We Compare 3 of the Best Small SUVs Available in Australia: Hyundai Kona vs Mazda CX-3 vs Kia Stonic

For this test we had a target of the mid-$20,000 region. We know this is one of the most hotly contested price-brackets for SUVs in this class, accounting for a large portion of sales, so we thought the specs chosen here would appeal to the broadest spectrum of buyers.

Our Kia Stonic and Mazda CX-3 are both mid-spec cars, while the Kona is an absolute base variant. All cars have basic features like cloth seats and halogen headlights, but aside from that there are some intriguing differences between them.

They also all have impressive safety suites which we’ll look at later.

The Maxx Sport features 16-inch alloy wheels. (image credits: Rob Cameriere)

Our Kia Stonic is a mid-grade Sport. Wearing a before-on-road price-tag of $25,990, the Sport sits above the base Stonic S and the sportier GT-Line. Intending to land it with a bang, Kia has specified the Stonic well, even against tough segment competition.

Included is an 8.0-inch touchscreen with wired Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, built-in sat-nav, keyless entry and push-start ignition, 17-inch alloy wheels, a reversing camera with rear sensors, a leather bound wheel and shifter, and a digital TFT screen between its analog instruments.

Next up is the Mazda CX-3 Maxx Sport. Long regarded as a well-equipped car for its size and price, the CX-3 is slowly but surely starting to date in some areas. Our car wears an MSRP of $26,890, making it the most expensive car on this test by a small margin.

The Stonic Sport comes with 17-inch alloy wheels. (image credits: Rob Cameriere)

The Maxx Sport’s standard spec includes a 7.0-inch multimedia screen which is primarily operated via a physical dial, partially digitised driver instruments, wired Apple CarPlay connectivity, built-in sat-nav, push-start ignition (sadly not paired with keyless entry), rear parking camera with sensors, and 16-inch alloy wheels.

The CX-3 is the only car in this test with climate control instead of basic air conditioning.

Finally, we have the Hyundai Kona. A base-model, the Hyundai Kona has no variant name and wears an MSRP of $26,600.

The previous base-model Kona’s standard steel-wheels and hubcaps deal is swapped out for 16-inch alloys. (image credits: Rob Cameriere)

It scores an 8.0-inch multimedia screen with wireless Apple CarPlay or Android Auto connectivity and a matching wireless phone charging bay.

The previous base-model’s standard steel-wheels and hubcaps deal is swapped out for 16-inch alloys, although the Kona has a dorky turn-key ignition, no rear parking sensors, and no built-in sat-nav.

There are more twists and turns to do with each car’s safety suite and engine tech, so don’t write anything off just yet. But as it stands, the Stonic takes a narrow lead with excellent equipment and the lowest price tag.

You’re looking at SUVs, so there’s a good chance practicality will be higher on your list than if you were looking at a light hatch.

All cars here have the ride height and extra tall seating position granted to an SUV but there is one particular practicality winner here.

Let’s start with the CX-3. This is the car that most wears its light-hatch underpinnings on its sleeve. It feels the smallest of the options here on the inside, and cabin storage is also somewhat limited.

Unlike the Mazda2 on which it is based, the CX-3 gets a small centre armrest console box, which sits over a large cutaway with two variable bottle holders inside.

It also features a small storage tray under the climate controls, and large bottle holders in the doors. Connectivity-wise the CX-3 gets two USB ports, a 12-volt outlet, and an auxiliary input, all housed under the climate unit.

Space for front occupants is decent, with the CX-3 feeling more like a hatchback than the other two. Headroom proved good for someone my (182cm / 6'0") height, although knee room was a little limited. Wheel adjustability is good, too, but in a typical Mazda quirk, the wing mirrors are strangely close, offering a relatively limited field of view to the neighboring lane.

In the back seat and things are less good. The seating arrangement is quite high and narrow, with my head almost hard against the roof, and my knees against the driver's seat set for my position.

There are small bottle holders in the doors, but no power outlets or air vents for rear passengers.

The boot is the real travesty in the CX-3, with just 264-litres on offer, making it almost 100 litres smaller than its nearest competitor on this test. It could only fit two of our three CarsGuide test luggage cases. A space-saver spare resides under the floor.

Next up, the Kia Stonic. This car also shares much with its Rio light hatch donor car, but the Rio is huge on the inside for the segment, and the Stonic turned out to be, too.

Storage for front passengers includes a small console box, dual bottle holders between the front two seats (oddly the Stonic is the only car here to get a manual handbrake), and a large two-teired shelf under the air conditioning unit. There are also large bottle holders and bins in the doors.

