Mazda CX-60 vs Ford Ranger Raptor

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-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 Ranger Raptor in South Africa

Ford Ranger Raptor

Raptor 3.0T V6 10AT 4x4 Petrol 10-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 1,299,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 292 kW 🔧 583 Nm ⛽ 8.7 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-60 vs Ford Ranger Raptor: the short answer

Ranger Raptor has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-60 remains close.

CX-60 starts ZAR 508,800 cheaper CX-60 from ZAR 790,200 · Ranger Raptor from ZAR 1,299,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-60 Ranger Raptor
Maximum Power CX-60141 kW @ 6000 rpm Ranger Raptor292 kW
Maximum Torque CX-60261 Nm @ 3000 rpm Ranger Raptor583 Nm
Engine Size CX-602488 cc Ranger Raptor2993 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-6013.0 km/l Ranger Raptor8.7 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-60178.8 mm Ranger Raptor272 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-60

2.5 Individual Edition Auto AWD

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

Ford Ranger Raptor

Raptor 3.0T V6 10AT 4x4

Hagalu editorial rating
4.1/5

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-60

Strengths
  • Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: Published Efficiency
Specification evidence leader

Ranger Raptor

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

Which One's Right for You?

CX-60

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use

Ranger Raptor

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

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec CX-60 Ranger Raptor
Model Introduced Year 2023 2022
Generation First-generation KH-series Mazda CX-60 on Mazda's Large Product architecture Current-generation Ford Ranger
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. Model-year updates can affect trim, wheels, screens, safety equipment and colours. Use the latest South African price list when checking a specific vehicle.
Facelift Launched Since 2023 Original current-generation version
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV Pickup
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Premium mid-size SUV Pickup
Tare Mass Kg 1470 kg 2432 kg
Vehicle Type SUV Pickup
Body Type Cab - Pickup
Color Note - Colour availability changes by model year, production batch and dealer stock, check the current colour selector before ordering.
Dealer Stock Note - Flagship grade in the South Africa lineup
Drivetrain Note - Drive layout derived from the official derivative naming: Raptor 3.0T V6 10AT 4x4
Spec CX-60 Ranger Raptor
Length 4745 mm 5381 mm
Width 1890 mm 2028 mm
Height 1687.5 mm 1922 mm
Wheelbase 2870 mm 3270 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 178.8 mm 272 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 58 l 80 l
Boot/Cargo Space 477 l 477 l
Kerb Weight 1470 kg 2432 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2342 kg 3160 kg
Payload Capacity 872 kg 728 kg
Towing Capacity 1500 kg 2500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 4 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.85 m 6.2 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1043 mm
Rear Legroom 990 mm 896 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 185 mm
Number of Rows - 2 rows
Front Headroom - 984 mm
Rear Headroom - 940 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-60 and Ranger Raptor 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-60 59 vs Ranger Raptor 94.

Efficiency index: CX-60 51 vs Ranger Raptor 40.

Safety-equipment index: CX-60 98 vs Ranger Raptor 98.

Practicality index: CX-60 68 vs Ranger Raptor 77.

Ownership-cover index: CX-60 not separately scored vs Ranger Raptor 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

Ranger Raptor leads by 10 points

Ranger Raptor has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-60 remains close.

Evidence leader 80 /100
Lead 10 points
Data 80% source coverage
80
#1 Evidence leader

Ranger Raptor

80% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Safety 98 Check Efficiency 40
Performance 94
Efficiency 40
Safety 98
Practicality 77
Leads by 10 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 Ranger Raptor +35 Efficiency CX-60 +11 Safety Level Practicality Ranger Raptor +9

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Ranger Raptor

Performance 94/100
Efficiency 40/100
Safety 98/100
Practicality 77/100

CX-60

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Ford Ranger Raptor leads the specification evidence index with 80 pts vs 70 pts for CX-60

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger Raptor leads. However, CX-60 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-60
CX-60
VS
GLC
GLC
CX-60 vs GLC →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
Ranger Tremor
Ranger Tremor
CX-60 vs Ranger Tremor →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
ATTO 8
ATTO 8
CX-60 vs ATTO 8 →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
X3
X3
CX-60 vs X3 →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
NX
NX
CX-60 vs NX →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
Sorento
Sorento
CX-60 vs Sorento →
Ranger Raptor
Ranger Raptor
VS
GLC
GLC
Ranger Raptor vs GLC →
Ranger Raptor
Ranger Raptor
VS
Ranger Tremor
Ranger Tremor
Ranger Raptor vs Ranger Tremor →

CX-60 vs Ranger Raptor 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.