The new Mazda CX-3 - a Yeti sized competitor

[Totally Square]

The Honda HRV is already sort of detailed on the Honda UK website:

 

...

But alas it will also only come with microengines...

The Honda 130 bhp 1.6 diesel is a microengine? Like the new GM 1.6 diesel its just a modern motor that somewhat shows up the VAG 1.6 and lower tune 2.0 TDis. Might not be of interest to a 170bhp Yeti owner but its probably equivalent to a 140bhp Yeti...

 

But then again the HRV and CX-3 are surely in the Juke class, with the Yeti straddling that and the Tiguan class...

[Hirundo]

Now this I really like. Looks great inside and out and very much better looking than the hideous Juke and Mokka.

 

 

I'm sorry – it looks EXACTLY as boring as the rest (except one, of course  ).

Updated "The List". Find the Mazda     :

 

Edited 21 November, 2014 by Hirundo

[Dr Zoidberg]

It doesn't appear to be on your list.

[DarrellGB]

I will be seriously interested in swapping my Yeti for a Honda if the HRV will come with the 160 Bhp 1.6 diesel with 9 speed twin clutch gear box like honda are putting in the CRV.

You could always turn your Yeti Greenline into a 160bhp version

[prodata]

But then again the HRV and CX-3 are surely in the Juke class, with the Yeti straddling that and the Tiguan class...

 

I do think that's the problem for those Yeti owners like me who are interested in looking at alternatives for a new drive. The Yeti managed to be the right size - big enough to do all or most things that you'd want an all-rounder to do, but still remaining relatively compact. But so many competitors are either half a size smaller (ie Juke class) or half a size larger (X3, new Disco Sport etc). Be interesting to see how the 2016 X1 shapes up - that might be better-sized and potentially an interesting and well-equipped design if the 2 series AT (with which it will share quite a lot apparently) is anything to go by. But conceivably Yeti II might surprise us, though I'm slightly concerned that VW will limit the spec that they allow Skoda to use.

Edited 21 November, 2014 by prodata

[900000]

The Honda 130 bhp 1.6 diesel is a microengine? 

 

There is NO substitution for cubic inches. EVER. As the Americans will say.   Torque is something you get from a decently sized engine and not from bolting five turbo chargers to a minuscule 1,5 or 1,6 litre engine (or a ONE LITRE in Ford's case!!!). It's just not for me. Call me old fashioned if you want.

[prodata]

There is NO substitution for cubic inches. 

 

Know what you mean, but I doubt you mean it too literally. Technology does progress. Once upon a time (10, 20 years ago?) the thought of getting 170BHP and whatever torque it has from a 2 litre diesel like the CR170 in an everyday engine would have seemed a little unlikely. (And this is now up to 184BHP IIRC in some newer versions of the same engine.) But we don't think twice about accepting it now - we don't say it has to be a 3l engine to deliver this amount of power/torque reliably.

[900000]

Know what you mean, but I doubt you mean it too literally. Technology does progress. Once upon a time (10, 20 years ago?) the thought of getting 170BHP and whatever torque it has from a 2 litre diesel like the CR170 in an everyday engine would have seemed a little unlikely. (And this is now up to 184BHP IIRC in some newer versions of the same engine.) But we don't think twice about accepting it now - we don't say it has to be a 3l engine to deliver this amount of power/torque reliably.

 

I know, I know.  :p  As I said I'm old fashioned and lament the fact that soon everything from a Discovery and Volvo XC90 sized car, down to a Fabia will have awful sounding, puny little 4 cylinder engines. Urgh. The one thing I really don't like in my Yeti is the NON-SOUND of the engine. I want a characterful 5 cylinder or a 6 cylinder out front ta.  Sigh.  The thought of a 250hp 1,0 litre four cylinder powering anything I own fills me with dread.  I'd rather have 150 low stressed horses from a 3,0 six cylinder thanks.  :-)

[Hirundo]

It doesn't appear to be on your list.

 

Oops, my bad! (That's what I'm saying - they look just the same...  )

Should be here... somewhere:

 

Edited 21 November, 2014 by Hirundo

[900000]

Oops, my bad! (That's what I'm saying - they look just the same...  )

Should be here... somewhere:

 

 

The scale of that is a bit deceptive since on that the baby CX-3 is the same size as the bigger CX-5 AND both are as big as the far bigger Hyundai Santa Fe...     But I get the point in terms of similar looks.  

[lfc958]

The Yeti stands out as ' The Van ' in this list, replace all the rear windows with metal panels, remove the rear seats permanently & put a divider behind the driver / passenger seat & Skoda have another potential model     

 

Having had an opportunity recently to sit in the cashcow & the SX4, & looked closely at the CX5 ( when i went to pick up a part for my MX5) , they ALL have that wrap around, high centre console that seems to try to cocoon the driver & divide you from the front passenger like the 'car' version & despite stepping across into the vehicle, everything inside is so high up that you could sit from this into any other model in the range & still feel as thou you are sitting down close to the road. 

Aren't these supposed to make you feel high up & different from the ' car ' version ?

[jlwah]

Why do manufacturers seem to think all cars need a squashed roof with a letterbox rear window ?

Blame the Evoque!

[Ryeman]

Blame the Evoque!

And the pig-ugly X6.

