Mazda Flair Wagon

Mazda Flair Wagon: Which Version Should You Buy?

The Mazda Flair Wagon buyer’s choice comes down to four practical decisions: Gasoline or Hybrid, naturally aspirated or Turbo, FWD or AWD, and an earlier or later Microvan. Every listed version uses the exact name 0.7 CVT, so specifications such as output and drive are essential for distinguishing them.

The Mazda Flair Wagon buyer’s choice comes down to four practical decisions: Gasoline or Hybrid, naturally aspirated or Turbo, FWD or AWD, and an earlier or later Microvan. Every listed version uses the exact name 0.7 CVT, so specifications such as output and drive are essential for distinguishing them. The strongest options produce 64 hp and up to 98 Nm, while the lower-output versions provide 52 or 54 hp and 60 or 63 Nm. The catalogue covers four generations from June 2012 onward, including a restyled second generation, but the available figures favor different versions for different priorities.

Mazda Flair Wagon generations compared

The first-generation Mazda Flair Wagon, produced from June 2012 through March 2013, is a Microvan offered in four 0.7 CVT versions. Its naturally aspirated Gasoline engine produces 54 hp and 63 Nm with either FWD or AWD. The Turbo Gasoline alternative produces 64 hp and 95 Nm, again with either drive system. All four have a 30-liter tank and 150 mm of ground clearance. Kerb weight ranges from 940 kg for the 54 hp FWD version to 1,000 kg for the 64 hp AWD version.

The second generation ran from April 2013 through April 2015 as a Microvan with four 0.7 CVT versions. The naturally aspirated Gasoline variants produce 52 hp and 63 Nm, while the Turbo Gasoline variants provide 64 hp and 95 Nm. FWD and AWD are available with both outputs. Compared with the first generation, the tank falls from 30 to 27 liters. Kerb weight spans 890–950 kg, and ground clearance spans 145–155 mm depending on the version.

The restyled second generation ran from May 2015 through January 2018 and contains five 0.7 CVT versions. The 52 hp choice is offered as Gasoline FWD or Hybrid with FWD or AWD. The Turbo Hybrid produces 64 hp and 95 Nm and is available with FWD or AWD. All use a 27-liter tank. Depending on the specification, kerb weight ranges from 870 to 950 kg, ground clearance ranges from 145 to 155 mm, and recorded CO₂ output ranges from 76 to 91 g/km; CO₂ for the Gasoline FWD version is not measured.

The third generation began in December 2017 and is a Microvan with four 0.7 CVT Hybrid versions. Naturally aspirated models develop 52 hp and 60 Nm, while Turbo models produce 64 hp and 98 Nm. Both outputs can be paired with FWD or AWD. Every version has 150 mm of ground clearance and a 27-liter tank. Kerb weights range from 890 to 950 kg, while CO₂ figures range from 82 to 97 g/km.

Mazda Flair Wagon specs and engine comparison

All listed engines displace 658 cc, use 3 Inline cylinders with 4 valves per cylinder, and have Distributed injection (multi-point). Every version uses fuel grade 92 and a Variable gearbox. Because the database gives every derivative the same 0.7 CVT name, the table identifies each one by generation, output, boost, and drive.

The naturally aspirated 52 hp engine delivers about 79.0 hp per liter, the first generation’s 54 hp engine about 82.1 hp per liter, and every 64 hp Turbo about 97.3 hp per liter. The Turbo therefore supplies 12 hp more than a 52 hp version, a gain of about 23.1%, while torque rises by 32 Nm in the restyled second generation and by 38 Nm in the third generation.

Performance, mpg and economy

Acceleration from 0–100 km/h is not measured for every Mazda Flair Wagon version in the data. Top speed is also not measured for every version. City fuel consumption, highway fuel consumption, and combined fuel consumption are likewise not measured, so an mpg comparison cannot be made from these specifications.

CO₂ data provides a limited comparison but does not replace fuel-consumption figures. In the restyled second generation, the 52 hp Hybrid FWD 0.7 CVT records 76 g/km, compared with 80 g/km for the 52 hp Hybrid AWD version. The 64 hp Hybrid FWD records 87 g/km, while the 64 hp Hybrid AWD records 91 g/km. Thus, selecting AWD adds 4 g/km within either matched Hybrid output.

