Mazda CX-60 vs GWM Jolion GT

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.

GWM Jolion GT Discontinued model
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
GWM Jolion GT in South Africa

GWM Jolion GT

2.0T Hybrid LT Hybrid Discontinued model
ZAR 629,900 last listed
Discontinued model Verified historical specifications remain visible for owner and used-car comparisons.
⚡ 150 kW 🔧 380 Nm ⛽ 6.5 km/l
Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-60 vs GWM Jolion GT: the short answer

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

Recorded price context CX-60: current from ZAR 790,200 · Jolion GT: last listed from ZAR 579,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-60 Jolion GT
Maximum Power CX-60141 kW @ 6000 rpm Jolion GT150 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-60261 Nm @ 3000 rpm Jolion GT380 Nm
Engine Size CX-602488 cc Jolion GT1999 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-6013.0 km/l Jolion GT6.5 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-60178.8 mm Jolion GT185 mm

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

Evidence for GWM Jolion GT 2.0T Hybrid LT

Source type: Hagalu catalogue record

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Specification evidence leader

CX-60

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

Jolion GT

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

Which One's Right for You?

CX-60

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Jolion GT

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain 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-60 Jolion GT
Model Introduced Year 2023 2024
Generation First-generation KH-series Mazda CX-60 on Mazda's Large Product architecture First generation, sharing platform fundamentals with the regular Jolion but with bodywork, suspension calibration, powertrain and cabin treatment differentiated to position as a halo product within the Haval lineup.
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. First-generation Jolion GT launched in South Africa in 2024. No significant facelift to date; software updates have improved driver-assistance calibration and refined hybrid system behaviour during cold starts on the Highveld.
Facelift Launched Since 2023 2024
Facelift Version Ending Current Not confirmed
Body Style SUV Not confirmed
Model Year 2026 Not confirmed
Production Status Active Not confirmed
Segment Premium mid-size SUV Not confirmed
Tare Mass Kg 1470 kg 1600 kg
Vehicle Type SUV Not confirmed
Spec CX-60 Jolion GT
Length 4745 mm 4500 mm
Width 1890 mm 1855 mm
Height 1687.5 mm 1615 mm
Wheelbase 2870 mm 2700 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 178.8 mm 185 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 58 l 55 l
Boot/Cargo Space 477 l 298 l
Kerb Weight 1470 kg 1600 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2342 kg 2200 kg
Payload Capacity 872 kg Not confirmed
Towing Capacity 1500 kg 1500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.85 m 11.6 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1050 mm
Rear Legroom 990 mm 890 mm
Front Headroom - 960 mm
Rear Headroom - 960 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-60 and Jolion GT 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 Jolion GT 68.

Efficiency index: CX-60 51 vs Jolion GT 39.

Safety-equipment index: CX-60 98 vs Jolion GT 93.

Practicality index: CX-60 68 vs Jolion GT 57.

Ownership-cover index: CX-60 not separately scored vs Jolion GT 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-60 leads by 4 points

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

Evidence leader 70 /100
Lead 4 points
Data 81% source coverage
70
#1 Evidence leader

CX-60

81% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 98 Check Efficiency 51
Performance 59
Efficiency 51
Safety 98
Practicality 68
Leads by 4 points
66
#2

Jolion GT

96% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 93 Check Efficiency 39
Performance 68
Efficiency 39
Safety 93
Practicality 57
Ownership 65
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance Jolion GT +9 Efficiency CX-60 +12 Safety CX-60 +5 Practicality CX-60 +11

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

CX-60

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

Jolion GT

Performance 68/100
Efficiency 39/100
Safety 93/100
Practicality 57/100
Ownership 65/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Mazda CX-60 leads the specification evidence index with 70 pts vs 66 pts for Jolion GT

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

CX-60 vs Jolion GT 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.