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.
Data checked: specs 31 Aug 2026, price 6 Sep 2026
Driver assistance, as the maker lists it
Swipe across. Tap a feature to see what it does and each car's source.
StandardOptional: printed price, +pack or NCO (no-cost)No, not offeredNo dataCounts beside each car use the same colours; ? is no option data.
From each manufacturer's Australian equipment list. No data means that car's document does not say. The drawings are our own illustrations of how each kind of system works.
$59,990RRP
- no option data for this car
$56,100RRP
- with the GWM Tank 500's standard kit: $56,100 (nothing to add)
Printed option prices only. A pack is counted once and makes the figure a floor when it carries no printed price. Nothing is inferred from the other car.
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 $56,100. That makes the Mazda CX-80 the more affordable entry point by $3,890.
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 $61,710 respectively.
Over 5 years, the running costs favour the Mazda CX-80 by roughly $4,705 in fuel alone.
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.
Recalls on our record
GWM Tank 500
- REC-006516 · published 24 Dec 2025Due to a manufacturing defect, the shielding ring in the high voltage wiring harness may not be properly grounded.Year range on the notice: 2025
Mazda CX-80
- REC-006434 · published 15 Sep 2025Due to a software programming issue of the Body Control Module (BCM), the instrument cluster fuel level may not operate as intended.Year range on the notice: 2023 - 2025
A recall covers the builds its notice lists, not every car of a model. Check your VIN at vehiclerecalls.gov.au.
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 — features our data doesn't list for the Mazda CX-80. The Mazda CX-80 counters with wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto. 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 Diesel making 187kW and 550Nm, 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 187kW. In the 0-100 sprint (manufacturer-claimed), 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.
For towing, the GWM Tank 500 leads with a 3,000kg braked capacity vs 2,000kg. That 1,000kg 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 11.8m
Based on 11.2m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Based on 11.8m 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 $1,482/year for the Mazda CX-80. That is a $941 annual difference in favour of the Mazda CX-80.
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 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 want the lower entry price, need more boot space, want lower running costs, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
Mazda CX-80: Top CarSorted Score, 79 vs 75
The Mazda CX-80 comes out ahead on the CarSorted Score (79 vs 75), taking 3 of 7 key spec rows below and coming in at a lower price. The deciding gaps: fuel economy (Mazda CX-80 ahead by 30), performance (GWM Tank 500 ahead by 7), reliability (Mazda CX-80 ahead by 5). The Mazda CX-80 will save you roughly $941 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 Mazda CX-80 is the cheapest at $56,100 before on-road costs. That undercuts the GWM Tank 500 by $3,890.
Which is the most fuel-efficient?
The Mazda CX-80 uses the least fuel at 5.2L/100km on the combined cycle.
Which is safest?
They are evenly matched on crash rating: 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 with the seats up.
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.
Stay across the market
Get our weekly new-car rundown of launches, price moves, deals and reviews, straight from the data.
- Weekly new-car rundown
- Price cuts and new deals
- New launches and reviews
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!
