Mazda CX-30 G-20 Touring or Subaru XV 2.0i Premium. Help Me to Choose

Considering to buy a new car for our family in one month, EOFY, and wanted to know the thoughts/votes of the ozbargainers on the shortlisted two cars-

Mazda CX-30 G-20 Touring $38839 and Subaru XV 2.0i Premium $37514.

Our kids are 7 and 9 years old, the car will mostly be used to drive them from/to school, regular sport competitions in city, and occasional out of city trips.

The points we are looking at are:

  • Long term ownership (10 years plus) and reliability
  • Convenience to drive in urban area
  • Comfort in general and in rear seats particularly
  • Fuel economy

We haven’t test-driven them yet but we’ve shortlisted them because they are of approximately the same sizes (we don’t want to have longer cars), have rear vents (very important in Adelaide summer trips, and which many other cars don’t have) and consume almost the same amount of fuel (8L and 8.8L accordingly, in urban).

Your thoughts and personal experiences will be appreciated.
Thanks

Poll Options expired

  • 69
    Mazda CX-30 G-20 Touring
  • 28
    Subaru XV 2.0i Premium

Comments

  •  

    Mazda should have better driver experience and fuel efficiency. Subby has good safety features and reliable.

    • +3 votes

      I love Subarus, but the XV still feels underpowered and the boot space is tiny. I went for a Forester and even that still feels small sometimes when cramming it full of baby stuff and pram etc

      •  

        As an owner of Outback, i will never touch a subaru again.
        Quality is below par on so many fronts.

        • +4 votes

          Not that I'm trying to defend, but just curious what the quality issues were?

        • +3 votes

          As an owner of Outback, i will never touch a subaru again.
          Quality is below par on so many fronts.

          Compared to what?

          I've a 2015 outback that I would love to replace with the new Forester, but the damn thing is pretty bulletproof and hasn't given me one single trouble to speak of. Not to mention the exceptional AWD system and top notch safety.

          As an owner of a Subaru in fact, I'd probably not buy anything else based on my personal experience because it offers cutting edge safety tech at a reasonable price. And oh, did I mention the awesome traction from the AWD?!

          • +3 votes

            @CocaKoala: Cabin Noice is the first one.
            Park brake issues nrver got fixed after three visits.There was a recall on this.
            AC thermostat is playing up after the warranty and two service centres couldn't fix it.
            Mirror switch assembly failed just outside the warranty.
            Paint work fades faster as the top coat is almost non existent.
            Service is expensive compared to otjer Japanese brands.
            Just changing a head light globe will set you back by around 120 and couple of hours.
            My 15 year old camry is still going strong without any issues other than normal wear and tear.

        • +1 vote

          Agreed, a few years got a brand new automatic Liberty and had many problems from minor (auto window switch failure, window seal failure) to major (stalling , engine rattling and losing power during hot days - after many visits to the service centre they were never resolved). The car body is so soft and dent easily. Overall, would not touch another Subaru again.

  • +2 votes

    It is a hard choice. Let the kids decide.

    •  

      Not really. A few of my acquaintances have the XV. Love them. But take both for a drive and I am certain you would take the. cX-30. More power, better driving dynamics. Nicer interior. Better build quality. Not that Subaru is bad at those things (well, it’s pretty gutless in comparison), just the suby is an outdated model against the latest.

      But if this is your only car and you have a family you should be looking at a bigger car than either. Forester or.CX-5 from these brands for example. Your kids grow and they will want to bring a lot of stuff with them.

      • +3 votes

        Lmao you don't need a huge MomMobile to have kids. What car did your parents take you and your kids around in? Mine certainly didn't do it in a huge SUV and they managed fine

        • +7 votes

          huge
          Forester or.CX-5

          Your use of "huge" is an interesting one. I wonder what else you regularly describe as "huge" which is, in actual fact rather average in size…

          • +2 votes

            @Spackbace: Huge, compared to a small car.

            I am well aware they are mid size in today's market.

          • -1 vote

            @Spackbace: Average or not, this is a pretty good example of the point they were actually making, that people often think they need something bigger than they really do.
            You think a Forester is average, but I barely anyone I know has ever had anything that large. My family mostly had hatchbacks and compact sedans and we get around fine. My dad just got a Forester a few years ago for towing stuff, and it still feels massive.

