CS
CarSorted
Home›Comparisons›Isuzu MU-X vs Mazda CX-5
Spec Battle Updated 20 April 2026 5 min read

Isuzu MU-X vs Mazda CX-5

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 3 Sep 2026, price 14 Oct 2026

Winner
Isuzu MU-X
Isuzu

Isuzu MU-X

14 of 27 standard · no option data · 13 no data

From $43,900

Body

SUV

Fuel type

Diesel

Engine

Diesel

Power

120kW

Economy

6.4 L/100km

Safety

5★ ANCAP

Boot (seats up)

311L

82CarSorted Score / 100

Top CarSorted Score, 82 vs 75, but the Mazda CX-5 is $3,910 cheaper

Mazda CX-5
Mazda

Mazda CX-5

16 of 27 standard · no option data · 11 no data

From $39,990

Body

SUV

Fuel type

Petrol

Engine

Petrol

Power

132kW

Economy

7.4 L/100km

Safety

5★ ANCAP

Boot (seats up)

466L

75CarSorted Score / 100

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.

Car
Isuzu MU-XLS-M 2.2L 4x210?02
Mazda CX-5G25 Pure AWD8?04

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.

SpecIsuzuMazda
Price (RRP)$43,900$39,990
Equipped to matchEach car with the other's standard kit

$43,900RRP

  • no option data for this car

$39,990RRP

  • no option data for this car

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.

Fuel typeDieselPetrol
Power120kW132kW
0-100 km/h—8.7s
Fuel Economy6.4 L/100km7.4 L/100km
Boot (seats up)311L466L
Towing3,500kg1,800kg
Warranty6yr / 150k km5yr / Unlimited
ANCAP Safety5 Stars5 Stars

Track the Isuzu MU-X & Mazda CX-5

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

Price Breakdown

The Isuzu MU-X starts from $43,900 before on-road costs, while the Mazda CX-5 opens at $39,990. That makes the Mazda CX-5 the more affordable entry point by $3,910.

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 $48,290 and $43,989 respectively.

Over 5 years, the running costs favour the Isuzu MU-X by roughly $1,425 in fuel alone.

Safety Rundown

Both the Isuzu MU-X and Mazda CX-5 hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating. Adult occupant protection scored 86% for the Isuzu MU-X and 90% for the Mazda CX-5.

Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. We can confirm 6 of 10 key ADAS systems on the Isuzu MU-X, against 5 on the Mazda CX-5.

Both include the essentials: autonomous emergency braking, lane keep assist, adaptive cruise control, a reversing camera.

Recalls on our record

Isuzu MU-X

  • REC-006052 · published 8 Aug 2024Due to a software issue, the Engine Control Module (ECM) may incorrectly reduce the engine speed.Year range on the notice: 2020 - 2024
  • REC-005647 · published 30 Mar 2023Due to a manufacturing issue, the lower steering shaft attaching bolt may have a torque value lower than the required specification.Year range on the notice: 2020 - 2022
  • REC-003752 · published 1 Dec 2016The fuel tank band fixing bolts may not be tightened to the correct torque specification.Year range on the notice: the notice prints no build range
  • 2 more on the model page.

Mazda CX-5

  • REC-005009 · published 2 Dec 2021The low pressure fuel pump impeller may become deformed and cause the fuel pump to stop working.Year range on the notice: 2017 - 2019
  • REC-000898 · published 19 Mar 2020The daytime running lights (DRL) may flicker or fail to illuminate while driving.Year range on the notice: 2015 - 2016
  • REC-000894 · published 10 Oct 2019The affected vehicles may accumulate carbon deposits in the intake shutter valve, in addition to premature wear of certain engine components.Year range on the notice: 2012 - 2018
  • 2 more on the model page.

A recall covers the builds its notice lists, not every car of a model. Check your VIN at vehiclerecalls.gov.au.