Adjustability is good for the driver, with comfortable headroom and telescopic adjust for the steering, although knee room is a little limited, as it is in the CX-3. It also share’s the Mazda’s hatch-like seating position.

The back seat is impressive given the Stonic’s diminutive dimensions, with generous amounts of knee room on offer for someone my height, as well as decent headroom.

The Stonic's low seating position means you do have to lean down the most to get into it, but overall the rear seat is a comfortable place to be.

Rear seat passengers in the Stonic get a tiny bottle holder in each door, as well as a small storage tray and USB outlet on the back of the centre console. There are no adjustable air vents for rear passengers.

The Stonic’s boot is only a few litres down on the larger Hyundai Kona, but we found its low, flat load floor to offer a more squared-off and useful space when it came to loading our CarsGuide demo cases, which fit with ease.

Finally, we have the Kona. It’s the largest car on this test, and with its mid-size i30 hatch underpinnings, it has much more space in its interior. You also sit the highest in the Kona, and it has the most commanding view of the road.

Headroom and adjustability are great for the driver, and there’s a large bottle holder and trench in each door, two large bottle holders in the centre console, and a single large tray with the wireless phone charger under the air conditioning controls.

The Kona gets a large soft-trimmed armrest box, but it's worth noting that overall, its storage space for front passengers is basically the same as the Stonic, despite its extra size.

Rear seat passengers in the Kona get decent knee room and excellent headroom, plus the Kona’s higher seat bases and tall roofline make it the easiest car of these three to get in and out of.

Passengers in the back of the Kona get a large bottle holder in the door and an odd little storage tray on the back of the centre console, but there are no power outlets or adjustable air vents.

The Kona has the largest boot on this test in terms of litres, but we found this comes with a catch. The Kona’s boot floor must be taken down to its lowest position to make the most of the space, at which point its floor is slightly uneven.

This made it a little more awkward than the Stonic when it came to loading our CarsGuide luggage set.

All three cars get space-saver spares under the boot floor, check out the table below to get an idea of how they compare on the numbers.

As you might imagine, three old-school engine solutions will produce less than impressive fuel numbers, and that certainly was the case over our largely urban-cycle fuel test loop.

The Mazda’s natural advantages of having a larger engine with less weight to carry and a stop/start system proved their worth, as it produced by far the lowest fuel number.

Meanwhile the Kona overshot its number by a larger margin than the Mazda, and the Stonic was disappointing with its as-tested fuel consumption well into double digits.

All cars here are capable of consuming entry-level 91RON fuel, and all have decent fuel tanks.

Warranty-wise it’s hard to go past the Stonic with its seven year/unlimited kilometre promise which is still one of the best in the business. There is a cost though, which we’ll get to in a second.

The CX-3 and Kona have the current industry-standard five year/unlimited kilometre warranty cover with the Mazda including five years of roadside assist, and the Kona including a year every time you service with Hyundai (same as the Stonic).

The Stonic and Kona require servicing once a year or every 15,000km whichever occurs first, while the Mazda’s interval is 12 months or 10,000km.

Over the first five years of ownership the Mazda will cost you around $354 annually while the Stonic costs significantly more with a yearly average of around $420.60 according to each brand’s official service calculators.

The Kona meanwhile did not have its capped price servicing schedule locked in at the time of writing, but the brand told us it won’t stray far from the current car which would have the cheapest servicing here at a yearly average of $284.

All things said and done these cars are pretty evenly matched, but we think each will ultimately suit a different buyer, despite their similar price and target audience.

The Mazda CX-3 is feeling a little dated and harsh from behind the wheel, and it has a tiny back seat and luggage area, but makes up for it with still dashing style, decent price and features, and an engaging drive experience. We think it will suit a driver-at-heart, or someone wanting a city-sized hatch with that extra bit of SUV-ness.

The Kona meanwhile is at the other end of the spectrum. Being larger at the same price, it feels more basic on the inside but brings some of the latest multimedia innovations over the Mazda. While its new look might polarise buyers, we think its strong SUV characteristics will be better suited to family buyers looking for the extra comfort and security it offers.

Finally, we have our winner. The Kia Stonic notches ahead in our point marking scheme, largely thanks to its blending of the best characteristics of the other cars here, as well as a stellar overall value, design, and practicality offering. It’s not really the best driver’s car thanks to its outdated engine, but we think it’s the most ideally suited to the toils of urban life where it’s likely most buyers of SUVs in this class will be spending their time.

See our overall score table below, for a reminder on how we came to our verdict.