In the third generation, the 52 hp FWD 0.7 CVT records 82 g/km and the 52 hp AWD version records 88 g/km. The 64 hp FWD version records 91 g/km and the 64 hp AWD version records 97 g/km. Here, AWD adds 6 g/km to either matched power level. Within the same drive layout, choosing the 64 hp Turbo instead of the 52 hp naturally aspirated version adds 9 g/km.

Mazda Flair Wagon dimensions, weight and wheel sizes

External length, width, height, wheelbase, and cargo dimensions are not measured in the supplied data. Wheel sizes are also not measured for every version. Gross weight is not measured throughout the range.

Kerb weight is most useful when comparing otherwise similar versions. In the second generation, the 52 hp FWD 0.7 CVT weighs 890 kg and its AWD counterpart weighs 910 kg, a 20 kg increase. The 64 hp FWD weighs 900 kg, while the 64 hp AWD weighs 950 kg, a 50 kg increase. Ground clearance is 145 mm for the 52 hp FWD version, 150 mm for both AWD versions, and 155 mm for the 64 hp FWD version. All have a 27-liter tank.

In the restyled second generation, the 52 hp Hybrid FWD weighs 870 kg, versus 920 kg for the Hybrid AWD, a 50 kg difference. The 64 hp Hybrid FWD weighs 900 kg, while the AWD equivalent weighs 950 kg, also 50 kg more. Ground clearance is 155 mm for both Hybrid FWD versions and 150 mm for both Hybrid AWD versions. The 52 hp Gasoline FWD weighs 880 kg, has 145 mm of clearance, and uses the same 27-liter tank.

The third-generation FWD versions weigh 890 kg with 52 hp and 900 kg with 64 hp. Their AWD equivalents weigh 940 and 950 kg respectively, so AWD adds 50 kg in both power classes. Ground clearance remains 150 mm across all four versions, and tank capacity is 27 liters.

All versions use Independent, spring front suspension, Ventilated disc front brakes, and Drum rear brakes. Rear-suspension specification is not measured.

Which Mazda Flair Wagon version should you buy?

For the best weight-to-power result, choose the second-generation 64 hp FWD 0.7 CVT or the restyled second-generation 64 hp Hybrid FWD 0.7 CVT. Each weighs 900 kg, equivalent to about 14.1 kg per hp. The third-generation 64 hp FWD is equally close at 900 kg and about 14.1 kg per hp, while adding 3 Nm over the restyled version for a total of 98 Nm. On the supplied engine figures, that makes the third-generation 64 hp FWD the strongest FWD specification.

For the lightest configuration, the restyled second-generation 52 hp Hybrid FWD 0.7 CVT weighs 870 kg. Its weight-to-power ratio is about 16.7 kg per hp. It also has the lowest measured CO₂ figure at 76 g/km and 155 mm of ground clearance, making it the clearest choice when low mass and the recorded emissions figure matter more than maximum output.

For AWD with the best weight-to-power ratio, compare the 64 hp versions. The first-generation AWD weighs 1,000 kg, or about 15.6 kg per hp. The second-generation, restyled second-generation, and third-generation 64 hp AWD versions each weigh 950 kg, or about 14.8 kg per hp. Among those three, the third generation has the highest torque at 98 Nm, which is 3 Nm more than the earlier 64 hp AWD choices.

The third-generation 52 hp FWD and AWD models are less compelling if torque is the deciding number: both provide 60 Nm, which is 3 Nm below the 52 hp second-generation and restyled Hybrid alternatives. However, the third generation standardizes Hybrid power, 150 mm of clearance, and a 27-liter tank across all four listed versions.

Choose FWD when lower kerb weight and lower measured CO₂ are priorities. Choose AWD when that drive layout is required and the extra 20–50 kg shown by matched comparisons is acceptable. Choose the 52 hp naturally aspirated 0.7 CVT for the lighter specification; choose the 64 hp Turbo 0.7 CVT for 12 hp more output and substantially more torque. Prices, market listings, interior specifications, problems, and reliability measurements are not included in the supplied data, so they cannot support a version recommendation here.