Mazda CX-3 vs GWM Tank 500

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
GWM Tank 500 in South Africa

GWM Tank 500

3.0T Hi4-T Luxury Plug-in Hybrid 9-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 1,149,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 340 kW 🔧 750 Nm ⛽ 40 km/l
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-3 vs GWM Tank 500: the short answer

Tank 500 has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over CX-3.

CX-3 starts ZAR 709,900 cheaper CX-3 from ZAR 440,000 · Tank 500 from ZAR 1,149,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-3 Tank 500
Maximum Power CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm Tank 500340 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm Tank 500750 Nm
Engine Size CX-31998 cc Tank 5002999 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-315.9 km/l Tank 50040 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-3155 mm Tank 500224 mm

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

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

CX-3

Strengths
  • Nothing stands out clearly here.
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Fewer listed safety features
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: General Use
Specification evidence leader

Tank 500

Strengths
  • More powerful engine output
  • Better fuel efficiency
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • No obvious weak spots to flag.
Best suited to: Published Performance Published Efficiency Published Practicality

Which One's Right for You?

CX-3

  • Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix

Tank 500

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • 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 Tank 500
Model Introduced Year 2015 2025
Generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3 First generation Tank 500, launched globally in 2023 and brought to South Africa in 2025. Local specification leans toward maximum equipment loading and softer suspension calibration versus the Chinese-domestic version.
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. Recently launched into the SA market in 2025; no facelift to date. Software updates expected to refine hybrid system behaviour and adaptive air suspension calibration based on early SA fleet feedback.
Facelift Launched Since 2015 2025
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active published
Segment Compact crossover SUV
Tare Mass Kg 1270 kg 2680 kg
Vehicle Type SUV SUV
Color Note - Crystal White, Hamilton Black, Pittsburgh Silver, Cosmos Grey, Atlantic Blue and Adventure Olive Green. Two-tone roof options available with selected base colours.
Dealer Stock Note - Flagship grade in the South Africa lineup
Spec CX-3 Tank 500
Length 4275 mm 5060 mm
Width 1765 mm 1996 mm
Height 1542 mm 1905 mm
Wheelbase 2570 mm 2950 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 155 mm 224 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 48 l 80 l
Boot/Cargo Space 230 l 580 l
Kerb Weight 1270 kg 2680 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1735 kg 3200 kg
Payload Capacity 465 kg -
Towing Capacity 850 kg 3000 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 13 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1050 mm
Rear Legroom 888 mm 890 mm
Front Headroom - 990 mm
Rear Headroom - 960 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-3 and Tank 500 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 Tank 500 100.

Efficiency index: CX-3 61 vs Tank 500 97.

Safety-equipment index: CX-3 84 vs Tank 500 100.

Practicality index: CX-3 48 vs Tank 500 83.

Ownership-cover index: CX-3 not separately scored vs Tank 500 65.

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

Tank 500 leads by 30 points

Tank 500 has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over CX-3.

Evidence leader 90 /100
Lead 30 points
Data 96% source coverage
90
#1 Evidence leader

Tank 500

96% source coverage 4 strong categories
Best at Performance 100 Check Ownership 65
Performance 100
Efficiency 97
Safety 100
Practicality 83
Ownership 65
Leads by 30 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 Tank 500 +53 Efficiency Tank 500 +36 Safety Tank 500 +16 Practicality Tank 500 +35

Large difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Tank 500

Performance 100/100
Efficiency 97/100
Safety 100/100
Practicality 83/100
Ownership 65/100

CX-3

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index GWM Tank 500 leads the specification evidence index with 90 pts vs 60 pts for CX-3

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Tank 500 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 Tank 500 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.