Need to go to a dealer and have a try ?

Or you could bypass this stage and go straight to a Skoda dealer to buy an Octavia ;-)

It's not the volume but th diagonal width across the boot as that's the only way the clubs go in, unless you take the seats down.

Trolley sits on top.

Need to go to a dealer and have a try ?

Most Ford Focus sized cars and above have a 'cut out' area which presumably is designed so that golf bags can fit straight across. The latest Mazda3 and CX-30 are at least as wide as my Mazda3 gen-1, if not more so, so it's likely they'll fit across.

The issue with many cars of that size (not the Octavia with its huge boot) is that most have raised boot areas over those like mine built 10-15 years before, and sometimes the boot height is reduced if the car has a spare wheel/tyre (or boot-located ICE), so always check. Cars without a spare can have the boot 'floor' lowered, which is the actual figure they quote for the boot size (sneaky).

I would ALWAYS buy a car with some kind of spare wheel/tyre, even if it's a spacesaver (prefer a full sized one), but that could reduce the available boot height. Best to check for whatever cars get on your final list.

Please DO NOT just pick one that has a big boot - its the overall driving/ownership experience in addition to the boot space needs (others may be just fine) - don't rush into anything - take your time doing the reseach and allow for a decent check inside and long test drive as explained earlier.

Many people end up buying the wrong car (often which is uncomfortable or annoying as regards performance.handling, etc, etc) and losing a pretty penny in the process because they didn't check it thoroughly enough. Make sure if you're not the only driver that whoever else will be using it regularly comes along and checks it out (including driving it) as well.

Note that also find a good, well-regarded dealer (on the maintenance side) - that will often make just as much of a difference to the ownership experience as the car itself.

Best of luck.

What's the difference between the skyactiv g and X ?

The 'G' is essentially the same spark direct injection (DI) petrol engine as the gen-3 car's, which is a low weight, standard-ish engine design.

The 'X' engine is a far higher compression engine that uses spark DI for hard acceleration and on startup, then switches to the same type of combustion via compression (still DI) as diesel engines, thus giving a significant (20-25%) mpg boost when running in that mode (e.g. when the car is under low load - travelling in higher gears at [reasonable and] constant-ish speeds, e.g. on motorways, etc).

The 2L 'SA-G' engine gives only 122PS, whilst the 2L SA-X (which does also have a small supercharger) gives about 180PS and about 5% more torque. The better mpg figures are only when driven 'normally', not hard, when the SA-X engine goes back into a similar operating mode to the SA-G engine.

It's the first petrol engine to have 'mastered' this concept, and was introduced around 2019. Thus far, no reliability issues to do with it of note, but longer term, we'll have to wait and see. I think that the benefits are noticeable, but perhaps not quite as much as first touted.

The SA-G engine in the current gen-4 cars has been further de-rated (from the standard one* fitted to the gen-3 cars) for a 0-60 time of around 10.2 sec as opposed to 8.9 sec; the SA-X has a 0-60 time of around 8.2 sec.

* An uprated (different 'tune') 165PS version of the 2L SA-G engine was fitted to the top spec Sport models of the gen-3 car which had a 0-60 time of about the same as the current SA-X engine, but with a significantly lower (average) mpg. If you drove both 'spiritedly', I doubt if you'd notice much between those two cars in performance or mpg terms.

The SA-X engined cars mean you can drive normally most of the time and get that 25% boost in mpg and have at your disposal that extra 60PS if you need it occasionally like the gen-3 Sport Nav 165 did.

The issue really is whether it's worth the extra, especially as many alternatives, especially from the VAG stable, use smaller capacity (1 - 1.5L TSi) turbocharged engies that in real use appear to be just as fuel efficient as the SA-X engine but under moderate load, you don't have to give it quite the same amount of gas as the Mazdas, which means less noise/perhaps a more relaxed drive.

In the Mazda's favour (other than the styling) is that they are really good at handling and the 'traditional' torque converter autos are very smooth and more reliable (though there is a noticeable drop in performance/mpg of around 10%) than the VAG dual clutch system IF the car is used frequently in slow moving stop-start traffic, i.e. where you effectively 'ride the clutch' or need frequent gear changes.

Again, best to test drive each to see what you prefer - you may not need the extra oomph of the SA-X or you may not like other cars for other reasons. A lot of this is personal preference based on an individual's needs and likes/dislikes.

I test drove a standard (122PS) gen-3 SA-G car but found it not much of an improvement, performance wise (despite the figures showing it should've been significant) over my gen-1 1.6 petrol's if driven normally. It (and the gen-4 SA-G) would be fine as a direct replacement for my car, but I was looking for more on the performance side without needing to thrash it.

Unfortunately, the 2.5L SA-G engine won't be in any UK Mazda3s (it is in ones in North america and Down Under), which gives the same power and more torque than the 2L SA-X (obviously quite a bit less mpg), which is a shame, and likely the turbocharged version of that engine won't either (a top-spec gen-4 car is again only available in those other markets at the moment).