Mazda CX-3 vs Suzuki Fronx
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 12 Sep 2026, price 14 Oct 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.
$27,800RRP
- no option data for this car
$27,250est. RRP
- 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.
Track the Mazda CX-3 & Suzuki Fronx
Get price-drop alerts on these models plus our free weekly new-car rundown. Unsubscribe anytime.
Price Breakdown
The Mazda CX-3 starts from $27,800 before on-road costs, while the Suzuki Fronx opens at $27,250 (our estimated RRP; the brand lists drive-away prices only). Both land at the same RRP, so on-road costs and dealer deals become the real differentiator.
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 $30,580 and $29,975 respectively.
Over 5 years, the running costs favour the Suzuki Fronx by roughly $1,995 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.
Recalls on our record
Mazda CX-3
- REC-005733 · published 1 Aug 2023Due to a manufacturing defect, the rear-view camera wiring harness may become damaged and could cause the rear-view image to become distorted or flicker.Year range on the notice: 2013 - 2020
- 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-000882 · published 15 May 2018If the engine is operated at high revs in an unloaded condition (either Park or Neutral) residual oil that may accumulate in the engine intake system may be drawn into the engine and result in an engine over run condition.Year range on the notice: 2015 - 2017
- 3 more on the model page.
Suzuki Fronx
- REC-006521 · published 23 Dec 2025Due to a manufacturing defect, the left rear seat belt retractor mechanism may not operate as intended.Year range on the notice: 2025
- REC-006520 · published 23 Dec 2025Due to a manufacturing defect, the left rear seat belt retractor mechanism may not operate as intended.Year range on the notice: 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 Mazda CX-3 features a 8-inch touchscreen, while the Suzuki Fronx gets a 9-inch display. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.
The Mazda CX-3 stands out with head-up display — features our data doesn't list for the Suzuki Fronx. The Suzuki Fronx counters with power tailgate. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.
Interior trim differs: the Mazda CX-3 gets black cloth upholstery while the Suzuki Fronx offers synthetic leather.
Drivetrain
The Mazda CX-3 uses a 2.0 litre in-line 4 cylinder 16 valve DOHC S-VT petrol (Skyactiv-G) with i-stop producing 110kW and 195Nm of torque, sent through a 6-speed automatic (skyactiv-drive) to a FWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 10.9 seconds.
The Suzuki Fronx responds with a Petrol making 75.8kW and 137Nm, paired to a automatic driving the front wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 11.5 seconds.
The Mazda CX-3 has the clear power advantage at 110kW vs 75.8kW. In the 0-100 sprint (manufacturer-claimed), the Mazda CX-3 is 0.6s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.
Space & Comfort
The Mazda CX-3 measures 4,275mm long on a 2,570mm wheelbase, 280mm longer than the Suzuki Fronx at 3,995mm (2,520mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-3 generally means more rear legroom.
Boot space is 264L in the Mazda CX-3 and 304L in the Suzuki Fronx, giving the Suzuki Fronx a 40L advantage. Fold the rears and you get 1174L vs 605L.
0Turning Circle
Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.
10.4m to 10.6m
Based on 10.6m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Based on 10.4m 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 $1,796/year for the Mazda CX-3 and $1,397/year for the Suzuki Fronx. That is a $399 annual difference in favour of the Suzuki Fronx.
Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-3) vs 3 years / 100,000km (Suzuki Fronx). The Mazda CX-3 has longer coverage.
Who Should Buy Which?
Buy the Mazda CX-3 if: You prioritise performance, value a longer warranty, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.
Buy the Suzuki Fronx if: You need more boot space, want lower running costs, or prefer Suzuki's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
Mazda CX-3: Top CarSorted Score, 70 vs 67, but the Suzuki Fronx is $550 cheaper
The Mazda CX-3 comes out ahead on the CarSorted Score (70 vs 67), taking 4 of 6 key spec rows below. The deciding gaps: fuel economy (Suzuki Fronx ahead by 13), reliability (Mazda CX-3 ahead by 12), performance (Mazda CX-3 ahead by 9). The Suzuki Fronx will save you roughly $399 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the Suzuki Fronx has a clear edge. The Mazda CX-3 adds peace of mind with a longer 5-year warranty. The best pick depends on what you value most. Explore the full specs for each model below.
Common questions
Which is cheapest, Mazda CX-3 and Suzuki Fronx?
The Suzuki Fronx is the cheapest at $27,250 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Mazda CX-3 by $550.
Which is the most fuel-efficient?
The Suzuki Fronx uses the least fuel at 4.9L/100km on the combined cycle.
What are the ANCAP safety ratings?
Suzuki Fronx holds a 1-star ANCAP rating. We have no published ANCAP rating for Mazda CX-3, so there is nothing to compare on crash performance. Compare the active-safety features above instead.
Which has the most boot space?
The Suzuki Fronx has the largest boot at 304L with the seats up (605L with the seats folded).
Which can tow the most?
The Mazda CX-3 has the highest braked towing capacity at 1,200kg.
Which has the best warranty?
The Mazda CX-3 has the longest warranty at 5 years / Unlimited.
Which is the most powerful?
The Mazda CX-3 makes the most power at 110kW. The Mazda CX-3 is quickest to 100km/h in 10.9s.
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!
