Mazda CX-3 vs Ford EcoSport

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.

Ford EcoSport Discontinued model
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
Ford EcoSport in South Africa

Ford EcoSport

1.0 EcoBoost Titanium Automatic Petrol 6-Speed Automatic Discontinued model
ZAR 395,000 last listed
Discontinued model Verified historical specifications remain visible for owner and used-car comparisons.
⚡ 92 kW 🔧 170 Nm ⛽ 17.2 km/l
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-3 vs Ford EcoSport: the short answer

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

Recorded price context CX-3: current from ZAR 440,000 · EcoSport: last listed from ZAR 310,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-3 EcoSport
Maximum Power CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm EcoSport92 kW
Maximum Torque CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm EcoSport170 Nm
Engine Size CX-31998 cc EcoSport998 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-315.9 km/l EcoSport17.2 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-3155 mm EcoSport200 mm

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

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

CX-3

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

EcoSport

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

Which One's Right for You?

CX-3

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures

EcoSport

  • 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

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 CX-3 EcoSport
Model Introduced Year 2015 2013
Generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3 Single generation on Ford B2E platform. Produced in India for global markets. SA received the facelift model with improved interior quality and revised safety kit.
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. Facelift in 2017 — revised front fascia and SYNC 3 infotainment introduced
Facelift Launched Since 2015 2017
Facelift Version Ending Current 2024
Body Style SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 2021
Production Status Active discontinued
Segment Compact crossover SUV
Tare Mass Kg 1270 kg 1290 kg
Vehicle Type SUV SUV
Spec CX-3 EcoSport
Length 4275 mm 4325 mm
Width 1765 mm 1765 mm
Height 1542 mm 1653 mm
Wheelbase 2570 mm 2519 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 155 mm 200 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 48 l 52 l
Boot/Cargo Space 230 l 352 l
Kerb Weight 1270 kg 1290 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1735 kg 1740 kg
Payload Capacity 465 kg 450 kg
Towing Capacity 850 kg 950 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 5.6 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1032 mm
Rear Legroom 888 mm 890 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 125 mm
Number of Rows - 2 rows
Front Headroom - 1000 mm
Rear Headroom - 953 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-3 and EcoSport 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 EcoSport 40.

Efficiency index: CX-3 61 vs EcoSport 65.

Safety-equipment index: CX-3 84 vs EcoSport 92.

Practicality index: CX-3 48 vs EcoSport 56.

Ownership-cover index: CX-3 not separately scored vs EcoSport 55.

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

EcoSport leads by 1 points

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

Evidence leader 61 /100
Lead 1 points
Data 92% source coverage
61
#1 Evidence leader

EcoSport

92% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 92 Check Performance 40
Performance 40
Efficiency 65
Safety 92
Practicality 56
Ownership 55
Leads by 1 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 CX-3 +7 Efficiency EcoSport +4 Safety EcoSport +8 Practicality EcoSport +8

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

EcoSport

Performance 40/100
Efficiency 65/100
Safety 92/100
Practicality 56/100
Ownership 55/100

CX-3

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Ford EcoSport leads the specification evidence index with 61 pts vs 60 pts for CX-3

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

CX-3 vs EcoSport 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.