GAC Emzoom vs Mazda CX-3
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.
Track the GAC Emzoom & Mazda CX-3
Get price-drop alerts on these models plus our free weekly new-car rundown. Unsubscribe anytime.
Price Breakdown
The GAC Emzoom starts from $25,590 before on-road costs, while the Mazda CX-3 opens at $27,800. That makes the GAC Emzoom the more affordable entry point by $2,210.
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 $28,149 and $30,580 respectively.
Over 5 years, the running costs are nearly identical since both have similar efficiency.
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 GAC Emzoom features a 14.6-inch touchscreen paired with a 7-inch digital dash, while the Mazda CX-3 gets a 8-inch display. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.
The GAC Emzoom stands out with wireless charging, panoramic roof, power tailgate and ambient lighting that you will not find on the Mazda CX-3. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.
Interior trim differs: the GAC Emzoom gets synthetic leather upholstery while the Mazda CX-3 offers cloth. Climate control is 2-zone in the GAC Emzoom and 1-zone in the Mazda CX-3.
Drivetrain
The GAC Emzoom uses a Petrol Turbo producing 125kW and 270Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a FWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 7.8 seconds.
The Mazda CX-3 responds with a Petrol making 110kW and 195Nm, paired to a automatic driving the front wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 10.9 seconds.
The GAC Emzoom has the clear power advantage at 125kW vs 110kW. In the real-world sprint, the GAC Emzoom is 3.1s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.
Space & Comfort
The GAC Emzoom measures 4,410mm long on a 2,650mm wheelbase, 135mm longer than the Mazda CX-3 at 4,275mm (2,570mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the GAC Emzoom generally means more rear legroom.
Boot space is 341L in the GAC Emzoom and 264L in the Mazda CX-3, giving the GAC Emzoom a 77L advantage.
0Turning Circle
Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.
10.6m to 11.2m
Based on 11.2m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Based on 10.6m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Turning circle ratings
Compare U-turns side by side
Turning Circle · U-turn compare
kerb-to-kerb, 2 cars0 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.
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 $1,881/year for the GAC Emzoom and $1,796/year for the Mazda CX-3. That is a $85 annual difference in favour of the Mazda CX-3.
Estimated annual total: $1,881 (GAC Emzoom) vs $1,796 (Mazda CX-3). The Mazda CX-3 saves you roughly $85 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.
Warranty: 7 years / 150,000km (GAC Emzoom) vs 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-3). The GAC Emzoom has longer coverage.
Who Should Buy Which?
Buy the GAC Emzoom if: You want the lower entry price, prioritise performance, need more boot space, value a longer warranty, or prefer GAC's approach to design and ownership experience.
Buy the Mazda CX-3 if: You want lower running costs, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
The GAC Emzoom takes 5 of 7 key spec categories and comes in at a lower price. The Mazda CX-3 will save you roughly $85 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the GAC Emzoom has a clear edge. The GAC Emzoom adds peace of mind with a longer 7-year warranty. The best pick depends on what you value most. Explore the full specs for each model below.
Common questions
Which is cheapest, GAC Emzoom and Mazda CX-3?
The GAC Emzoom is the cheapest at $25,590 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Mazda CX-3 by $2,210.
Which is the most fuel-efficient?
The Mazda CX-3 uses the least fuel at 6.3L/100km on the combined cycle.
What are the ANCAP safety ratings?
None of GAC Emzoom and Mazda CX-3 carry a published ANCAP rating yet — check back as they are tested.
Which has the most boot space?
The GAC Emzoom has the largest boot at 341L.
Which can tow the most?
The Mazda CX-3 has the highest braked towing capacity at 1,535kg.
Which has the best warranty?
The GAC Emzoom has the longest warranty at 7 years / 150k km.
Which is the most powerful?
The GAC Emzoom makes the most power at 125kW. The GAC Emzoom is quickest to 100km/h in 7.8s.
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!
