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.
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 $28,490. That makes the Mazda CX-3 the more affordable entry point by $690.
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 $31,339 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.
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.
Interior trim differs: the Mazda CX-3 gets cloth upholstery while the Suzuki Fronx offers synthetic leather.
Drivetrain
The Mazda CX-3 uses a Petrol producing 110kW and 195Nm of torque, sent through a automatic 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 real-world sprint, 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.
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.
Estimated annual total: $1,796 (Mazda CX-3) vs $1,397 (Suzuki Fronx). The Suzuki Fronx saves you roughly $399 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.
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 want the lower entry price, 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
The Mazda CX-3 takes 5 of 7 key spec categories and comes in at a lower price. 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 Mazda CX-3 is the cheapest at $27,800 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Suzuki Fronx by $690.
Which is the most fuel-efficient?
The Suzuki Fronx uses the least fuel at 4.9L/100km on the combined cycle.
Which is safest?
They are evenly matched — Suzuki Fronx all hold a 1-star ANCAP rating. Compare the active-safety features above to separate them.
Which has the most boot space?
The Suzuki Fronx has the largest boot at 304L.
Which can tow the most?
The Mazda CX-3 has the highest braked towing capacity at 1,535kg.
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.
Track the cars you're comparing
Sign up free for price-drop alerts on the models in this comparison, plus our weekly new-car rundown covering launches, deals and reviews. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
By subscribing, you agree to receive marketing emails. You can unsubscribe at any time. View our Privacy Policy.
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!