[Dr Zoidberg]

The scale of that is a bit deceptive since on that the baby CX-3 is the same size as the bigger CX-5 AND both are as big as the far bigger Hyundai Santa Fe... But I get the point in terms of similar looks.

Yep, it's designed to be as misleading as possible with tiny pictures all manipulated to minimise and differences. It also suggests that the main deciding factor in a car purchase should be "does the side profile make it look dated".

Nobody in their right mind would say that it's easy to mistake a 2008 for a Santa Fe for example. We know that there are similarities in shape between a lot of them, but that's likely when they all have to meet the same crash testing standards, have to deal with the same issues in packaging and aerodynamics and so on. I'm sure you could do side profiles of large saloons and hatches and claim that everything's the same as an Octavia.

Just as importantly, one of the really big reasons for this shape being so common is that it's popular. People *like* cars like this, so the manufacturers build them.

We get it, he likes the Yeti, but most buyers have a lot of different criteria for picking a car....

Edited 21 November, 2014 by Dr Zoidberg

['daiking']

Or just doing a proper search via Google... I've posted MANY such threads over the years.

I don't mean you, I appreciate the competitor threads you post as should anyone with a passing interest in more cars than the one(s) they own. And you know that every time you post a thread about an alternative you get 101 reasons as to why the car is not a yeti, and the suggestion that someone may actually like a different car is greated as though you have been defecating in people's shoes.

['daiking']

It doesn't appear to be on your list.

Er, I thought it was the middle one, 5th down unless it's added since this morning.

[bilun777]

Agreed 5th down,and yes it wasn't there earlier.

[prodata]

People *like* cars like this

 

But do they? It's something of a circular debate. Which came first the horse or the egg? I'm not so sure that designers aren't primarily influenced by other designers. That's why you get fashions in car design. And people can only buy what the manufacturers put out there. So is popularity necessarily a sign that the current fashion is what the masses want?

 

Where I would agree is that quite a few folk really can't get along with the van-like silhouette of the Yeti, despite its practical advantages. It obviously doesn't bother me, nor anyone else here, but I can understand the corporate thinking that might push Skoda into more of a me-too crossover design. (Not saying I like this line of reasoning - I'd much rather Skoda stuck to making a distinctive vehicle with real practical benefits but it's not usually how corporate group-think works.)

['daiking']

But do they? It's something of a circular debate. Which came first the horse or the egg? I'm not so sure that designers aren't primarily influenced by other designers. That's why you get fashions in car design. And people can only buy what the manufacturers put out there. So is popularity necessarily a sign that the current fashion is what the masses want?

Where I would agree is that quite a few folk really can't get along with the van-like silhouette of the Yeti, despite its practical advantages. It obviously doesn't bother me, nor anyone else here, but I can understand the corporate thinking that might push Skoda into more of a me-too crossover design. (Not saying I like this line of reasoning - I'd much rather Skoda stuck to making a distinctive vehicle with real practical benefits but it's not usually how corporate group-think works.)

Even the yeti is high sided which I thought was a consequence of side impact passenger safety measures. What the yeti has is a high roof line but that's not a free lunch in terms of benefits is it? By sight you'd have to guess that the yeti is aerodynamically poorer than the other designs.

And the whole point of these crossovers is that they look like cars but higher not like traditional 4x4s. You could generate a similar identity parade with C-segment hatches and say they all look similar. Same design training, same safety and economy objectives. No wonder they're all so similar.

[900000]

And the whole point of these crossovers is that they look like cars but higher not like traditional 4x4s.

 

The originator of this car on stilts idea is of course the 1979 AMC Eagle:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Eagle

 

 

 

 

[Llanigraham]

The only other model I would look at in comparison to the Yeti is the Freelander, and guess what? It isn't elephant flattened at the back and has nice BIG windows. (and doesn't appear in the list earlier!)

Even the new Discovery Sport has a full almost square shape, but is too big for my liking.

[Hirundo]

Yep, it's designed to be as misleading as possible with tiny pictures all manipulated to minimise and differences. 

 

"Designed to be as misleading as possible"?!?       :think:   I'm very sorry, Dr Zoidberg! Won't do it again.

Over and out.

Edited 21 November, 2014 by Hirundo

[900000]

"Designed to be as misleading as possible"?!? :think: I'm very sorry, Dr Zoidberg! Won't do it again.

Over and out.

Nah I like that image you did. The scale is not what it's about here - even though I pointed it out. It's the blandness if all those designs that it shows. Keep adding to it in the black and white as you do and in any scale. I approve.

[prodata]

Even the new Discovery Sport has a full almost square shape, but is too big for my liking.

 

Yep, agree 100%. JL do seem to have the right idea on this one (after the Evoque aberration - IMHO of course). But 4.6m and 7 seats (not even an option to have 5 AFAICS) is on the large side, though I';m starting to wonder whether it's the only other option (short of a Porsche Macan) to consider. But just need a newer and more powerful (relative to the bulk of the vehicle) engine. See the Discovery Sport full brochure is now available on JL website. Would be interesting to see what the Defender replacement actually turns out like in reality but I can't afford to wait that long.

[Llanigraham]

"Designed to be as misleading as possible"?!?       :think:   I'm very sorry, Dr Zoidberg! Won't do it again.

Over and out.

 

Well I think your photo-montage is excellent!!

Stuff the nay-sayers!!