Mazda CX-3 vs Isuzu D-Max X-Rider

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.

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
VS
Isuzu D-Max X-Rider in South Africa

Isuzu D-Max X-Rider

1.9 DDi Double Cab X-Rider 4x2 AT Diesel 6-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 690,810 ex-showroom
⚡ 110 kW 🔧 350 Nm ⛽ 13.5 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-3 vs Isuzu D-Max X-Rider: the short answer

CX-3 and D-Max X-Rider are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

CX-3 starts ZAR 228,990 cheaper CX-3 from ZAR 440,000 · D-Max X-Rider from ZAR 668,990

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-3 D-Max X-Rider
Maximum Power CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm D-Max X-Rider110 kW @ 3600 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm D-Max X-Rider350 Nm
Engine Size CX-31998 cc D-Max X-Rider1900 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-315.9 km/l D-Max X-Rider13.5 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-3155 mm D-Max X-Rider227 mm

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

Independent editorial assessment

Hagalu editorial ratings

When a variant is selected, its rating out of five applies only to that exact derivative; a model-range review is not inherited. Editorial ratings are separate from the Specification Evidence Index out of 100 and are not customer ratings.

Mazda CX-3

2.0 Individual Auto FWD

Hagalu editorial rating Not yet rated

No complete editorial rating is published for this exact variant. This is not a zero score.

How Hagalu rates cars

Isuzu D-Max X-Rider

1.9 DDi Double Cab X-Rider 4x2 AT

Hagalu editorial rating Not yet rated

No complete editorial rating is published for this exact variant. This is not a zero score.

How Hagalu rates cars

Not yet rated means a complete review is not published; it does not mean the vehicle scored zero. Read the rating methodology.

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Specification evidence leader

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

D-Max X-Rider

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

Which One's Right for You?

CX-3

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

D-Max X-Rider

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

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec CX-3 D-Max X-Rider
Model Introduced Year 2015 Current local generation year not confirmed
Generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3 Current South African D-Max X-Rider listing; generation notes should be kept tied to the local model year and confirmed derivative data.
Facelift History 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. Model-year updates can affect trim, wheels, screens, safety equipment and colours. Use the latest South African price list when checking a specific vehicle.
Facelift Launched Since 2015 Original current-generation version
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV Double Cab pickup
Model Year 2026 MY26
Production Status Active active
Segment Compact crossover Pickup
Tare Mass Kg 1270 kg 1845 kg
Vehicle Type SUV Pickup
Body Type Cab - Single/extended/double cab as per derivative name
Color Note - Colour availability changes by model year, production batch and dealer stock, check the current colour selector before ordering.
Dealer Stock Note - Top grade in the South Africa lineup
Drivetrain Note - Drive layout derived from the official derivative naming: 1.9 DDi Double Cab X-Rider 4x2 AT
Gross Combined Mass Kg - 5000 kg
Spec CX-3 D-Max X-Rider
Length 4275 mm 5265 mm
Width 1765 mm 1870 mm
Height 1542 mm 1805 mm
Wheelbase 2570 mm 3125 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 155 mm 227 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 48 l 76 l
Boot/Cargo Space 230 l 1000 l
Kerb Weight 1270 kg 1845 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1735 kg 3000 kg
Payload Capacity 465 kg 1095 kg
Towing Capacity 850 kg 2100 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 4 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 12.5 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1060 mm
Rear Legroom 888 mm 700 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 220 mm
Number of Rows - 1 rows
Front Headroom - 1005 mm
Rear Headroom - 900 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-3 and D-Max X-Rider 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: CX-3 47 vs D-Max X-Rider 61.

Efficiency index: CX-3 61 vs D-Max X-Rider 53.

Safety-equipment index: CX-3 84 vs D-Max X-Rider 40.

Practicality index: CX-3 48 vs D-Max X-Rider 85.

Ownership-cover index: CX-3 not separately scored vs D-Max X-Rider 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

CX-3 leads by 0 points

CX-3 and D-Max X-Rider are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 60 /100
Lead 0 points
Data 71% source coverage
60
#1 Evidence leader

CX-3

71% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 84 Check Performance 47
Performance 47
Efficiency 61
Safety 84
Practicality 48
Leads by 0 points
60
#2

D-Max X-Rider

74% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Practicality 85 Check Safety 40
Performance 61
Efficiency 53
Safety 40
Practicality 85
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance D-Max X-Rider +14 Efficiency CX-3 +8 Safety CX-3 +44 Practicality D-Max X-Rider +37

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

CX-3

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

D-Max X-Rider

Performance 61/100
Efficiency 53/100
Safety 40/100
Practicality 85/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Mazda CX-3 leads the specification evidence index with 60 pts vs 60 pts for D-Max X-Rider

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, CX-3 leads. However, D-Max X-Rider 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.

CX-3
CX-3
VS
Harrier
Harrier
CX-3 vs Harrier →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
T9 Double Cab
T9 Double Cab
CX-3 vs T9 Double Cab →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Tucson
Tucson
CX-3 vs Tucson →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
C7
C7
CX-3 vs C7 →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
CX-30
CX-30
CX-3 vs CX-30 →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
T2
T2
CX-3 vs T2 →
D-Max X-Rider
D-Max X-Rider
VS
Harrier
Harrier
D-Max X-Rider vs Harrier →
D-Max X-Rider
D-Max X-Rider
VS
T9 Double Cab
T9 Double Cab
D-Max X-Rider vs T9 Double Cab →

CX-3 vs D-Max X-Rider 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.