Mazda CX-30 vs Hyundai Kona

A proper head-to-head in South Africa — we cover price, performance, petrol economy, safety and what it'll actually cost you to own each one long term.

Includes a historical vehicle

Current, upcoming and historical vehicles can be compared side by side. Historical records keep their verified specifications, while price labels show last-listed context rather than current new-car availability.

Hyundai Kona Discontinued model
Mazda CX-30 in South Africa

Mazda CX-30

2.0 Individual Edition Auto FWD Petrol 6-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 651,500 ex-showroom
⚡ 121 kW 🔧 213 Nm ⛽ 15.2 km/l
VS
Hyundai Kona in South Africa

Hyundai Kona

1.0T DCT Executive Petrol 7-Speed DCT Discontinued model
ZAR 565,900 last listed
Discontinued model Verified historical specifications remain visible for owner and used-car comparisons.
⚡ 88 kW 🔧 172 Nm ⛽ 15.5 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-30 vs Hyundai Kona: the short answer

CX-30 and Kona are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Recorded price context CX-30: current from ZAR 539,800 · Kona: last listed from ZAR 459,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-30 Kona
Maximum Power CX-30121 kW @ 6000 rpm Kona88 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-30213 Nm @ 4000 rpm Kona172 Nm @ 1500 rpm
Engine Size CX-301998 cc Kona998 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-3015.2 km/l Kona15.5 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-30175 mm Kona165 mm

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

Evidence for Hyundai Kona 1.0T DCT Executive

Source type: Hagalu catalogue record

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Specification evidence leader

CX-30

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

Kona

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

Which One's Right for You?

CX-30

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment

Kona

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Full Specs, Side by Side

Archived cars use verified historical spec records. Rows remain comparable; unavailable historical values are shown plainly rather than estimated.

Spec CX-30 Kona
Model Introduced Year 2021 2018
Generation First-generation DM-series Mazda CX-30 using seventh-generation Mazda architecture Second generation Kona on Hyundai's K2 GEN platform; the design is more conservative than the first gen but better resolved
Facelift History South African editions received a focused technology and equipment update in 2024, including the 10.25-inch display and revised connectivity. Second generation launched globally in 2023 and brought to SA; softened styling compared to the sharper first gen, improved interior quality and tech
Facelift Launched Since 2021 2023
Facelift Version Ending Current Not confirmed
Body Style SUV Not confirmed
Model Year 2026 Not confirmed
Production Status Active Not confirmed
Segment Compact crossover Not confirmed
Tare Mass Kg 1340 kg 1460 kg
Vehicle Type SUV Not confirmed
Spec CX-30 Kona
Length 4395 mm 4355 mm
Width 1795 mm 1825 mm
Height 1540 mm 1570 mm
Wheelbase 2655 mm 2660 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 175 mm 165 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 51 l 50 l
Boot/Cargo Space 295 l 466 l
Kerb Weight 1340 kg 1460 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1937 kg Not confirmed
Payload Capacity 597 kg Not confirmed
Towing Capacity 1200 kg Not confirmed
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m Not confirmed
Front Legroom 1058 mm Not confirmed
Rear Legroom 921 mm Not confirmed

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-30 and Kona comparison uses the exact South African derivatives selected above. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: CX-30 49 vs Kona 40.

Efficiency index: CX-30 59 vs Kona 62.

Safety-equipment index: CX-30 96 vs Kona 87.

Practicality index: CX-30 55 vs Kona 67.

Ownership-cover index: CX-30 not separately scored vs Kona 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

CX-30 leads by 1 points

CX-30 and Kona are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 65 /100
Lead 1 points
Data 78% source coverage
65
#1 Evidence leader

CX-30

78% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 96 Check Performance 49
Performance 49
Efficiency 59
Safety 96
Practicality 55
Leads by 1 points
64
#2

Kona

89% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 87 Check Performance 40
Performance 40
Efficiency 62
Safety 87
Practicality 67
Ownership 65
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance CX-30 +9 Efficiency Kona +3 Safety CX-30 +9 Practicality Kona +12

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

CX-30

Performance 49/100
Efficiency 59/100
Safety 96/100
Practicality 55/100

Kona

Performance 40/100
Efficiency 62/100
Safety 87/100
Practicality 67/100
Ownership 65/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Mazda CX-30 leads the specification evidence index with 65 pts vs 64 pts for Kona

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, CX-30 leads. However, Kona 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 African models and comparable body styles.

CX-30
CX-30
VS
ALCAZAR
ALCAZAR
CX-30 vs ALCAZAR →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
HS
HS
CX-30 vs HS →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
XUV700
XUV700
CX-30 vs XUV700 →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Scorpio-N
Scorpio-N
CX-30 vs Scorpio-N →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Duster
Duster
CX-30 vs Duster →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Destinator
Destinator
CX-30 vs Destinator →
Kona
KonaDiscontinued
VS
ALCAZAR
ALCAZAR
Kona vs ALCAZAR →
Kona
KonaDiscontinued
VS
HS
HS
Kona vs HS →

CX-30 vs Kona questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the exact South African derivatives 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.