2014 Mazda Mazda3 I Touring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mini Cooper Countryman only small car to earn good grade in latest IIHS crash tests [w/video]

Competitors in the small-car segment didn't do nearly as well. Four vehicles earned "poor" grades.
Only one small car out of 12 tested earned a good grade in the latest round of crash-test results compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Mini Cooper Countryman received a "good" ranking on the organization's small-front overlap test.

Mazda CX-30 Luggage Test | How much cargo space?

The Mazda CX-30 is pretty much a lifted Mazda3 hatchback. Same platform, awfully similar dimensions, and the interior's a spitting image (if not identical). Ditto cargo capacity. On paper, the two have virtually the same amount of space behind their raised back seats, with the CX-30 at 20.2 cubic-feet and the 3 with just a teensy less at 20.1.  Now, before I go any further, let's see how much that 20.1 cubic-feet relates to in the Mazda3. I wasn't yet doing this test format back then, hence the video.  For reference, both tests used my standard luggage selection of two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). The bag of baseballs shown in the video is slightly smaller than my new small-bag go-to, my wife's fancy blue overnight bag (21L x 12W x 12D). So, the mark to beat is therefore all the bags minus the smallest roller.  Here is what 20.2 cubic feet looks like in the CX-30. To move beyond the Mazda3 comparison, that figure is in keeping with the CX-30's niche placement between subcompact (the teens) and compact SUVs (upper 20s to upper 30s). The Mazda CX-5 has 30.9 cubic-feet.  Now, typically, I start off by seeing how much I can fit inside with the cargo cover in place. Sadly, this particular CX-30's cargo cover is missing. We'll just have to hope it doesn't rob the CX-30 of as much space as the CX-5's does.  First off, it's immediately noticed that the CX-30's cargo area is not as long as the 3 hatchback's. The largest bag just barely squeezed inside, whereas there was some room to spare in the 3. Now, let's keep loading.  Whattya know? All of the roller bags fit inside. That includes the smallest one, which didn't fit in the 3, fitting atop the stack with perhaps 30% of it over the back seat line. Now, I could've done the same Tetris stack in the 3, but I'm virtually certain the hatch wouldn't have closed. Advantage, then, to the CX-30 and its extra height.  And surprise, the fancy bag also fits. Technically. It robs rear visibility, is pretty far above the seat line and it just barely fits under the back light. If it was filled, I have my doubts about its inclusion. Nevertheless, with or without it, there's still a bit more space on the right side for that bag of baseballs.  Now let's discuss the power liftgate.

J.D. Power dependability survey is out, but you shouldn't depend on it

J.D. Power has just released its latest automotive dependability survey, which of course has usual suspects Buick and Lexus ranking high. Those are safe and solid findings, surely. But when you look a little closer, there are curiosities. Our Consumer Editor, Jeremy Korzeniewski, offered an explanation a couple of years back for why this survey should be viewed with a degree of skepticism, and his take is worth a re-read. What jumped out at Jeremy were the relatively low spots assigned to Mazda, Subaru and Scion among the ranking of makes. Back in 2016 when he wrote his piece, they were ranked 21st, 23rd and 24th respectively. In this year's survey, Mazda ranks 15th and Subaru 26th, both below the industry average of 142 reported problems per 100 vehicles. (And Scion, of course, is in car-brand heaven.) Now, part of what is going on here is surely the fact that all automotive brands are producing dependable vehicles compared with years gone by, so the degree of variance between the best and worst on the list is not as great as it once was. "For the most part, automotive manufacturers continue to meet consumers' vehicle dependability expectations," Dave Sargent, a J.D. Power vice president, said in a statement. "A 9 percent improvement is extremely impressive, and vehicle dependability is, without question, at its best level ever." That said, when a brand like Subaru, regarded by many as mechanically bulletproof, ranks 26th, it leaves people who know cars scratching their heads. Something there does not compute. The problem, as Jeremy pointed out, is one of methodology: When he wrote his piece, there was no weighting assigned to the problems reported in the survey. And that still appears to be the case. Therefore, a problem with an infotainment system or a loose piece of trim is deemed as serious as a blown engine or leaky transmission. (And yes, infotainment is still the biggest problem across the board.) Jeremy's point: If the categories of problems were weighted, you'd see a different picture. When you look at the Consumer Reports brand rankings (subscription required), you get a very different picture. in CR's rankings, Subaru is No. 6 among brands, which, well, sounds a lot more like it. CR singles out the redesigned 2017 Impreza as a car with some new-model problems. (The BRZ had the fewest.) The two surveys jibe a little more closely when it comes to Mazda, which CR ranks 12th, a drop of six places from previous-year rankings.