Changan CS75 Pro vs Mazda CX-3

A proper head-to-head in South Africa — we cover price, performance, petrol economy, safety and what it'll actually cost you to own each one long term.

Changan CS75 Pro in South Africa

Changan CS75 Pro

1.5T AT 5S CE Petrol 7-Speed DCT Current
ZAR 474,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 138 kW 🔧 300 Nm ⛽ 13.33 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

Changan CS75 Pro vs Mazda CX-3: the short answer

CS75 Pro and CX-3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

CS75 Pro starts ZAR 10,100 cheaper CS75 Pro from ZAR 429,900 · CX-3 from ZAR 440,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CS75 Pro CX-3
Maximum Power CS75 Pro138 kW CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm
Maximum Torque CS75 Pro300 Nm CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm
Engine Size CS75 Pro1494 cc CX-31998 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CS75 Pro13.33 km/l CX-315.9 km/l
Ground Clearance CS75 ProNot Officially Disclosed 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

CS75 Pro

Strengths
  • More powerful engine output
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to: Published Performance Published Practicality

CX-3

Strengths
  • Better fuel efficiency
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: Published Efficiency

Which One's Right for You?

CS75 Pro

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

CX-3

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec CS75 Pro CX-3
Model Introduced Year 2025 2015
Generation Current South African CS75 Pro generation with two equipment grades and two seating configurations. Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3
Facelift History No South African facelift has been announced since the present CS75 Pro range entered local sale. 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 Not Applicable 2015
Facelift Version Ending Not Applicable Current
Body Style SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status active Active
Segment Mid-size SUV Compact crossover
Vehicle Type Passenger car SUV
Tare Mass Kg - 1270 kg
Spec CS75 Pro CX-3
Length 4730 mm 4275 mm
Width 1870 mm 1765 mm
Height 1720 mm 1542 mm
Wheelbase 2786 mm 2570 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) Not Officially Disclosed 155 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) Not Officially Disclosed -
Fuel Tank Capacity 55 l 48 l
Boot/Cargo Space 620 l 230 l
Kerb Weight 1550 kg 1270 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1925 kg 1735 kg
Payload Capacity Not Officially Disclosed 465 kg
Towing Capacity Not Officially Disclosed 850 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows -
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius Not Officially Disclosed 5.7 m
Front Headroom Not Officially Disclosed -
Rear Headroom Not Officially Disclosed -
Front Legroom Not Officially Disclosed 1058 mm
Rear Legroom Not Officially Disclosed 888 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CS75 Pro and CX-3 comparison uses the exact South African derivatives selected above. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: CS75 Pro 59 vs CX-3 47.

Efficiency index: CS75 Pro 52 vs CX-3 61.

Safety-equipment index: CS75 Pro 76 vs CX-3 84.

Practicality index: CS75 Pro 79 vs CX-3 48.

Ownership-cover index: CS75 Pro not separately scored 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

CS75 Pro leads by 7 points

CS75 Pro and CX-3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 67 /100
Lead 7 points
Data 65% source coverage
67
#1 Evidence leader

CS75 Pro

65% source coverage 2 strong categories
Best at Practicality 79 Check Efficiency 52
Performance 59
Efficiency 52
Safety 76
Practicality 79
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 CS75 Pro +12 Efficiency CX-3 +9 Safety CX-3 +8 Practicality CS75 Pro +31

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

CS75 Pro

Performance 59/100
Efficiency 52/100
Safety 76/100
Practicality 79/100

CX-3

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Changan CS75 Pro leads the specification evidence index with 67 pts vs 60 pts for CX-3

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, CS75 Pro leads. However, CX-3 may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

CS75 Pro vs CX-3 questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the exact South African derivatives 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.