Luxury compact SUV review - We compare the Mazda CX-30 G25 Astina, Audi Q3 35 TFSI & Volvo XC40 T4 Momentum

Some brands manage to package so much into their compact SUVs, and two of these models have huge boot space volumes on paper. Here are the figures you need to know: 

We were surprised to see that all 255 litres of CarsGuide luggage was easily able to fit in all three of these models, despite the Mazda having a seemingly small claimed capacity. It comes down to the shape - the boot in the CX-30 is nice and square, deep and tall for its volume. The Volvo’s boot is nicely sorted, flat and wide, where the Q3 had a taller boot floor and a bit of a shallower space overall - but it has a trick up its sleeve. Or in its back seat, more correctly.

That’s because the Q3 is the only one of these three with a sliding second-row 60:40 seat, which can either improve your back-seat space or improve the amount of cargo capacity you have at your disposal. In the most cargo-friendly mode, you’d barely be able to fit a human in the back; in the most passenger-friendly mode, adults my size (182cm) can easily fit behind similarly sized people in front.

The Q3’s back seat was found to be a little flat in terms of comfort, but there was easily enough head, shoulder, leg and toe room for two adults in the back. The Q3 was the only car here without map pockets, but it had bottle holders in the doors and a flip down armrest with cupholders. It also offers back-seaters the chance to stay charged, with 2x USB-C ports and a 12-volt outlet, and like the other cars here, it has rear-seat directional air vents. 

Next best for back seat space was the Volvo XC40. It offers impressive levels of space for adults and kids, and while it doesn’t have the same sliding seat smarts as the Q3 there are nice elements such as a single USB-C port, dual mesh map pockets and lovely carpeted storage in the doors, which will no doubt stop things rattling around, but could be a pain if you spill a drink. 

While occupant space was good in the XC40, it felt more like the seat had been designed with child seat fitment in mind (all three models have dual outboard ISOFIX and three top-tether baby seat restraints). The seat was a bit firm, according to our testers, with a lack of padding in the seat base. But “headroom was excellent even with the optional panoramic roof”, and “it felt wider, more airy and more long-distance drivable” in the back than the other two.

Worst for rear seat space was the Mazda CX-30, which felt positively cramped compared to the other vehicles here. It feels exactly as compact as its dimensions suggest it should - and that could be perfectly fine if you’re a couple without kids or maybe just a pet dog, but our back-seat testers (down to 168cm) weren’t at all happy in the Mazda. It had the least headroom, the least knee room, the least shoulder space and the smallest windows in the back, all of which made it feel rather unpleasant. Even with the ‘stadium seating’ that sits up high to allow you a view, the comfort just wasn’t there. 

The Mazda was also the only one of this trio without any form of rear seat charging capability, and unlike the other cars here it had soft material seatbacks rather than hard-wearing plastic - an important consideration for those with youngsters (I felt every move of my rear passenger’s knees on our drive loop). 

Now, let’s move to the front seats.

In the Q3 everything falls to hand nicely, and it feels of a very high quality overall. It’s easy to get used to, even though the flush-fit touch screen is out of the ordinary in terms of its design. It has 1x USB and 1x USB-C port up front, as well as wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (but not wireless). As mentioned, we had a number of issues with the screen when reconnecting a previously paired phone. 

But the controls - ventilation, media - are easy to discern, and that you don’t need to go through the screen to change the temperature or fan speed is a welcome element.

Our testers wished for a little more side bolster in the front seats, and a larger centre console bin would have been nice, too, though there are cup holders between the seats, a couple of reasonable storage caddies and bottle holders in the doors.

The Volvo’s front-cabin was aptly described as “elegant” by one of our testers, and another said it offered “a much more interesting interior to be in”. 

Part of that comes down to the aforementioned media screen, but also the finishes on the dashboard, the trim materials and the overall design of the cockpit certainly made the XC40 stand out. 

It ticked the boxes for storage, too, with a big centre console bin with a removable rubbish trough, huge door pockets (again, flocked with carpet), and good storage generally apart from a small glove box. There are 2x USBs up front, too, but no wireless smartphone mirroring. 

The seats were comfortable and offered good adjustment, and the general impression our testers felt was the most resounding was that “there’s nothing try-hard” about the cabin. 

The CX-30 was - again - found to be pretty claustrophobic up front, lacking the airy feel of the other two SUVs here. In fact, all of our testers remarked on how small the door apertures are, and your humble scribe even bashed his head getting out of the CX-30’s driver’s seat (I’m not even that big!). 

But it was found to feel plush and premium, with nice materials, a neat - but in some ways a bit unfinished looking especially away from your eye-line - dashboard design, and clever touches such as soft padding on the transmission tunnel to stop you from banging your knees. 

The CX-30’s front seats were the most body-hugging of these three, and the storage was decent with two cup holders, a small storage section in front, big door pockets and an average centre console bin.

The media system - as discussed in the design section above - also played a part in our discussions on the CX-30’s cabin. It was a big talking point, and despite its plush look and feel, this is where the Mazda fell behind. 

