Mazda CX-30 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 300

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-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
Toyota Land Cruiser 300 in South Africa

Toyota Land Cruiser 300

3.3D VX-R 4x4 Automatic Diesel 10-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 2,149,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 227 kW 🔧 700 Nm ⛽ 9.4 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-30 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 300: the short answer

Land Cruiser 300 has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-30 remains close.

CX-30 starts ZAR 1,310,100 cheaper CX-30 from ZAR 539,800 · Land Cruiser 300 from ZAR 1,849,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-30 Land Cruiser 300
Maximum Power CX-30121 kW @ 6000 rpm Land Cruiser 300227 kW
Maximum Torque CX-30213 Nm @ 4000 rpm Land Cruiser 300700 Nm
Engine Size CX-301998 cc Land Cruiser 3003346 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-3015.2 km/l Land Cruiser 3009.4 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-30175 mm Land Cruiser 300235 mm

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

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

CX-30

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

Land Cruiser 300

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-30

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use

Land Cruiser 300

  • 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-30 Land Cruiser 300
Model Introduced Year 2021 2021
Generation First-generation DM-series Mazda CX-30 using seventh-generation Mazda architecture 300-series Land Cruiser on latest LGAA platform
Facelift History South African editions received a focused technology and equipment update in 2024, including the 10.25-inch display and revised connectivity. New generation introduced in 2021 with complete redesign
Facelift Launched Since 2021 2021
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Compact crossover SUV
Tare Mass Kg 1340 kg 2430 kg
Vehicle Type SUV SUV
Color Note - White, Black, Silver, Grey, Dark Blue, Bronze
Dealer Stock Note - Flagship grade in the South Africa lineup
Drivetrain Note - Drive layout derived from the official derivative naming: 3.3D VX-R 4x4 Automatic
Spec CX-30 Land Cruiser 300
Length 4395 mm 4985 mm
Width 1795 mm 1980 mm
Height 1540 mm 1910 mm
Wheelbase 2655 mm 2850 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 175 mm 235 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 51 l 110 l
Boot/Cargo Space 295 l 309 l
Kerb Weight 1340 kg 2430 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1937 kg 3300 kg
Payload Capacity 597 kg 870 kg
Towing Capacity 1200 kg 3500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 7 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 6 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1105 mm
Rear Legroom 921 mm 900 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 125 mm
Number of Rows - 3 rows
Front Headroom - 1010 mm
Rear Headroom - 957 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-30 and Land Cruiser 300 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-30 49 vs Land Cruiser 300 95.

Efficiency index: CX-30 59 vs Land Cruiser 300 40.

Safety-equipment index: CX-30 96 vs Land Cruiser 300 99.

Practicality index: CX-30 55 vs Land Cruiser 300 82.

Ownership-cover index: CX-30 not separately scored vs Land Cruiser 300 43.

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

Land Cruiser 300 leads by 11 points

Land Cruiser 300 has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-30 remains close.

Evidence leader 76 /100
Lead 11 points
Data 92% source coverage
76
#1 Evidence leader

Land Cruiser 300

92% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Safety 99 Check Efficiency 40
Performance 95
Efficiency 40
Safety 99
Practicality 82
Ownership 43
Leads by 11 points
65
#2

CX-30

78% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 96 Check Performance 49
Performance 49
Efficiency 59
Safety 96
Practicality 55
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance Land Cruiser 300 +46 Efficiency CX-30 +19 Safety Land Cruiser 300 +3 Practicality Land Cruiser 300 +27

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Land Cruiser 300

Performance 95/100
Efficiency 40/100
Safety 99/100
Practicality 82/100
Ownership 43/100

CX-30

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Toyota Land Cruiser 300 leads the specification evidence index with 76 pts vs 65 pts for CX-30

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Land Cruiser 300 leads. However, CX-30 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-30
CX-30
VS
X4
X4
CX-30 vs X4 →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
bZ4X
bZ4X
CX-30 vs bZ4X →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
iX1
iX1
CX-30 vs iX1 →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Tank 500
Tank 500
CX-30 vs Tank 500 →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Santa Fe Hybrid
Santa Fe Hybrid
CX-30 vs Santa Fe Hybrid →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
SEALION 7
SEALION 7
CX-30 vs SEALION 7 →
Land Cruiser 300
Land Cruiser 300
VS
X4
X4
Land Cruiser 300 vs X4 →
Land Cruiser 300
Land Cruiser 300
VS
bZ4X
bZ4X
Land Cruiser 300 vs bZ4X →

CX-30 vs Land Cruiser 300 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.