            Even the new parents around me drive things like Corollas and Mazda 3s. My brother just upgraded his own Corolla for his third kid, and I'm pretty sure his new car is still smaller than the Forester.

            •  

              @crentist: Why does everyone feel the need to preach? If OP (or more to the point, their wife) wants the SUV form factor, then let them… I recommended they aim bigger but within budget, but I'm not sitting here going "buy a Corolla instead!" What's the point? You know it's not what they want, yet you preach it.

              Modern 4cyl SUVs have similar fuel economies of their smaller hatch brethren and can offer similar internal space. They're just more expensive to buy. But people do like the higher seating position and higher car seat position for kids.

              But it has no effect on you if OP buys an SUV for his wife (and btw we're using the term SUV here lightly for a CX30). None whatsoever.

              My folks had a VN Commodore and XE/XF Falcon wagon, what about it? Some peoples' folks had Landcruisers. Everyone made do with what they could afford, and that's why OP isn't buying a BMW…

              • -1 vote

                @Spackbace: You realise no one suggested a downsize? Smaller cars were only mentioned in response to the suggestion of an UPSIZE.

                Which isn’t what they want, etc, all that stuff you said, but the opposite way

        • +2 votes

          As a matter of fact a HQ kingswood station wagon with a front bench seat so my youngest sister could fit in between mum and dad. It was great for dates too once I had a licence.
          These two options are too small for a family.

    •  

      A CVT ? Nah it is ok on the quad or drill press. Apologies for a spanner, a 19 plated SantaFe 8 Speed in diesel for the same dough. Anybody out here driving such a beast?

  • +5 votes

    Test drive. See if you can get an overnight test. A 10min zoom around the block tells you nothing. Try all road conditions. The earlier Mazda's suffered poor NV.

  • +2 votes

    Only the Subaru almost counts as an SUV, the CX-30 is a jacked up hatch back.

    Understand the differences in uses before thinking X drives better than Y on the dealer pavement.

    • +4 votes

      Nah, I own the XV and I think it is also just a jacked up hatch back (impreza). Boot is tiny and not deep at all.

      • +5 votes

        Its funny, I got a XV for the kid, yeah boot is on small side, can fit one pram thats it. Boot space on CX3 was laughable. Bought a STI for me, boot can fit two prams and passengers comfortably. Didn't expect that…

        OP look at the Kia Cerato wagon, GT trim is really nice, I should of bought that. Looks small but more interior space (428L),better fuel economy 7.4L, CUV have compromised storage and really just jacked up hatches sold at jacked up price.

        • +2 votes

          I've got the Kia Cerato Sports+ Hatch (no Wagons) and I reckon if you can sacrifice your need to bend your back more than usual and driving position, it's a no brainer for value. The GT would be an absolute blast to drive if you want to have the acceleration. Feels like an Audi inside, reliable as heck with 7 year warranty. Ticks just about every box and you could probably buy one for 30500-31k

      • +3 votes

        What you've described it sounds like you need a jacked up Hatch back. Which is why some will be disappointed with the XV.

        A SUV doesn't imply ample boot space, a SUV means it has off road capabilities but drives like a car. Something the CX-30 isn't because it's ground clearance is useless.

        Car marketers have increasingly blurred the definitions intentionally to upsell less capable cars at higher premium prices. Again fine if all you want is a jacked up hatch back.

      • +1 vote

        SUV =/= big boot space.

        SUV = Sports Utility Vehicle. i.e light offroad without being heavy or clunky on regular roads.

        Its not sporty, but it has offroad utility while still being fairly nimble as it has a true awd system.

        Most SUVs on the market are just big hatchbacks marketed to people who think suv = big.

  • +1 vote

    Hasn't the cx30 got boot capacity for 2 milk bottles only? You may fit 2 school bags, but not sure if you will fit sporting gear.

    • +2 votes

      XV 310 litres, CX-30 317 litres.
      Fine for a single, DINKS or empty nesters.
      Both too small if only car and you have kids.

  • +7 votes

    I would look at a CX-5 rather than the CX-30.