Which is the horsepower hero of this bunch? We’ve got a detailed rundown on the engine specs below - and there are some pretty big differences between these three vehicles when it comes to power outputs and torque figures.

They’re all powered by four-cylinder petrol engines, but the displacement (engine size) varies greatly between the three. From the downsized 1.4-litre turbo in the Q3, to the punchy 2.0-litre turbo in the Volvo, to the non-turbo 2.5L in the Mazda, there are some very different approaches here. 

How do the drivetrains perform in the real world? You’ll find out below, but based on the numbers, the Volvo punches pretty hard, even if it has more mass to move.

For this test we’re splitting our drive impressions into two sections - first, my thoughts, and second, the comments of our guest reviewer, Peter Parnousis. Peter won a competition as part of CarsGuide’s Tools in the Shed podcast that saw him join us to test these three SUVs. And given some of his insights, we might have to get him back!

Peter was an ideal candidate to be part of this test, because he’s thinking about downsizing from his Calais into a small SUV like one of these. He told us that he’d thought about the Mazda CX-30, wasn’t sure about the XC40, and hadn’t really considered the Audi Q3. 

There was no off road review testing conducted, as all of these models are front-wheel drive (2WD) - instead, we focused mainly on urban and suburban duties, where these sorts of cars will typically spend most of their time. 

Ground clearance wasn’t a huge consideration, though the Mazda sits considerably lower (175mm ground clearance), and the Audi sits a bit higher (191mm) while the XC40 is up there in kerb-jumping territory (211mm).

If turning circle diameter matters to you - you might be an inner city dweller or someone who needs to do a lot of U-turns or reverse parks - the Mazda could be your best bet: it has a comparatively compact 10.6m turning circle, compared with the Volvo at 11.4m, and the Audi, which has a seemingly oversized turning circle of 11.8m.

Here we go!

Audi Q3 35 TFSI

The new Audi Q3 is an SUV that feels a lot more mature than the previous generation, with a more advanced and comfortable drive experience for everyone in the cabin than its competitors in this test.

Its ride was nicely composed both around town and on the open road, where it felt really balanced in corners, and the driver was rewarded with steering that offered good feel and directness, while the action was never too heavy, or too light. It was not necessarily exciting to drive, but it was very predictable, grippy and enjoyable, with no unexpected surprises. 

The Q3's ride was nicely composed both around town and on the open road.

Its engine may be low on power and torque in this company based on the engine outputs, but it never felt too underdone - even with four adults on board it was adequate in its acceleration, though there was a little bit of lag getting on and off the throttle. 

The dual-clutch automatic mightn’t be to all tastes, but we found the six-speed transmission was far better behaved than other Audis we’ve driven previously, without too much low speed hesitation. It snap-shifted between gears at pace, and held gears cleverly when it needed to rely on the engine’s torque rather than upshifting to save fuel. There was a very slight penalty to pay based on our fuel figures, but there’s so little in it we wouldn’t really consider it a deal breaker.

The ease of use of the Q3, combined with very agreeable driving manners, terrific refinement and top-notch comfort meant the Audi was the pick of our testers when it came to overall driving enjoyment and comfort. 

Around town it stood out as composed, if a little firm at the rear axle over very sharp bumps. While on the highway it was superb, settling into a high-speed groove with supreme ease - being tuned with Autobahns in mind is to thank for that.

Our guest tester Peter agreed the Audi had the fewest negatives - his biggest gripe was the steering wheel being too skinny, which he admitted was “nitpicking”. 

He said he found the seats very comfortable, the interior room immense, and he liked that the doors had a nice heft to them, closing with a reassuring thump. He appreciated the multimedia and instrumentation clusters, both of which added to the excellent interior space that was both well appointed and luxurious.

Peter said he thought the Q3 drove very well, and he found the engine to be responsive when the turbo spooled up.

Peter said he thought the Q3 drove very well, and he found the engine to be responsive when the turbo spooled up.

“Overall, I found the Audi Q3 to be the pick of the bunch with the least compromises. In fact, in my search for a new car, I didn’t bother looking at Audi (or BMW / Mercedes for that matter) because of the ridiculous three-year warranty - but actually driving it changed my mind. I am seriously considering it,” he said.

Mazda CX-30 G25 Astina

This test was ultimately about trying to find out if the Mazda CX30 lived up to the standards of the other cars here in terms of luxury, performance, refinement - and to be honest, it simply didn’t. 

That’s partly due to the suspension setup, which is a lot firmer than its rivals, and as a result you feel a lot more of the little bumps in the road surface - bumps that weren’t picked up in the others. Now, you might not care about that. If ride comfort doesn’t even factor into your equations when it comes to a new car - and there’s a good chance that maybe you’ve owned a Mazda already and that’s why you considering this car - then you might find the ride is perfectly acceptable. But to us - in this test against the criteria of being a luxury compact SUV experience - it just wasn’t good enough.

The suspension setup on the Mazda was a lot firmer than its rivals.

The plus side to its firm suspension setup is in corners, because it feels quite eager through the bends. It’s really involving, the steering is excellent in that situation because it offers the driver feedback from the road that is unmatched by its rivals. However, it had by far the worst brake pedal feel and progression, feeling both wooden and spongey.

