Mazda CX-3 vs Jetour T1 i-DM

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
Jetour T1 i-DM in South Africa

Jetour T1 i-DM

T1 i-DM Plug-in Hybrid Current
ZAR 689,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 100 kW 🔧 220 Nm ⛽ 90.9 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-3 vs Jetour T1 i-DM: the short answer

T1 i-DM has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-3 remains close.

CX-3 starts ZAR 249,900 cheaper CX-3 from ZAR 440,000 · T1 i-DM from ZAR 689,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-3 T1 i-DM
Maximum Power CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm T1 i-DM100 kW @ 5200 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm T1 i-DM220 Nm @ 2500 rpm
Engine Size CX-31998 cc T1 i-DM1499 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-315.9 km/l T1 i-DM90.9 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-3155 mm T1 i-DM190 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

T1 i-DM

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

T1 i-DM

  • 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

Spec CX-3 T1 i-DM
Model Introduced Year 2015 2026
Generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3 Current local listing
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. Not listed by current South African source page.
Facelift Launched Since 2015 2026
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 Current
Production Status Active Active
Segment Compact crossover SUV
Tare Mass Kg 1270 kg 2048 kg
Vehicle Type SUV SUV
Gross Combined Mass Kg - 3948 kg
Spec CX-3 T1 i-DM
Length 4275 mm 4705 mm
Width 1765 mm 1967 mm
Height 1542 mm 1843 mm
Wheelbase 2570 mm 2800 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 155 mm 190 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 48 l 70 l
Boot/Cargo Space 230 l 574 l
Kerb Weight 1270 kg 2048 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1735 kg 2348 kg
Payload Capacity 465 kg 300 kg
Towing Capacity 850 kg 1600 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 5.7 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1050 mm
Rear Legroom 888 mm 930 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 190 mm
Number of Rows - 2 rows
Front Headroom - 1030 mm
Rear Headroom - 1010 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-3 and T1 i-DM 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 T1 i-DM 41.

Efficiency index: CX-3 61 vs T1 i-DM 98.

Safety-equipment index: CX-3 84 vs T1 i-DM 93.

Practicality index: CX-3 48 vs T1 i-DM 66.

Ownership-cover index: CX-3 not separately scored vs T1 i-DM 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

T1 i-DM leads by 12 points

T1 i-DM has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-3 remains close.

Evidence leader 72 /100
Lead 12 points
Data 64% source coverage
72
#1 Evidence leader

T1 i-DM

64% source coverage 2 strong categories
Best at Efficiency 98 Check Performance 41
Performance 41
Efficiency 98
Safety 93
Practicality 66
Leads by 12 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 +6 Efficiency T1 i-DM +37 Safety T1 i-DM +9 Practicality T1 i-DM +18

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

T1 i-DM

Performance 41/100
Efficiency 98/100
Safety 93/100
Practicality 66/100

CX-3

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Jetour T1 i-DM leads the specification evidence index with 72 pts vs 60 pts for CX-3

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, T1 i-DM leads. However, CX-3 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
Tucson
Tucson
CX-3 vs Tucson →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
T2
T2
CX-3 vs T2 →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
CX-5
CX-5
CX-3 vs CX-5 →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Harrier
Harrier
CX-3 vs Harrier →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
H6
H6
CX-3 vs H6 →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
C7
C7
CX-3 vs C7 →
T1 i-DM
T1 i-DM
VS
Tucson
Tucson
T1 i-DM vs Tucson →
T1 i-DM
T1 i-DM
VS
T2
T2
T1 i-DM vs T2 →

CX-3 vs T1 i-DM 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.