Ford Mustang vs Mazda CX-90
A detailed look at how two of Australia's most popular cars 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.
Price Breakdown
The Ford Mustang starts from $72,990 before on-road costs, while the Mazda CX-90 opens at $74,385. That makes the Ford Mustang the more affordable entry point by $1,395.
Once you factor in stamp duty, registration, CTP insurance, and dealer delivery, expect to add roughly 8-12% on top of the RRP depending on your state. That puts estimated driveaway prices in the ballpark of $80,289 and $81,824 respectively.
Over 5 years, the running costs favour the Mazda CX-90 by roughly $1,710 in fuel alone.
Safety Rundown
ANCAP safety ratings have not been published for both models yet. We will update this section when crash test results are available.
Feature Showdown
The Ford Mustang features a 13.2-inch touchscreen paired with a 12.4-inch digital dash, while the Mazda CX-90 gets a 10.3-inch display. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.
The Ford Mustang stands out with heated front seats, ventilated seats, Bang & Olufsen audio and ambient lighting that you will not find on the Mazda CX-90. The Mazda CX-90 counters with power tailgate. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.
Drivetrain
The Ford Mustang uses a Petrol I4 Turbo producing 232kW and 475Nm of torque, sent through a 10-speed automatic to a RWD layout.
The Mazda CX-90 responds with a Petrol making 254kW and 500Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 7.8 seconds.
The Mazda CX-90 has the clear power advantage at 254kW vs 232kW. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.
Space & Comfort
The Ford Mustang measures 4,811mm long on a 2,719mm wheelbase, 289mm shorter than the Mazda CX-90 at 5,100mm (3,120mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-90 generally means more rear legroom.
Turning Circle
Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.
11.5m to 12.0m
Based on 11.5m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Based on 12.0m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Turning circle ratings
True Cost to Own
Based on 15,000km of annual driving, fuel costs roughly $2,679/year for the Ford Mustang and $2,337/year for the Mazda CX-90. That is a $342 annual difference in favour of the Mazda CX-90.
Estimated annual total: $2,679 (Ford Mustang) vs $2,337 (Mazda CX-90). The Mazda CX-90 saves you roughly $342 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.
Warranty: 5 years (Ford Mustang) vs 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-90). Both match on warranty length.
Who Should Buy Which?
Buy the Ford Mustang if: You want the lower entry price, or prefer Ford's approach to design and ownership experience.
Buy the Mazda CX-90 if: You prioritise performance, want lower running costs, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
The Mazda CX-90 takes 2 of 3 key spec categories. The Mazda CX-90 will save you roughly $342 a year in fuel. The best pick depends on what you value most. Explore the full specs for each model below.
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.
Published by CarSorted Editorial Team · 20 April 2026
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation
No comments yet. Be the first!
