2014 Compact Car Comparison Test

What to look out for
The final outcome is a direct outcome based on what we would like to drive and how it would fit in our daily lives.

Of the six drivers, four have children under the age of 10, three are certified carnuts, and two spend as much time on a racetrack as possible. The average age hovers in the mid-30s, with the oldest being 63, the youngest 29, and with one (short, but influential) woman amongst our ranks; as far as sampling goes, we’ve got it covered.

All of the above cars are winners in their own right, and you expected that. The fact that the No. 1 seller in Canada ends in 4th position is indicative of history, worth, and the feisty nature of the segment.

Depending on your priorities and criteria, it would be difficult to seriously go wrong with any of these cars, however, Mazda’s all-new 3 is, we feel, the best of the best for all the reasons enumerated above an the complimentary shopping criteria list.

Looking for more detailed technical information? Compare the six cars side by side.

	^{2014 CHEVROLET CRUZE}	^{2014 HONDA CIVIC}	^{2014 HYUNDAI ELANTRA}	^{2014 MAZDA3}	^{2014 TOYOTA COROLLA}	^{2014 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA}
^TRIM	^1LT	^Touring	^{Limited Tech}	^GT	^LE	^Highline
^ENGINE	^{1.4L Turbo 4-cylinder}	^{1.8L 4-cylinder}	^{2.0L 4-cylinder}	^{2.5L 4-cylinder}	^{1.8L 4-cylinder}	^{1.8L Turbo 4-cylinder}
^{HP @ RPM}	^{148 @ 1,850}	^{143 @ 6,500}	^{173 @ 6,500}	^{184 @ 5,700}	^{132 @ 6,000}	^{170 @ 6,200}
^{TORQUE @ RPM}	^{148 @ 1,850}	^{129 @ 4,300}	^{154 @ 4,700}	^{185 @ 3,250}	^{128 @ 4,400}	^{184 @ 1,500}
^TRANSMISSION	^{6-speed automatic}	^{Continuously Variable transmission (CVT)}	^{6-speed automatic}	^{6-speed automatic}	^{Continuously Variable transmission (CVT)}	^{6-speed automatic}
^DRIVETRAIN	^FWD	^FWD	^FWD	^FWD	^FWD	^FWD
^{FUEL TANK (L)}	⁵⁹	⁵⁰	⁵⁹	⁵⁰	⁵⁰	⁵⁵
^{FUEL ECONOMY (CITY/HWY)}	^{7.8 / 5.2}	^{6.7 / 5.0}	^{8.4 / 5.6}	^{6.7 / 4.7}	^{6.8 / 4.9}	^{8.1 / 5.6}
^{OBSERVED FUEL ECONOMY}	^10.9	⁹	^9.4	^8.1	^8.7	^8.9
^{ENGINE RPM @ 100 km/h}	^2,200	^2,000	^2,000	^1,750	^1,700	^1,700
^{CURB WEIGHT (kg / lb)}	^{1,398 / 3,082}	^{1,304 / 2,869}	^{1,278 / 2,812}	^{1,306 / 2,879}	^{1,290 / 2,855}	^{1,393 / 3,071}
^{WHEELBASE (mm / in)}	^{2,685 / 105.7}	^{2,670 / 105.12}	^{2,700 / 106.3}	^{2,700 / 106.3}	^{2,700 / 106.3}	^{2,651 / 104.4}
^{LENGTH (mm / in)}	^{4,597 / 181.0}	^{4,556 / 179.37}	^{4,550 / 179.13}	^{4,580 / 180.32}	^{4,639 / 182.6}	^{4,628 / 182.2}
^{HEIGHT (mm / in)}	^{1,476 / 58.1}	^{1,435 / 56.5}	^{1,430 / 56.3}	^{1,455 / 57.28}	^{1,455 / 57.28}	^{1,453 / 57.2}
^{WIDTH (mm / in)}	^{2,114 / 83.2}	^{1,752 / 68.98}	^{1,775 / 69.88}	^{2,053 / 80.83}	^{1,776 / 69.9}	^{1,778 / 70.0}
^{TRUNK CAPACITY (L)}	⁴²⁵	⁴³³	⁴²⁰	³⁵⁰	²⁶⁸	⁴⁴⁰
^{BASE PRICE}	^$21,395	^$25,260	^$25,649	^$25,855	^$19,500	^$25,490
^{OPTIONS ($)}	^$5,450	^$0	^$0	^$4,000	^$1,500	^$2,970
^{PRICE AS TESTED}	^$26,845	^$25,260	^$25,649	^$29,855	^$21,000	^$28,460

Article Gallery

See the complete Gallery

2014 Compact Car Comparison Test

You Might also Like

New Cars and Trucks

Used Cars and Trucks

Successful Operation