    At least you'll fit everyone in reasonably comfortably (especially as they become teenagers if you're looking to keep it for 10 years) and have some boot space. It's only ~15cm longer than the CX-30 and uses around 1L more per 100kms. 7L bigger tank in the CX-5 but same average distance to a tank so about $10 more per fill.

    I don't think you'll have any reliability issues with either to be honest. Can't personally comment on the Subaru but we've had Mazda's for a long time. Should get 5 year warranty with 5 year roadside.

    • +1 vote

      I’d go for the cx-5 for sure. It’s due for a refresh so you might find some better deals. Cx-30 feels just like a bigger hatch.

  • +3 votes

    My parents bought a 2019 Forester on my recommendation. I test drove the XV and Forester for them and tbh, the extra kick from the 2.5L Forester is well worth the slight increase in price with less than 1L/100km increase in fuel efficiency.
    I also think the CX-30 doesn't future-proof your car because it's quite small. If one of your kids is a boy, it could start being a bit of a tight fit (leg room and head clearance) once they hit puberty. I would agree with the above comment and consider the CX-5. I would only recommend small SUVs for people without kids who want the extra storage space a hatch or sedan doesnt offer.

    Also Mazda's skyactiv engines are ever so slightly more reliable than the Subaru's boxers. But I wouldnt use that as a deciding factor.

  •  

    Have a look at the new Skoda Scala, not an SUV but you can get a top spec one for the price you're looking.

    • +6 votes

      Skoda could be a good car, but, at this stage, we've decided to stay away from the European cars due to the pricey long-term ownership factors.

      • +2 votes

        A Kia Cerato hatch is better than both your options in that case then I reckon

        •  

          Kia Cerato is an excellent car, but with rear vents- Sport Plus- official 10.2L fuel consumption, in urban; and GT is not for us, at this stage.

  • +8 votes

    Neither - both are jacked up small hatches and not a bargain at almost $40k

    •  

      We will be 'bargaining to death':) hence, waiting for EOFY.

      •  

        EOFY sales start May 1st…

        And Subaru supposedly have a VIP sale today

      •  

        @mutnyi2001 Please report back on what you choice and outcome … in a similar vote; buy this year or wait 12 months.

      • +2 votes

        All Subaru Metro dealerships are owned by one company(in Melbourne ,not sure about other metros). So unless you go out of metro area you will get almost same price tag at different dealerships.
        I just don't understand how this is allowed.

  • +2 votes

    Those are both small.
    Neither will get the rated fuel economy in the city, so don't buy a car based on that.

  •  

    Both are small cars for your needs. However if you're not looking for anything bigger I would recommend checking out the Kona too (if you like the polarising styling). It won the best small SUV award last year in drive.

    I drove the turbo one recently when my car was in for a service. I was very impressed. Great fun and quite zippy around the suburbs.

    •  

      Kona seems to be a good car. But official urban fuel consumption is 9.7L, and we are not fans of the design (the front lights).

  •  

    Seltos? Really good sized boot and very well priced - just make sure you springs for the $1000 safety pack

    • +1 vote

      Seltos could be a good car but, at this stage, we want to try the cars with rear vents. Seltos GT-line, the only one with rear vents, doesn't appeal to us either due to the transmission or price tag.

      •  

        Fair enough. The rear vents is definitely a nice to have if you have older kids in sweltering summers. Forester too big? The footprint isn't much bigger than XV, but it's a much taller and spacious car, with a huge boot

        • -4 votes

          Forester would be a good car. But… 4625mm length is a bit long for us to manoeuvre in urban environment.

          • +2 votes

            @mutnyi2001: It's 200mm longer than the XV, which for me seemed negligible, but it depends on your comfort level. I would've personally gone for an Outback but it was too long to fit into my garage lol. The Forester fits perfectly.

            My wife originally was terrified about driving and parking such a "big car" (Forester), but the high driving position and excellent visibility gave her so much confidence that she prefers driving it over her car of 10+ years.

            Also the L and Premium Foresters have forward and front corner cameras, which the XV doesn't offer (at least I don't think they do)

          • +1 vote

            @mutnyi2001:

            4625mm length is a bit long for us to manoeuvre in urban environment.

