Mazda CX-60 vs Ford Ranger Wildtrak

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 Wildtrak in South Africa

Ford Ranger Wildtrak

3.0TD V6 Double Cab Wildtrak 10AT 4x4 Diesel 10-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 1,070,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 184 kW 🔧 600 Nm ⛽ 11.9 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

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

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

CX-60 starts ZAR 74,800 cheaper CX-60 from ZAR 790,200 · Ranger Wildtrak from ZAR 865,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-60 Ranger Wildtrak
Maximum Power CX-60141 kW @ 6000 rpm Ranger Wildtrak184 kW @ 5900 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-60261 Nm @ 3000 rpm Ranger Wildtrak600 Nm
Engine Size CX-602488 cc Ranger Wildtrak2993 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-6013.0 km/l Ranger Wildtrak11.9 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-60178.8 mm Ranger Wildtrak237 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 Wildtrak

3.0TD V6 Double Cab Wildtrak 10AT 4x4

Hagalu editorial rating
4.2/5

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
  • 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

Ranger Wildtrak

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

Ranger Wildtrak

  • 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 Ranger Wildtrak
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 2386 kg
Vehicle Type SUV Pickup
Body Type Cab - Single/extended/double cab as per derivative name
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: 3.0TD V6 Double Cab Wildtrak 10AT 4x4
Spec CX-60 Ranger Wildtrak
Length 4745 mm 5350 mm
Width 1890 mm 1918 mm
Height 1687.5 mm 1886 mm
Wheelbase 2870 mm 3270 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 178.8 mm 237 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 58 l 80 l
Boot/Cargo Space 477 l 487 l
Kerb Weight 1470 kg 2386 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2342 kg 3350 kg
Payload Capacity 872 kg 964 kg
Towing Capacity 1500 kg 3500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 4 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.85 m 12.9 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1057 mm
Rear Legroom 990 mm 879 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 185 mm
Number of Rows - 2 rows
Front Headroom - 1024 mm
Rear Headroom - 989 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-60 and Ranger Wildtrak 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 Wildtrak 89.

Efficiency index: CX-60 51 vs Ranger Wildtrak 52.

Safety-equipment index: CX-60 98 vs Ranger Wildtrak 93.

Practicality index: CX-60 68 vs Ranger Wildtrak 84.

Ownership-cover index: CX-60 not separately scored vs Ranger Wildtrak 76.

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 Wildtrak leads by 11 points

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

Evidence leader 81 /100
Lead 11 points
Data 77% source coverage
81
#1 Evidence leader

Ranger Wildtrak

77% source coverage 4 strong categories
Best at Safety 93 Check Efficiency 52
Performance 89
Efficiency 52
Safety 93
Practicality 84
Ownership 76
Leads by 11 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 Wildtrak +30 Efficiency Ranger Wildtrak +1 Safety CX-60 +5 Practicality Ranger Wildtrak +16

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Ranger Wildtrak

Performance 89/100
Efficiency 52/100
Safety 93/100
Practicality 84/100
Ownership 76/100

CX-60

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Ford Ranger Wildtrak leads the specification evidence index with 81 pts vs 70 pts for CX-60

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger Wildtrak 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
Everest
Everest
CX-60 vs Everest →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
Tiggo 9 PHEV
Tiggo 9 PHEV
CX-60 vs Tiggo 9 PHEV →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
X1
X1
CX-60 vs X1 →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
Land Cruiser 79 Double Cab
Land Cruiser 79 Double Cab
CX-60 vs Land Cruiser 79 Double Cab →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
Hunter K50 REEV
Hunter K50 REEV
CX-60 vs Hunter K50 REEV →
CX-60
CX-60
VS
H6 GT PHEV
H6 GT PHEV
CX-60 vs H6 GT PHEV →
Ranger Wildtrak
Ranger Wildtrak
VS
Everest
Everest
Ranger Wildtrak vs Everest →
Ranger Wildtrak
Ranger Wildtrak
VS
Tiggo 9 PHEV
Tiggo 9 PHEV
Ranger Wildtrak vs Tiggo 9 PHEV →

CX-60 vs Ranger Wildtrak 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.