Toyota C-HR vs Mazda CX-3

A proper head-to-head in South Africa — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.

Includes a historical vehicle

Current, upcoming and historical vehicles can be compared side by side. Historical records keep their verified specifications, while price labels show last-listed context rather than current new-car availability.

Toyota C-HR Discontinued model
Toyota C-HR in South Africa

Toyota C-HR

2.0 HEV GR Sport CVT Hybrid e-CVT Discontinued model
ZAR 499,000 last listed
Discontinued model Verified historical specifications remain visible for owner and used-car comparisons.
⚡ 134 kW 🔧 190 Nm ⛽ 19.2 km/l
VS
Mazda CX-3 in South Africa

Mazda CX-3

2.0 Individual Auto FWD Petrol 6-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 551,600 ex-showroom
⚡ 115 kW 🔧 206 Nm ⛽ 15.9 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Toyota C-HR vs Mazda CX-3: the short answer

C-HR and CX-3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Recorded price context C-HR: last listed from ZAR 429,000 · CX-3: current from ZAR 440,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification C-HR CX-3
Maximum Power C-HR134 kW CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm
Maximum Torque C-HR190 Nm CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm
Engine Size C-HR1987 cc CX-31998 cc
Combined Fuel Economy C-HR19.2 km/l CX-315.9 km/l
Ground Clearance C-HR160 mm CX-3155 mm

Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Specification evidence leader

C-HR

Strengths
  • More powerful engine output
  • Better fuel efficiency
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • No obvious weak spots to flag.
Best suited to: Published Performance Published Efficiency Published Practicality

CX-3

Strengths
  • Nothing stands out clearly here.
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Fewer listed safety features
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: General Use

Which One's Right for You?

C-HR

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

CX-3

  • Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix

Full Specs, Side by Side

Archived cars use verified historical spec records. Rows remain comparable; unavailable historical values are shown plainly rather than estimated.

Spec C-HR CX-3
Model Introduced Year 2023 2015
Generation Second generation on TNGA-C platform – hybrid-only in SA Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3
Facelift History All-new second generation launched in SA in 2023 The CX-3 has received successive equipment and design updates since its 2015 debut; Carbon and Individual now sit together at the top of the South African range.
Facelift Launched Since 2023 2015
Facelift Version Ending 2024 Current
Body Style 5-door Crossover SUV SUV
Model Year 2021 2026
Production Status discontinued Active
Segment SUV Compact crossover
Tare Mass Kg 1500 kg 1270 kg
Vehicle Type 5-door Crossover SUV SUV
Spec C-HR CX-3
Length 4390 mm 4275 mm
Width 1796 mm 1765 mm
Height 1550 mm 1542 mm
Wheelbase 2640 mm 2570 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 160 mm 155 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 125 mm -
Fuel Tank Capacity 43 l 48 l
Boot/Cargo Space 377 l 230 l
Kerb Weight 1500 kg 1270 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1930 kg 1735 kg
Payload Capacity 430 kg 465 kg
Towing Capacity 1600 kg 850 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows -
Doors 1 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.4 m 5.7 m
Front Headroom 993 mm -
Rear Headroom 946 mm -
Front Legroom 1030 mm 1058 mm
Rear Legroom 881 mm 888 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This C-HR and CX-3 comparison uses the exact derivatives selected above for South Africa. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: C-HR 53 vs CX-3 47.

Efficiency index: C-HR 78 vs CX-3 61.

Safety-equipment index: C-HR 98 vs CX-3 84.

Practicality index: C-HR 57 vs CX-3 48.

Ownership-cover index: C-HR 43 vs CX-3 not separately scored.

These figures are Hagalu catalogue-comparison indicators, not customer ratings, crash-test scores, resale guarantees or a substitute for a road test. Each page shows its weighted source coverage beside the result.

Specification Evidence Index

A transparent comparison of published catalogue fields. This is not a road-test score, owner rating or editorial review rating, and it appears only when every vehicle clears the same comparable-data threshold.

Evidence / 100
Evidence-index readout

C-HR leads by 7 points

C-HR and CX-3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 67 /100
Lead 7 points
Data 91% source coverage
67
#1 Evidence leader

C-HR

91% source coverage 2 strong categories
Best at Safety 98 Check Ownership 43
Performance 53
Efficiency 78
Safety 98
Practicality 57
Ownership 43
Leads by 7 points
60
#2

CX-3

71% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 84 Check Performance 47
Performance 47
Efficiency 61
Safety 84
Practicality 48
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance C-HR +6 Efficiency C-HR +17 Safety C-HR +14 Practicality C-HR +9

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

C-HR

Performance 53/100
Efficiency 78/100
Safety 98/100
Practicality 57/100
Ownership 43/100

CX-3

Performance 47/100
Efficiency 61/100
Safety 84/100
Practicality 48/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Toyota C-HR leads the specification evidence index with 67 pts vs 60 pts for CX-3

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, C-HR leads. However, CX-3 may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

Related comparisons

Continue with closely related South Africa models and comparable body styles.

C-HR
C-HRDiscontinued
VS
Jolion Pro Limited
Jolion Pro Limited
C-HR vs Jolion Pro Limited →
C-HR
C-HRDiscontinued
VS
X55 Plus
X55 Plus
C-HR vs X55 Plus →
C-HR
C-HRDiscontinued
VS
Tiggo 7
Tiggo 7
C-HR vs Tiggo 7 →
C-HR
C-HRDiscontinued
VS
CS75 Pro
CS75 Pro
C-HR vs CS75 Pro →
C-HR
C-HRDiscontinued
VS
Jimny 5-Door
Jimny 5-Door
C-HR vs Jimny 5-Door →
C-HR
C-HRDiscontinued
VS
Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
C-HR vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Jolion Pro Limited
Jolion Pro Limited
CX-3 vs Jolion Pro Limited →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
X55 Plus
X55 Plus
CX-3 vs X55 Plus →

C-HR vs CX-3 questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the models and available derivatives in South Africa on price, safety equipment, space, powertrain and ownership cover. The category indicators summarise published catalogue data; they are not a road test or customer rating.

Compare the published consumption or mileage rows for the exact derivatives using the same unit and test basis. A catalogue figure is useful for like-for-like comparison, but traffic, speed, load, weather and driving style can change actual fuel use.

Compare only equipment explicitly listed for each derivative, including airbags, stability control and driver-assistance systems. Confirm the exact trim with the manufacturer, and treat any independent crash-test result separately because equipment and ratings can differ by market.

A reliable five-year total cannot be calculated from catalogue data alone. Add the exact purchase and finance cost, fuel or electricity, insurance quotes, scheduled servicing, tyres and expected resale value. Check whether the selected derivative includes a service or maintenance plan.

Use the seating, boot or load-space, ISOFIX and safety rows as a first check. Then test the exact cars with your child seats, passengers and typical luggage, because published dimensions do not show every access or comfort difference.

Compare the published power, torque and 0–100 km/h rows when they are available for both exact derivatives. Vehicle weight, gearing and power delivery also matter, so catalogue outputs alone do not establish real-world overtaking or response.