Mazda CX-3 vs JAC T9 Double Cab

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
JAC T9 Double Cab in South Africa

JAC T9 Double Cab

T9 2.0L CTi Hunter 4x2 Diesel 8-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 629,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 144 kW 🔧 487 Nm ⛽ 12.66 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-3 vs JAC T9 Double Cab: the short answer

T9 Double Cab holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over CX-3.

CX-3 starts ZAR 109,900 cheaper CX-3 from ZAR 440,000 · T9 Double Cab from ZAR 549,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-3 T9 Double Cab
Maximum Power CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm T9 Double Cab144 kW @ 3014 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm T9 Double Cab487 Nm
Engine Size CX-31998 cc T9 Double Cab1999 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-315.9 km/l T9 Double Cab12.66 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-3155 mm T9 Double Cab210 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

JAC T9 Double Cab

T9 2.0L CTi Hunter 4x2

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)

CX-3

Strengths
  • Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Fewer listed safety features
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: Published Efficiency
Specification evidence leader

T9 Double Cab

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

Which One's Right for You?

CX-3

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use

T9 Double Cab

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • 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 T9 Double Cab
Model Introduced Year 2015 2026
Generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3 Current South African T9 Double Cab range verified on 7 September 2026
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. No later South African facelift was identified in the current official model and brochure material
Facelift Launched Since 2015 Not Applicable
Facelift Version Ending Current Not Applicable
Body Style SUV Double-cab bakkie
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Compact crossover Double-cab bakkie
Tare Mass Kg 1270 kg -
Vehicle Type SUV Double-cab pickup
Spec CX-3 T9 Double Cab
Length 4275 mm 5330 mm
Width 1765 mm 1965 mm
Height 1542 mm 1920 mm
Wheelbase 2570 mm 3110 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 155 mm 210 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 48 l 76 l
Boot/Cargo Space 230 l Not Officially Disclosed
Kerb Weight 1270 kg Not Officially Disclosed
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1735 kg 2945 kg
Payload Capacity 465 kg 1000 kg
Towing Capacity 850 kg 3500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats Not Officially Disclosed
Doors 5 doors Not Officially Disclosed
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 6.2 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm Not Officially Disclosed
Rear Legroom 888 mm Not Officially Disclosed
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - Not Officially Disclosed
Number of Rows - Not Officially Disclosed
Front Headroom - Not Officially Disclosed
Rear Headroom - Not Officially Disclosed

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-3 and T9 Double Cab 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 T9 Double Cab 74.

Efficiency index: CX-3 61 vs T9 Double Cab 54.

Safety-equipment index: CX-3 84 vs T9 Double Cab 85.

Practicality index: CX-3 48 vs T9 Double Cab 86.

Ownership-cover index: CX-3 not separately scored vs T9 Double Cab 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

T9 Double Cab leads by 16 points

T9 Double Cab holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over CX-3.

Evidence leader 76 /100
Lead 16 points
Data 59% source coverage
76
#1 Evidence leader

T9 Double Cab

59% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Practicality 86 Check Efficiency 54
Performance 74
Efficiency 54
Safety 85
Practicality 86
Leads by 16 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 T9 Double Cab +27 Efficiency CX-3 +7 Safety T9 Double Cab +1 Practicality T9 Double Cab +38

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

T9 Double Cab

Performance 74/100
Efficiency 54/100
Safety 85/100
Practicality 86/100

CX-3

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index JAC T9 Double Cab leads the specification evidence index with 76 pts vs 60 pts for CX-3

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, T9 Double Cab 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
XUV700
XUV700
CX-3 vs XUV700 →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Navara Double Cab
Navara Double Cab
CX-3 vs Navara Double Cab →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
ALCAZAR
ALCAZAR
CX-3 vs ALCAZAR →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
HS
HS
CX-3 vs HS →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Scorpio-N
Scorpio-N
CX-3 vs Scorpio-N →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Duster
Duster
CX-3 vs Duster →
T9 Double Cab
T9 Double Cab
VS
XUV700
XUV700
T9 Double Cab vs XUV700 →
T9 Double Cab
T9 Double Cab
VS
Navara Double Cab
Navara Double Cab
T9 Double Cab vs Navara Double Cab →

CX-3 vs T9 Double Cab 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.