            Your parking/driving inability confounds me

          •  

            @mutnyi2001: ASX (4.3?m) feels a much easier car to drive compared to the Cerato (4.51m) so it's actually not a bad shout

  • +8 votes

    Be careful of looking at fuel consumption figures because the Mazda has "i-stop", something many people turn off (turns the engine off at the lights). This was really something that was brought about to help rated consumption figures.

    With 2 kids, 7 and 9yo, I'd echo recommendations on looking at the next size up - CX5, Forester etc. The cars you're looking at won't last you long, and you'll quickly realise after purchase that they're too small for purpose.

    and occasional out of city trips.

    Why you'd do that in a compact SUV is beyond me. Might have enough room in the boot for 1 or 2 peoples' stuff, but not a family trip.

    •  

      We already have one Mazda with 'i-stop' function- Mazda 2 2018 year. Official number 4.9L, on our display- 5.5L. Subaru has a similar 'stop-start' function, so I assume both cars should be within the same category.

    •  

      Seems to have been working ok with us with smaller cars/boots. Boot space is not really a factor for us. But we know for many people it is- I understand what you mean. Thanks.

      •  

        Ah nice. If boot space isn't a huge consideration I'd personally go for the XV. Eyesight is fantastic and the fit and finish of the newer gen Subies is great. Cabin space and visibility is much better than the CX-30 IMO. 12 month servicing intervals with the new engine and platform too

    • -1 vote

      Why you'd do that in a compact SUV is beyond me. Might have enough room in the boot for 1 or 2 peoples' stuff, but not a family trip.

      This discourse is honestly ridiculous.

      What are you people bringing with you? I've gone on a week long trip with four adults in smaller vehicles than a CX30.

      Out of city trip with two kids, let's say they stay two or three nights where they're going. A backpack or duffle bag each, being generous, and a bag for foodstuffs maybe? A soccer ball and a cricket bat? That would fit in a Mazda 2s boot let alone a CX30.

      Also, I believe if people are purchasing a larger car for a use that makes up less than, say, half of its lifespan, they should get a roofbox.

      Australians are out here driving massive SUVs when 90% of them would be fine with a sedan or hatch with a roofbox in the garage. They'd get better fuel economy, save like 25% of their initial purchase price, and get a better-driving vehicle.

      • +4 votes

        Australians are out here driving massive SUVs when 90% of them would be fine with a sedan or hatch with a roofbox in the garage. They'd get better fuel economy, save like 25% of their initial purchase price, and get a better-driving vehicle.

        Wow way to over-exaggerate in an attempt to prove a point. The class of vehicle I suggested is marginally larger in dimensions, yet due to body shape creates far more interior space.

        Fuel economy difference is marginal.
        25% of purchase price - wtf?! OP is already in the price category of the next size of vehicle.
        Better-driving? Sorry I didn't realise a CX-30 or XV were ever heralded for being amazing GT cars.

        •  

          I wasn't really directing it at your comment broadly, just the bit that I quoted.

          Fuel economy of a Mazda 3 vs a CX30 maybe is marginal, but compared to a CX-5 is not marginal.

          I meant that a CUV is much more expensive than an equivalent sedan/hatch, not anything about the next size vehicle.

          CX30 and XV are not great driving vehicles. I was talking about how much better a sedan/hatch drives vs an equivalent SUV.

          • +3 votes

            @jrowls:

            Fuel economy of a Mazda 3 vs a CX30 maybe is marginal, but compared to a CX-5 is not marginal.

            Mazda 3 - 6.2L/100km, CX-30 - 6.5L/100km, CX-5 - 6.9L/100km

            Damn that extra 0.4L/100km! Not going to be able to have my avocado on toast!

            Interesting, 0.3L is marginal, 0.4L is not marginal. OK we've worked out your line in the sand.

            •  

              @Spackbace: Are the 2.0L engines the biggest sellers in any of those models? I wouldn't buy a CX-5 with one.

              But fair enough, the fuel economy difference is slight.

              That wasn't my only reason though so since you ignored the others, I take it you agree?

