GWM Tank 500 vs Mazda CX-80
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 GWM Tank 500 & Mazda CX-80
Get price-drop alerts on these models plus our free weekly new-car rundown. Unsubscribe anytime.
Price Breakdown
The GWM Tank 500 starts from $59,990 before on-road costs, while the Mazda CX-80 opens at $64,490. That makes the GWM Tank 500 the more affordable entry point by $4,500.
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 $65,989 and $70,939 respectively.
Over 5 years, the running costs are nearly identical since both have similar efficiency.
Safety Rundown
Both the GWM Tank 500 and Mazda CX-80 hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating. Adult occupant protection scored 85% for the GWM Tank 500 and 92% for the Mazda CX-80.
Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. We can confirm 6 of 10 key ADAS systems on the Mazda CX-80, against 5 on the GWM Tank 500.
Both include the essentials: autonomous emergency braking, lane keep assist, adaptive cruise control, a reversing camera. Airbag count is 7 in the GWM Tank 500 and 6 in the Mazda CX-80.
Feature Showdown
The GWM Tank 500 features a 14.6-inch touchscreen paired with a 12.3-inch digital dash, while the Mazda CX-80 gets a 10.3-inch display and 7-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.
The GWM Tank 500 stands out with Apple CarPlay that you will not find on the Mazda CX-80. The Mazda CX-80 counters with wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto and power tailgate. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.
Interior trim differs: the GWM Tank 500 gets synthetic leather upholstery while the Mazda CX-80 offers cloth.
Drivetrain
The GWM Tank 500 uses a Hybrid producing 255kW and 648Nm of torque, sent through a 9-speed auto to a 4WD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 8.5 seconds.
The Mazda CX-80 responds with a Petrol making 209kW and 450Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 9 seconds.
The GWM Tank 500 has the clear power advantage at 255kW vs 209kW. In the real-world sprint, the GWM Tank 500 is 0.5s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.
Space & Comfort
The GWM Tank 500 measures 5,078mm long on a 2,850mm wheelbase, 88mm longer than the Mazda CX-80 at 4,990mm (3,120mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-80 generally means more rear legroom.
Boot space is 98L in the GWM Tank 500 and 258L in the Mazda CX-80, giving the Mazda CX-80 a 160L advantage. Fold the rears and you get 795L vs 1971L.
For towing, the GWM Tank 500 leads with a 3,000kg braked capacity vs 2,500kg. That 500kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.
Turning Circle
Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.
11.2m to 11.6m
Based on 11.2m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Based on 11.6m 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 $2,423/year for the GWM Tank 500 and $2,394/year for the Mazda CX-80. That is a $29 annual difference in favour of the Mazda CX-80.
Estimated annual total: $2,423 (GWM Tank 500) vs $2,394 (Mazda CX-80). The Mazda CX-80 saves you roughly $29 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.
Warranty: 7 years / 999,999km (GWM Tank 500) vs 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-80). The GWM Tank 500 has longer coverage.
Who Should Buy Which?
Buy the GWM Tank 500 if: You want the lower entry price, prioritise performance, value a longer warranty, need stronger towing, or prefer GWM's approach to design and ownership experience.
Buy the Mazda CX-80 if: You need more boot space, want lower running costs, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
The GWM Tank 500 takes 5 of 7 key spec categories and comes in at a lower price. The Mazda CX-80 will save you roughly $29 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the Mazda CX-80 has a clear edge. The GWM Tank 500 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, GWM Tank 500 and Mazda CX-80?
The GWM Tank 500 is the cheapest at $59,990 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Mazda CX-80 by $4,500.
Which is the most fuel-efficient?
The Mazda CX-80 uses the least fuel at 8.4L/100km on the combined cycle.
Which is safest?
They are evenly matched — GWM Tank 500 and Mazda CX-80 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-80 has the largest boot at 258L.
Which can tow the most?
The GWM Tank 500 has the highest braked towing capacity at 3,000kg.
Which has the best warranty?
The GWM Tank 500 has the longest warranty at 7 years / Unlimited.
Which is the most powerful?
The GWM Tank 500 makes the most power at 255kW. The GWM Tank 500 is quickest to 100km/h in 8.5s.
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!