Further, the engine start-up rumble, the at-idle refinement, and the generally level of vibration and crunchiness through the chassis couldn’t match the others. 

The 2.5-litre engine is large for a car of this size but it doesn’t quite have the same level of on-the-roll refinement and urge that the other turbocharged cars in this test give you. But it does feel speedier and more nimble because of its chassis tune and rev-happy engine, and while the transmission is eager to upshift in general driving, flicking it to ‘Sport’ mode allows it a little more freedom to explore the rev range. If sportiness is your benchmark for a luxury experience, the CX-30 will impress you. But if you’re considering it like we are, with expectations around the refinement, comfort, quietness and plushness that you expect of a compact SUV in this price range, the CX-30 just doesn’t quite make it.

One of the other little annoyances is the driver-side mirror, which is not convex, and it can mean it’s very hard to see what’s behind you on the driver’s side. Also, the mirrors are quite large, so if you’re coming out of an intersection and can be hard to see because the windows are quite small, too. 

Peter’s thoughts on the CX-30 related both to the rear seat experience and the way it drove. 

“The Mazda had horrible rear leg and head room, which is kind of important for an SUV. And the infotainment screen is okay, but it’s a bit small and not a touch screen.” 

The CX-30 does feel speedy and nimble because of its chassis tune and rev-happy engine.

However, as Peter eagerly pointed out, the CX-30 was the only example to be fitted with a head-up display, which worked great - and that the exact same HUD is fitted on every CX-30 in the range is a big plus for it. 

He reckoned the fit and finish was excellent, the instrumentation cluster was clean and well presented, and most importantly, "it drove like a Mazda". 

“I owned a 2011 Mazda 6 and I got the same feels driving this. Very impressive. However, the brakes just weren’t up to the job.” 

Volvo XC40 T4 Momentum

The Volvo XC40 felt the softest and most passenger focused of these three, with its suspension more focused on comfort and cruising than control over bumps. The suspension isn’t as tied down feeling when you change direction, with a bit more body shift and tilt, but in day-to-day driving, around town, over speed humps, in back streets, it was supple and comfy.

The Volvo XC40's suspension was more focused on comfort and cruising than control over bumps.

It felt taller and heavier than its rivals in this test (both of which are true), but it had direct and light steering that got quicker in its reactions the faster you went. At lower speeds it’s easy to predict if a bit vague in its response, while at higher pace it’ll tick the boxes of those who like to tuck in tight when cornering.

The engine in the XC40 was zesty, especially in the Dynamic drive mode. It was the only car of this trio with a range of selectable drive modes, including an off-road setting. Our test was strictly on the blacktop, and the engine and transmission performed decently, with enough power to get out of trouble in all situations. 

Compared with the Mazda, the engine in the Volvo was simply a lot more refined and urgent when called upon. The auto gearbox was well behaved at low speeds, and never made mistakes at higher pace either.

The engine in the XC40 was zesty, especially in the Dynamic drive mode.

However, the gear selector requires more effort than is necessary, and as mentioned before, it can be very annoying when you’re shifting between drive and reverse - meaning parking moves and manoeuvring around town can be frustrating. 

The general quietness and level of sophistication offered in the Volvo was excellent. It truly felt like a luxury experience for the driver and other occupants for the most part, while it didn’t offer any excitement like the CX-30 or the level of balance and cornering control of the Audi.

Guest reviewer Peter had similar concerns over the shifter, labelling it “finicky” and something that “made life way harder than it needed to be”. 

Peter also found the rear seat to be very firm and uncomfortable to the point where a long trip would be “undesirable”. But he said he thought the interior space was excellent, while the instrumentation and infotainment systems were “really good with crisp and clear graphics”. 

When it came to driving, he thought the brakes were grabby and difficult to operate smoothly. But that’s the only complaint he had when it came to the Volvo’s driving manners.

There are some differentiating factors when it comes to ownership of each of these models. 

If you value a long warranty and lower servicing costs, the Mazda is going to be hard to beat - being a mainstream brand, it has to offer that mass market appeal that luxury brands often choose to ignore. However, if you cover big kilometres, its shorter service intervals could be frustrating.

Further, if you appreciate the ability to roll your servicing into the finance or total cost of the car - prepayment is all the rage in the luxury segment - then the Volvo and Audi could stand out a little, even if they work out more expensive to own. 

Here’s a rundown on how these three compare on the ownership front:

If you’re worried about problems, issues, complaints, resale value and reliability, head to our problems pages for each of these models: Audi Q3 problems, Mazda CX-30 problems, Volvo XC40 problems.

If you are concerned about resale value, we ran the numbers and here’s what we found. After three years/50,000km, the Audi Q3 35 TFSI was expected to retain 55 per cent of its purchase price, which was the same prediction as the Volvo XC40 T4 Momentum. The Mazda CX-30 G25 Astina was predicted to retain 54 per cent of its start price. 

We can’t help but think the consumables involved in owning the Mazda will be less expensive than the two Euros, and the fact it has a longer warranty and roadside plan helps it top its rivals here.