Mazda CX-3 vs GWM H2

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.

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.

GWM H2 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
GWM H2 in South Africa

GWM H2

1.5T LT Petrol 6-Speed DCT Discontinued model
ZAR 339,900 last listed
Discontinued model Verified historical specifications remain visible for owner and used-car comparisons.
⚡ 110 kW 🔧 210 Nm ⛽ 7.5 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-3 vs GWM H2: the short answer

CX-3 and H2 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Recorded price context CX-3: current from ZAR 440,000 · H2: last listed from ZAR 299,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-3 H2
Maximum Power CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm H2110 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm H2210 Nm
Engine Size CX-31998 cc H21497 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-315.9 km/l H27.5 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-3155 mm H2175 mm

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

Evidence for GWM H2 1.5T LT

Source type: Hagalu catalogue record

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Specification evidence leader

CX-3

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

H2

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

Which One's Right for You?

CX-3

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

H2

  • 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 H2
Model Introduced Year 2015 2017
Generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3 First generation Haval H2 in SA, on sale 2017-2022. Discontinued in favour of the Jolion, which used a more modern platform and powertrain.
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. H2 received a mid-cycle update in 2019 that brought minor exterior styling changes, improved infotainment software and refinements to the DCT calibration. Updates continued through the model life to address recurring DCT issues, with the final 2022 specification being notably improved over the original 2017 launch model.
Facelift Launched Since 2015 2022
Facelift Version Ending Current Not confirmed
Body Style SUV Not confirmed
Model Year 2026 Not confirmed
Production Status Active Not confirmed
Segment Compact crossover Not confirmed
Tare Mass Kg 1270 kg Not confirmed
Vehicle Type SUV Not confirmed
Spec CX-3 H2
Length 4275 mm 4290 mm
Width 1765 mm 1800 mm
Height 1542 mm 1645 mm
Wheelbase 2570 mm 2560 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 155 mm 175 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 48 l 52 l
Boot/Cargo Space 230 l Not confirmed
Kerb Weight 1270 kg Not confirmed
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1735 kg 1800 kg
Payload Capacity 465 kg Not confirmed
Towing Capacity 850 kg Not confirmed
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 5.4 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1040 mm
Rear Legroom 888 mm 870 mm
Front Headroom - 990 mm
Rear Headroom - 960 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-3 and H2 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: CX-3 47 vs H2 45.

Efficiency index: CX-3 61 vs H2 35.

Safety-equipment index: CX-3 84 vs H2 72.

Practicality index: CX-3 48 vs H2 66.

Ownership-cover index: CX-3 not separately scored vs H2 44.

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 6 points

CX-3 and H2 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 60 /100
Lead 6 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 6 points
54
#2

H2

82% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 72 Check Efficiency 35
Performance 45
Efficiency 35
Safety 72
Practicality 66
Ownership 44
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance CX-3 +2 Efficiency CX-3 +26 Safety CX-3 +12 Practicality H2 +18

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

H2

Performance 45/100
Efficiency 35/100
Safety 72/100
Practicality 66/100
Ownership 44/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Mazda CX-3 leads the specification evidence index with 60 pts vs 54 pts for H2

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, CX-3 leads. However, H2 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 African models and comparable body styles.

CX-3
CX-3
VS
Elevate
Elevate
CX-3 vs Elevate →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Coolray
Coolray
CX-3 vs Coolray →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
C5-X
C5-X
CX-3 vs C5-X →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
ORA 5
ORA 5
CX-3 vs ORA 5 →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Grand Vitara
Grand Vitara
CX-3 vs Grand Vitara →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
UNI-S
UNI-S
CX-3 vs UNI-S →
H2
H2Discontinued
VS
Elevate
Elevate
H2 vs Elevate →
H2
H2Discontinued
VS
Coolray
Coolray
H2 vs Coolray →

CX-3 vs H2 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.