juke (which IS a small crossover)?!

Maybe they're confused with the HR-V, which is more of that type (though still not bad in terms of internal size), like the Juke and Mazda CX-3. Easy done these days with all the different models on offer that can look quite similar.

Maybe they're confused with the HR-V, which is more of that type (though still not bad in terms of internal size), like the Juke and Mazda CX-3. Easy done these days with all the different models on offer that can look quite similar.

We looked at the HRV before getting the Fabia and its true to say it has really good internal space, shame they don't fit the turbo petrols used in the Civic. If they did we would have considered it more seriously.

But the Mazda CX3 and Juke are both joke cars. Both have less internal and boot space than the hatches they are based on. Cars bought for style (some must think so) instead of substance.

To be fair, the CX-3 is based on the Mazda2, not the 3, so the boot is in-between (nearer to the 3 hatch's size) unless you pick the Sport model, which you lose about 50-75 ltrs of boot space for the upgraded ICE. The interior space is almost identical to the 2 though, except for the height. I found it better to drive than the 3 (I preferred the higher driving position and the old-school handbrake), but I found the seats more comfortable and more room in the 3. If the OP is looking at a CRV then a CX-5 would be of similar size. Not cheap though, fine on performance, but no more. Shame, as with all Mazdas, their petrol engines don't really match their handling credentials.

I do agree that they missed a trick with the CX-3 as it doesn't really compete with any other cars directly and is either too small to be useful to families/those who want a decent sized boot and too expensive in comparison to alternatives for many a single person or retired couple.

The main benefits for me for the CX-3 were great handling, good looks and a wonderfully smooth TC auto box. Oh how I wish VAGs came with those instead of (IMHO) horrid DSGs...