Mazda CX-60 vs Ford Everest

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-60 in South Africa

Mazda CX-60

2.5 Individual Edition Auto AWD Petrol 8-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 902,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 141 kW 🔧 261 Nm ⛽ 13.0 km/l
VS
Ford Everest in South Africa

Ford Everest

3.0TD V6 Platinum 10AT 4WD Diesel 10-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 1,340,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 184 kW 🔧 600 Nm ⛽ 11.8 km/l
Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-60 vs Ford Everest: the short answer

CX-60 and Everest are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

CX-60 starts ZAR 34,800 cheaper CX-60 from ZAR 790,200 · Everest from ZAR 825,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-60 Everest
Maximum Power CX-60141 kW @ 6000 rpm Everest184 kW @ 3250 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-60261 Nm @ 3000 rpm Everest600 Nm
Engine Size CX-602488 cc Everest2993 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-6013.0 km/l Everest11.8 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-60178.8 mm Everest226 mm

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

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

CX-60

Strengths
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: General Use
Specification evidence leader

Everest

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

Which One's Right for You?

CX-60

  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment

Everest

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

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec CX-60 Everest
Model Introduced Year 2023 2015
Generation First-generation KH-series Mazda CX-60 on Mazda's Large Product architecture Currently sold Everest belongs to the latest generation with enhanced comfort and safety systems
Facelift History Mazda introduced the CX-60 locally in 2023, added the six-cylinder Takumi in 2024 and revised suspension and drivetrain calibration for the 2025 update. Major generational update in 2022 with improved safety, technology, and design
Facelift Launched Since 2023 2022
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Premium mid-size SUV Large SUV
Tare Mass Kg 1470 kg 2450 kg
Vehicle Type SUV SUV
Color Note - White, Black, Silver, Grey, Blue
Dealer Stock Note - Flagship grade in the South Africa lineup
Drivetrain Note - Drive layout derived from the official derivative naming: 3.0TD V6 Platinum 10AT 4WD
Spec CX-60 Everest
Length 4745 mm 4914 mm
Width 1890 mm 1923 mm
Height 1687.5 mm 1842 mm
Wheelbase 2870 mm 2900 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 178.8 mm 226 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 58 l 80 l
Boot/Cargo Space 477 l 259 l
Kerb Weight 1470 kg 2450 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2342 kg 3150 kg
Payload Capacity 872 kg 680 kg
Towing Capacity 1500 kg 3500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 7 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.85 m 5.9 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1058 mm
Rear Legroom 990 mm 912 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - Not Officially Disclosed
Number of Rows - 3 rows
Front Headroom - 972 mm
Rear Headroom - 953 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-60 and Everest 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-60 59 vs Everest 91.

Efficiency index: CX-60 51 vs Everest 52.

Safety-equipment index: CX-60 98 vs Everest 81.

Practicality index: CX-60 68 vs Everest 77.

Ownership-cover index: CX-60 not separately scored vs Everest 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

Everest leads by 7 points

CX-60 and Everest are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 77 /100
Lead 7 points
Data 67% source coverage
77
#1 Evidence leader

Everest

67% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Performance 91 Check Efficiency 52
Performance 91
Efficiency 52
Safety 81
Practicality 77
Leads by 7 points
70
#2

CX-60

81% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 98 Check Efficiency 51
Performance 59
Efficiency 51
Safety 98
Practicality 68
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance Everest +32 Efficiency Everest +1 Safety CX-60 +17 Practicality Everest +9

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Everest

Performance 91/100
Efficiency 52/100
Safety 81/100
Practicality 77/100

CX-60

Performance 59/100
Efficiency 51/100
Safety 98/100
Practicality 68/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Ford Everest leads the specification evidence index with 77 pts vs 70 pts for CX-60

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Everest leads. However, CX-60 may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

CX-60 vs Everest 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.