Mazda CX-5 vs Foton Tunland V9 Double Cab

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-5 in South Africa

Mazda CX-5

2.0 Carbon Edition Auto FWD Petrol 6-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 688,400 ex-showroom
⚡ 121 kW 🔧 213 Nm ⛽ 14.5 km/l
VS
Foton Tunland V9 Double Cab in South Africa

Foton Tunland V9 Double Cab

LTD 4x4 Diesel Mild Hybrid 8-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 799,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 120 kW 🔧 450 Nm ⛽ 11.11 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-5 vs Foton Tunland V9 Double Cab: the short answer

Tunland V9 Double Cab has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-5 remains close.

CX-5 starts ZAR 155,400 cheaper CX-5 from ZAR 570,500 · Tunland V9 Double Cab from ZAR 725,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-5 Tunland V9 Double Cab
Maximum Power CX-5121 kW @ 6000 rpm Tunland V9 Double Cab120 kW @ 3600 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-5213 Nm @ 4000 rpm Tunland V9 Double Cab450 Nm
Engine Size CX-51998 cc Tunland V9 Double Cab2000 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-514.5 km/l Tunland V9 Double Cab11.11 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-5200 mm Tunland V9 Double Cab240 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-5

2.0 Carbon Edition 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

Foton Tunland V9 Double Cab

LTD 4x4

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-5

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

Tunland V9 Double Cab

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-5

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use

Tunland V9 Double Cab

  • 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-5 Tunland V9 Double Cab
Model Introduced Year 2017 2025
Generation Second-generation KF-series Mazda CX-5, current outgoing South African range The current V9 shares the newer 5,617 mm body footprint and uses a rear multi-link coil-spring arrangement.
Facelift History The second generation arrived in 2017 and received a substantial update from 2021. An all-new replacement is scheduled to reach South Africa on 1 August 2026, while this current range remains on sale. Current South African Tunland V9 range, with no separate facelift identified.
Facelift Launched Since 2017 Not Applicable
Facelift Version Ending Current Not Applicable
Body Style SUV Double-cab pickup
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Mid-size family SUV Full-size double-cab bakkie
Tare Mass Kg 1575 kg -
Vehicle Type SUV Light commercial vehicle
Spec CX-5 Tunland V9 Double Cab
Length 4575 mm 5617 mm
Width 1845 mm 2000 mm
Height 1680 mm 1910 mm
Wheelbase 2700 mm 3355 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 200 mm 240 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 56 l 76 l
Boot/Cargo Space 438 l Not Officially Disclosed
Kerb Weight 1575 kg 2305 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2065 kg 3055 kg
Payload Capacity 490 kg Not Officially Disclosed
Towing Capacity 1000 kg 3500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 4 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.95 m Not Officially Disclosed
Front Legroom 1041 mm Not Officially Disclosed
Rear Legroom 1007 mm Not Officially Disclosed
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - Not Officially Disclosed
Number of Rows - 2 rows
Front Headroom - Not Officially Disclosed
Rear Headroom - Not Officially Disclosed

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-5 and Tunland V9 Double Cab 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-5 48 vs Tunland V9 Double Cab 71.

Efficiency index: CX-5 56 vs Tunland V9 Double Cab 53.

Safety-equipment index: CX-5 88 vs Tunland V9 Double Cab 90.

Practicality index: CX-5 61 vs Tunland V9 Double Cab 84.

Ownership-cover index: CX-5 not separately scored vs Tunland V9 Double Cab 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

Tunland V9 Double Cab leads by 13 points

Tunland V9 Double Cab has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-5 remains close.

Evidence leader 76 /100
Lead 13 points
Data 66% source coverage
76
#1 Evidence leader

Tunland V9 Double Cab

66% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Safety 90 Check Efficiency 53
Performance 71
Efficiency 53
Safety 90
Practicality 84
Leads by 13 points
63
#2

CX-5

78% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 88 Check Performance 48
Performance 48
Efficiency 56
Safety 88
Practicality 61
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance Tunland V9 Double Cab +23 Efficiency CX-5 +3 Safety Tunland V9 Double Cab +2 Practicality Tunland V9 Double Cab +23

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Tunland V9 Double Cab

Performance 71/100
Efficiency 53/100
Safety 90/100
Practicality 84/100

CX-5

Performance 48/100
Efficiency 56/100
Safety 88/100
Practicality 61/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Foton Tunland V9 Double Cab leads the specification evidence index with 76 pts vs 63 pts for CX-5

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Tunland V9 Double Cab leads. However, CX-5 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-5
CX-5
VS
T-Roc
T-Roc
CX-5 vs T-Roc →
CX-5
CX-5
VS
H7
H7
CX-5 vs H7 →
CX-5
CX-5
VS
Ranger XLT
Ranger XLT
CX-5 vs Ranger XLT →
CX-5
CX-5
VS
Triton Double Cab
Triton Double Cab
CX-5 vs Triton Double Cab →
CX-5
CX-5
VS
03T
03T
CX-5 vs 03T →
CX-5
CX-5
VS
SEALION 6 DM-i
SEALION 6 DM-i
CX-5 vs SEALION 6 DM-i →
Tunland V9 Double Cab
Tunland V9 Double Cab
VS
T-Roc
T-Roc
Tunland V9 Double Cab vs T-Roc →
Tunland V9 Double Cab
Tunland V9 Double Cab
VS
H7
H7
Tunland V9 Double Cab vs H7 →

CX-5 vs Tunland V9 Double Cab 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.