CS
CarSorted
HomeComparisonsFord Everest vs Mazda CX-7
Spec Battle Updated 20 April 2026 5 min read

Ford Everest vs Mazda CX-7

A detailed look at how two of Australia's most popular SUVs compare on price, running costs, safety, and everyday livability.

Specifications and pricing correct at time of publishing. Prices are RRP before on-road costs unless stated otherwise. Always confirm with the manufacturer or dealer before purchasing.

SpecFordMazda
Price (RRP)$59,490TBC
Fuel typeDieselPetrol
Power154kW120kW
0-100 km/h10.1s
Fuel Economy7.2 L/100km9.4 L/100km
Boot Space259L400L
Towing3,500kg1,000kg
Warranty5yr / Unlimited3yr / Unlimited
ANCAP Safety5 Stars5 Stars

Track the Ford Everest & Mazda CX-7

Get price-drop alerts on these models plus our free weekly new-car rundown. Unsubscribe anytime.

Price Breakdown

Pricing for one or both models is yet to be confirmed for the Australian market. We will update this comparison when official RRPs are announced.

Safety Rundown

Both the Ford Everest and Mazda CX-7 hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating.

Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. The Ford Everest packs more ADAS features with 7 out of 10 key systems fitted, compared to 0 in the Mazda CX-7.

Both include the essentials: a reversing camera.

Feature Showdown

Both come with modern infotainment systems.

The Ford Everest stands out with wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto and wireless charging that you will not find on the Mazda CX-7. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.

Drivetrain

The Ford Everest uses a Diesel Bi-Turbo producing 154kW and 500Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a 4WD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 10.1 seconds.

The Mazda CX-7 responds with a 2.5 litre in-line 4 cylinder 16 valve DOHC S-VT making 120kW and 205Nm, paired to a 5-speed automatic driving the front wheels.

The Ford Everest has the clear power advantage at 154kW vs 120kW. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.

Space & Comfort

The Ford Everest measures 4,978mm long on a 2,900mm wheelbase, 285mm longer than the Mazda CX-7 at 4,693mm (2,750mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Ford Everest generally means more rear legroom.

Boot space is 259L in the Ford Everest and 400L in the Mazda CX-7, giving the Mazda CX-7 a 141L advantage.

For towing, the Ford Everest leads with a 3,500kg braked capacity vs 1,000kg. That 2,500kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.

Turning Circle

Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.

11.4m to 11.8m

TightestMazda CX-7 ClassicTightest turn at 11.4m, easiest U-turns and carparks
Mazda CX-7 Classic
11.4mTighter
Best
Ford Everest Ambiente
11.8m
Worst
Ford Everest Ambiente
11.8m · Average

Based on 11.8m turning circle:

  • U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
  • Standard parking bay
  • Tight carparks
  • Narrow laneways
Mazda CX-7 Classic
11.4m · Average

Based on 11.4m turning circle:

  • U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
  • Standard parking bay
  • Tight carparks
  • Narrow laneways

Turning circle ratings

Under 10m, Excellent
10 to 11m, Good
11 to 12m, Average
Over 12m, Large
Compare U-turns side by side

Turning Circle · U-turn compare

kerb-to-kerb, 2 cars
Tap to add/remove
TightestMazda CX-7Tightest turn at 11.4m, needs the least road to swing around
Ford Everest11.8 m
Average△ 3-point
Mazda CX-7Tightest11.4 m
Average△ 3-point
Scrub the turn

0 of 2 clear a 7.0 m street in one sweep

Green cars complete the U-turn; amber need a 3-point turn. Drag the slider to test tighter streets.

Under 10 m · Excellent 10–11 m · Good 11–12 m · Average Over 12 m · Large

Standard widths: AU local streets ~5.5–7 m; main roads ~9–12 m.

True Cost to Own

Based on 15,000km of annual driving, fuel costs roughly $2,052/year for the Ford Everest and $2,679/year for the Mazda CX-7. That is a $627 annual difference in favour of the Ford Everest.

Estimated annual total: $2,052 (Ford Everest) vs $2,679 (Mazda CX-7). The Ford Everest saves you roughly $627 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.

Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Ford Everest) vs 3 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-7). The Ford Everest has longer coverage.

Who Should Buy Which?

Buy the Ford Everest if: You prioritise performance, want lower running costs, value a longer warranty, need stronger towing, or prefer Ford's approach to design and ownership experience.

Buy the Mazda CX-7 if: You need more boot space, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.

The Verdict

The Ford Everest takes 4 of 5 key spec categories. The Ford Everest will save you roughly $627 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the Mazda CX-7 has a clear edge. The Ford Everest adds peace of mind with a longer 5-year warranty. The best pick depends on what you value most. Explore the full specs for each model below.

Common questions

Which is cheapest, Ford Everest and Mazda CX-7?

The Ford Everest is the cheapest at $59,490 before on-road costs.

Which is the most fuel-efficient?

The Ford Everest uses the least fuel at 7.2L/100km on the combined cycle.

Which is safest?

They are evenly matched — Ford Everest and Mazda CX-7 all hold a 5-star ANCAP rating. Compare the active-safety features above to separate them.

Which has the most boot space?

The Mazda CX-7 has the largest boot at 400L.

Which can tow the most?

The Ford Everest has the highest braked towing capacity at 3,500kg.

Which has the best warranty?

The Ford Everest has the longest warranty at 5 years / Unlimited.

Which is the most powerful?

The Ford Everest makes the most power at 154kW.

Free alerts

Track the cars you're comparing

Get price-drop and spec-change alerts on the models in this comparison, plus our weekly new-car rundown of launches, deals and reviews.

  • Price-drop alerts on these models
  • Spec-change alerts
  • Weekly new-car rundown

No spam, unsubscribe anytime. By subscribing you agree to receive marketing emails.

Disclaimer: All information in this comparison was believed to be correct at the time of publishing (20 April 2026). Prices are manufacturer recommended retail prices (RRP) and may vary by state, dealer, and options. Driveaway costs include estimated on-road costs for Victoria. Fuel economy figures are WLTP/ADR combined cycle. Specifications can change without notice. Always verify with the manufacturer before making a purchase decision. CarSorted does not accept payment for recommendations.

Auto-generated from CarSorted's specification data · 20 April 2026

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation

No comments yet. Be the first!

More head-to-heads

Other matchups worth a look

Same segment, similar money. Tap any pair for the full side-by-side spec sheet.

All comparisons

Images are representative. Actual variant trim, colour and equipment may differ.

Browse all cars · All SUVs · Best mid-size SUVs