Mazda CX-30 vs Jetour T2

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.

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
Jetour T2 in South Africa

Jetour T2

Odyssey 2.0TD+7DCT 4WD Petrol 7-Speed DCT Current
ZAR 679,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 180 kW 🔧 375 Nm ⛽ 10.8 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-30 vs Jetour T2: the short answer

T2 has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-30 remains close.

CX-30 starts ZAR 30,100 cheaper CX-30 from ZAR 539,800 · T2 from ZAR 569,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-30 T2
Maximum Power CX-30121 kW @ 6000 rpm T2180 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-30213 Nm @ 4000 rpm T2375 Nm
Engine Size CX-301998 cc T21998 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-3015.2 km/l T210.8 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-30175 mm T2220 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
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: Published Efficiency
Specification evidence leader

T2

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

Which One's Right for You?

CX-30

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment

T2

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec CX-30 T2
Model Introduced Year 2021 2026
Generation First-generation DM-series Mazda CX-30 using seventh-generation Mazda architecture Current local listing
Facelift History South African editions received a focused technology and equipment update in 2024, including the 10.25-inch display and revised connectivity. Not listed by current South African source page.
Facelift Launched Since 2021 2026
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 Current
Production Status Active Active
Segment Compact crossover SUV
Tare Mass Kg 1340 kg 1880 kg
Vehicle Type SUV SUV
Gross Combined Mass Kg - 3855 kg
Spec CX-30 T2
Length 4395 mm 4785 mm
Width 1795 mm 2006 mm
Height 1540 mm 1880 mm
Wheelbase 2655 mm 2800 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 175 mm 220 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 51 l 70 l
Boot/Cargo Space 295 l 580 l
Kerb Weight 1340 kg 1880 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1937 kg 2255 kg
Payload Capacity 597 kg 375 kg
Towing Capacity 1200 kg 1600 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 5.8 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1055 mm
Rear Legroom 921 mm 935 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 220 mm
Number of Rows - 2 rows
Front Headroom - 1040 mm
Rear Headroom - 1020 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-30 and T2 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 T2 77.

Efficiency index: CX-30 59 vs T2 43.

Safety-equipment index: CX-30 96 vs T2 93.

Practicality index: CX-30 55 vs T2 70.

Ownership-cover index: CX-30 not separately scored vs T2 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

T2 leads by 8 points

T2 has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-30 remains close.

Evidence leader 73 /100
Lead 8 points
Data 67% source coverage
73
#1 Evidence leader

T2

67% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Safety 93 Check Efficiency 43
Performance 77
Efficiency 43
Safety 93
Practicality 70
Leads by 8 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 T2 +28 Efficiency CX-30 +16 Safety CX-30 +3 Practicality T2 +15

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

T2

Performance 77/100
Efficiency 43/100
Safety 93/100
Practicality 70/100

CX-30

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Jetour T2 leads the specification evidence index with 73 pts vs 65 pts for CX-30

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, T2 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 African models and comparable body styles.

CX-30
CX-30
VS
Harrier
Harrier
CX-30 vs Harrier →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Tucson
Tucson
CX-30 vs Tucson →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
C7
C7
CX-30 vs C7 →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
CX-5
CX-5
CX-30 vs CX-5 →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Eclipse Cross
Eclipse Cross
CX-30 vs Eclipse Cross →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Territory
Territory
CX-30 vs Territory →
T2
T2
VS
Harrier
Harrier
T2 vs Harrier →
T2
T2
VS
Tucson
Tucson
T2 vs Tucson →

CX-30 vs T2 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.