Mazda CX-3 vs KIA K2700

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
KIA K2700 in South Africa

KIA K2700

2.7D Workhorse Tipper Diesel 5-Speed Manual Current
ZAR 404,995 ex-showroom
⚡ 56 kW 🔧 152 Nm ⛽ 10.5 km/l
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-3 vs KIA K2700: the short answer

CX-3 holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over K2700.

K2700 starts ZAR 88,005 cheaper CX-3 from ZAR 440,000 · K2700 from ZAR 351,995

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-3 K2700
Maximum Power CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm K270056 kW @ 3200 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm K2700152 Nm @ 2000 rpm
Engine Size CX-31998 cc K27002665 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-315.9 km/l K270010.5 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-3155 mm K2700195 mm

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

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

K2700

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

K2700

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec CX-3 K2700
Model Introduced Year 2015 1997
Generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3 Long-running light commercial vehicle; established in SA commercial fleet market
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. Updated in 2005, 2012; current model ongoing production with specification updates
Facelift Launched Since 2015 2012
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV Van
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Compact crossover Van
Tare Mass Kg 1270 kg 1880 kg
Vehicle Type SUV Van
Color Note - White (standard fleet specification)
Dealer Stock Note - Flagship grade in the South Africa lineup
Spec CX-3 K2700
Length 4275 mm 4870 mm
Width 1765 mm 1840 mm
Height 1542 mm 2060 mm
Wheelbase 2570 mm 2685 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 155 mm 195 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 48 l 70 l
Boot/Cargo Space 230 l 3000 l
Kerb Weight 1270 kg 1880 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1735 kg 2850 kg
Payload Capacity 465 kg 1300 kg
Towing Capacity 850 kg 1180 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 2 seats
Doors 5 doors 2 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 11.4 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1040 mm
Rear Legroom 888 mm Not Applicable
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 145 mm
Number of Rows - 1 rows
Front Headroom - 1010 mm
Rear Headroom - Not Applicable

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-3 and K2700 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 K2700 32.

Efficiency index: CX-3 61 vs K2700 43.

Safety-equipment index: CX-3 84 vs K2700 0.

Practicality index: CX-3 48 vs K2700 68.

Ownership-cover index: CX-3 not separately scored vs K2700 49.

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 23 points

CX-3 holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over K2700.

Evidence leader 60 /100
Lead 23 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 23 points
37
#2

K2700

84% source coverage 0 strong categories
Best at Practicality 68 Check Safety 0
Performance 32
Efficiency 43
Safety 0
Practicality 68
Ownership 49
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance CX-3 +15 Efficiency CX-3 +18 Safety CX-3 +84 Practicality K2700 +20

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

CX-3

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

K2700

Performance 32/100
Efficiency 43/100
Safety 0/100
Practicality 68/100
Ownership 49/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Mazda CX-3 leads the specification evidence index with 60 pts vs 37 pts for K2700

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, CX-3 leads. However, K2700 may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

CX-3 vs K2700 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.