Mazda CX-3 vs Renault Trafic Passenger

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
Renault Trafic Passenger in South Africa

Renault Trafic Passenger

Techno+ Diesel 9-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 1,049,999 ex-showroom
⚡ 125 kW 🔧 380 Nm ⛽ 13.9 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-3 vs Renault Trafic Passenger: the short answer

Trafic Passenger has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-3 remains close.

CX-3 starts ZAR 539,999 cheaper CX-3 from ZAR 440,000 · Trafic Passenger from ZAR 979,999

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-3 Trafic Passenger
Maximum Power CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm Trafic Passenger125 kW @ 3500 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm Trafic Passenger380 Nm @ 1500 rpm
Engine Size CX-31998 cc Trafic Passenger1997 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-315.9 km/l Trafic Passenger13.9 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-3155 mm Trafic Passenger199 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

Renault Trafic Passenger

Techno+

Hagalu editorial rating
4.4/5

Desk research · Exact variant

Hagalu Editorial Team ·

Editorial assessment, not a customer rating. Not road-tested for this review.

Read the review and score breakdown

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

Trafic Passenger

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

Trafic Passenger

  • 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 Trafic Passenger
Model Introduced Year 2015 2026
Generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3 Current long-wheelbase nine-seat Trafic Passenger introduced to the South African retail range in 2026 with 125 kW Blue dCi power and EAG9 automatic transmission
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. Current Trafic face and smart-cockpit specification with three South African grades: Evolution, Evolution+ and Techno+
Facelift Launched Since 2015 2026
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV MPV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Compact crossover Large MPV
Tare Mass Kg 1270 kg -
Vehicle Type SUV MPV
Spec CX-3 Trafic Passenger
Length 4275 mm 5480 mm
Width 1765 mm 1956 mm
Height 1542 mm 1973 mm
Wheelbase 2570 mm 3498 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 155 mm 199 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 48 l 80 l
Boot/Cargo Space 230 l 1890 l
Kerb Weight 1270 kg 2160 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1735 kg 3070 kg
Payload Capacity 465 kg 910 kg
Towing Capacity 850 kg 2500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 9 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 6.9 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1028 mm
Rear Legroom 888 mm 930 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 160 mm
Number of Rows - 3 rows
Front Headroom - 1019 mm
Rear Headroom - 1060 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-3 and Trafic Passenger 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 Trafic Passenger 55.

Efficiency index: CX-3 61 vs Trafic Passenger 55.

Safety-equipment index: CX-3 84 vs Trafic Passenger 90.

Practicality index: CX-3 48 vs Trafic Passenger 88.

Ownership-cover index: CX-3 not separately scored vs Trafic Passenger 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

Trafic Passenger leads by 13 points

Trafic Passenger has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-3 remains close.

Evidence leader 73 /100
Lead 13 points
Data 81% source coverage
73
#1 Evidence leader

Trafic Passenger

81% source coverage 2 strong categories
Best at Safety 90 Check Performance 55
Performance 55
Efficiency 55
Safety 90
Practicality 88
Leads by 13 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 Trafic Passenger +8 Efficiency CX-3 +6 Safety Trafic Passenger +6 Practicality Trafic Passenger +40

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Trafic Passenger

Performance 55/100
Efficiency 55/100
Safety 90/100
Practicality 88/100

CX-3

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Renault Trafic Passenger leads the specification evidence index with 73 pts vs 60 pts for CX-3

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Trafic Passenger 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
Land Cruiser FJ
Land Cruiser FJ
CX-3 vs Land Cruiser FJ →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
E5 Electric
E5 Electric
CX-3 vs E5 Electric →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
ATTO 3
ATTO 3
CX-3 vs ATTO 3 →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
H6 GT
H6 GT
CX-3 vs H6 GT →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Tank 300
Tank 300
CX-3 vs Tank 300 →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
H6 PHEV
H6 PHEV
CX-3 vs H6 PHEV →
Trafic Passenger
Trafic Passenger
VS
Land Cruiser FJ
Land Cruiser FJ
Trafic Passenger vs Land Cruiser FJ →
Trafic Passenger
Trafic Passenger
VS
E5 Electric
E5 Electric
Trafic Passenger vs E5 Electric →

CX-3 vs Trafic Passenger 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.