Feature Showdown

The Isuzu MU-X features a 8-inch touchscreen paired with a 4.2-inch digital dash, while the Mazda CX-5 gets a 12.9-inch display and 10.3-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.

The Isuzu MU-X stands out with wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto — features our data doesn't list for the Mazda CX-5. The Mazda CX-5 counters with Apple CarPlay. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.

Drivetrain

The Isuzu MU-X uses a Diesel producing 120kW and 400Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a RWD layout.

The Mazda CX-5 responds with a Petrol making 132kW and 242Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 8.7 seconds.

The Mazda CX-5 has the clear power advantage at 132kW vs 120kW. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.

Space & Comfort

The Isuzu MU-X measures 4,860mm long on a 2,855mm wheelbase, 170mm longer than the Mazda CX-5 at 4,690mm (2,815mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Isuzu MU-X generally means more rear legroom.

Boot space is 311L in the Isuzu MU-X and 466L in the Mazda CX-5, giving the Mazda CX-5 a 155L advantage. Fold the rears and you get 2138L vs 1594L. The Isuzu MU-X seats 7 vs 5.

For towing, the Isuzu MU-X leads with a 3,500kg braked capacity vs 1,800kg. That 1,700kg 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

TightestMazda CX-5 G25 Pure AWDTightest turn at 11.2m, easiest U-turns and carparks
Mazda CX-5 G25 Pure AWD
11.2mTighter
Best
Isuzu MU-X LS-M 2.2L 4x2
11.6m
Worst
Isuzu MU-X LS-M 2.2L 4x2
11.6m · Average

Based on 11.6m turning circle:

  • U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
  • Standard parking bay
  • Tight carparks
  • Narrow laneways
Mazda CX-5 G25 Pure AWD
11.2m · Average

Based on 11.2m 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-5Tightest turn at 11.2m, needs the least road to swing around
Isuzu MU-X11.6 m
Average△ 3-point
Mazda CX-5Tightest11.2 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 $1,824/year for the Isuzu MU-X and $2,109/year for the Mazda CX-5. That is a $285 annual difference in favour of the Isuzu MU-X.

Warranty: 6 years / 150,000km (Isuzu MU-X) vs 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-5). The Isuzu MU-X has longer coverage.

Who Should Buy Which?

Buy the Isuzu MU-X if: You want lower running costs, value a longer warranty, need stronger towing, or prefer Isuzu's approach to design and ownership experience.

Buy the Mazda CX-5 if: You want the lower entry price, prioritise performance, need more boot space, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.

The Verdict

Isuzu MU-X: Top CarSorted Score, 82 vs 75, but the Mazda CX-5 is $3,910 cheaper

The Isuzu MU-X comes out ahead on the CarSorted Score (82 vs 75), taking 3 of 6 key spec rows below. The deciding gaps: practicality (Isuzu MU-X ahead by 14), fuel economy (Isuzu MU-X ahead by 9), safety (Isuzu MU-X ahead by 8). The Isuzu MU-X will save you roughly $285 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the Mazda CX-5 has a clear edge. The Isuzu MU-X adds peace of mind with a longer 6-year warranty. The best pick depends on what you value most. Explore the full specs for each model below.

Common questions

Which is cheapest, Isuzu MU-X and Mazda CX-5?

The Mazda CX-5 is the cheapest at $39,990 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Isuzu MU-X by $3,910.

Which is the most fuel-efficient?

The Isuzu MU-X uses the least fuel at 6.4L/100km on the combined cycle.

Which is safest?

They are evenly matched on crash rating: Isuzu MU-X and Mazda CX-5 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-5 has the largest boot at 466L with the seats up (1,594L with the seats folded).

Which can tow the most?

The Isuzu MU-X has the highest braked towing capacity at 3,500kg.

Which has the best warranty?

The Isuzu MU-X has the longest warranty at 6 years / 150k km.

Which is the most powerful?

The Mazda CX-5 makes the most power at 132kW.

Free newsletter

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!

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