  • +4 votes

    Wow, in that price range, I would be taking it down a notch in features and taking it up a notch in size.

    I'd be looking at CX-5 and Forester in the same price range if you wanted to stick to those two brands.

    I would also be looking at the Tucson Elite Or Kia Sportage SLi/SX+. Should be able to get one of those at under $40k at EOFY sales. Especially if you dont mind a 2019 20MY old stocker…

    That sort of spend may even get you into a low km demo RAV4 Hybrid if you are looking at fuel economy and urban driving…

  • +4 votes

    Our kids are 7 and 9 years old

    Try putting the kids in the back. Those cars are too small now. They will be painfully small when they are teenagers.

    Long term ownership (10 years plus) and reliability

    Then avoid Mazda like the plague. Mazda is doing it tough and will likely have to restructure. Regional towns might loose dealers.

    We've decided to stay away from the European cars due to the pricey long-term ownership factors.

    Another reason to avoid Mazda. Also might want to avoid KIA if you don't plan to service. Those engines in crate form are stupidly expensive when they fail (but they normally only fail when neglected).

    Mazda CX-30 G-20 Touring $38839 and Subaru XV 2.0i Premium $37514.

    At that price point you can go two sizes bigger. The Sorento ($45k) Demo ($36k), Santa Fe ($45k) Demo ($37k), MUX ($41k) Demo ($38k), in base models are far nicer cars due to the extra room and power. Drive the demo you want to buy as their might be feature differences between the demo and current trim.

    Do not expect most dealers to price match those demo car prices. Feel free to try, but the usual (dumb) response is to piss off and buy the advertised car. Demo's are enabled by a manufacturer discount, so they are often hard to price match. The cheapest car on carsales usually doesn't exist (it will be available when you ring but 'sold' when you arrive on site).

    If you go a diesel, Hyundai/KIA's DFP filters engage at 5kmph. What that means is if you drive every day you need to make a weekly drive longer than 20 minutes. Most other brands engage their DFP between 55 to 80 kmph, meaning you need to drive a further ~15 minutes once a week after you reach highway or B road speeds.

    •  

      agreed. Car brand loyalty is annoying. To be honest with you ,all cars drive like shit if they are not performance vehicles. It's just to get to point A to point B in sufficient power and comfort. And subaru has the best AWD system. Go for subaru if you really need AWD.Otherwise buy the cheaper FWD version and save money.

      • +1 vote

        Go for subaru if you really need AWD

        I checked the Forester. No eLSD, eDiff, locking diff or similar in spec sheet. Implies AWD system is useless once one wheel spins.

        The three cars mentioned have 'lockable' 'diffs' in 4x4 trim. The MUX in 4x4 trim is a proper, heavy duty 4x4. The MUX in all trims comes with all terrains, which make a far bigger difference on poor terrain than AWD on a Subaru.

        The three cars I listed are also a size bigger (7 Seater 4x4) than any Subaru (Large SUV).

        If OP want's adaptive safety (adaptive cruise control, etc.) than the Forester is a great choice. But if AWD is a deciding factor, OP would be better served with eLSD or locking diff.

        • +1 vote

          Yeah subaru awd is symmetrical it will generally provide more grip in compared to a FWD setup that only sends power to rear on demand.

          •  

            @johnkimun: I did more research.

            Subaru's Xdrive is what will help with traction. You will find no difference between this and other brand's name for their eLSD as they are usually all the same Bosch part, just with a slightly different part number.

            Again, MUX will have far better low traction grip as it has all terrain tyres.

            As for road grip, The Focus RS (0.7s) and Equinox LTZ (6.8) both have part time AWD and beat the Forester's 0 to 100 time (7.7)

  •  

    The XV is a jacked up impreza. I own an impreza, fuel economy is crap and the car only runs well on premium fuel, it's very sluggish on 91 and especially e10.
    Also being a bigger impreza it's not really a big family car so space will be tight inside.
    Dealer servicing costs more than Mazda but I guess you can go to an independent.

  •  

    CX-5 Looks to be a powerful (akera, turbo petrol) and stylish inside out.
    Entry level premium model out of all, but more cash. Not sure why they are not in Hybrid.

  •  

    Considered the RAV4?

  • Top