CS
CarSorted
HomeComparisonsMazda CX-7 vs Toyota LandCruiser 300
Spec Battle Updated 20 April 2026 5 min read

Mazda CX-7 vs Toyota LandCruiser 300

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.

SpecMazdaToyota
Price (RRP)TBC$97,990
Fuel typePetrolDiesel
Power175kW227kW
0-100 km/h8.6s
Fuel Economy11.5 L/100km8.9 L/100km
Boot Space400L700L
Towing1,600kg3,500kg
Warranty3yr / Unlimited5yr / Unlimited
ANCAP Safety5 Stars5 Stars

Track the Mazda CX-7 & Toyota LandCruiser 300

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

Price Breakdown

Pricing for one or both models is yet to be confirmed for the Australian market. We will update this comparison when official RRPs are announced.

Safety Rundown

Both the Mazda CX-7 and Toyota LandCruiser 300 hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating.

Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. We can confirm 6 of 10 key ADAS systems on the Toyota LandCruiser 300, against 0 on the Mazda CX-7.

Both include the essentials: a reversing camera. Airbag count is 6 in the Mazda CX-7 and 10 in the Toyota LandCruiser 300.

Feature Showdown

Both come with modern infotainment systems.

The Mazda CX-7 stands out with heated front seats and Bose 240 watt 9-speaker audio — features our data doesn't list for the Toyota LandCruiser 300. The Toyota LandCruiser 300 counters with wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.

Drivetrain

The Mazda CX-7 uses a 2.3 litre Direct Injection Spark Ignition (DISI) turbocharged in-line 4 cylinder 16 valve DOHC producing 175kW and 350Nm of torque, sent through a 6-speed automatic to a AWD layout.

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 responds with a Diesel Twin-Turbo V6 making 227kW and 700Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 8.6 seconds.

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 has the clear power advantage at 227kW vs 175kW. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.

Space & Comfort

The Mazda CX-7 measures 4,693mm long on a 2,750mm wheelbase, 287mm shorter than the Toyota LandCruiser 300 at 4,980mm (2,850mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Toyota LandCruiser 300 generally means more rear legroom.

Boot space is 400L in the Mazda CX-7 and 700L in the Toyota LandCruiser 300, giving the Toyota LandCruiser 300 a 300L advantage.

For towing, the Toyota LandCruiser 300 leads with a 3,500kg braked capacity vs 1,600kg. That 1,900kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.

Turning Circle

Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.

11.4m to 11.8m

TightestMazda CX-7 Luxury SportsTightest turn at 11.4m, easiest U-turns and carparks
Mazda CX-7 Luxury Sports
11.4mTighter
Best
Toyota LandCruiser 300 GX
11.8m
Worst
Mazda CX-7 Luxury Sports
11.4m · Average

Based on 11.4m turning circle:

  • U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
  • Standard parking bay
  • Tight carparks
  • Narrow laneways
Toyota LandCruiser 300 GX
11.8m · Average

Based on 11.8m 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-7Tightest turn at 11.4m, needs the least road to swing around
Mazda CX-7Tightest11.4 m
Average△ 3-point
Toyota LandCruiser 30011.8 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 $3,278/year for the Mazda CX-7 and $2,537/year for the Toyota LandCruiser 300. That is a $741 annual difference in favour of the Toyota LandCruiser 300.

Warranty: 3 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-7) vs 5 years / 999,999km (Toyota LandCruiser 300). The Toyota LandCruiser 300 has longer coverage.

Who Should Buy Which?

Buy the Mazda CX-7 if: You or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.

Buy the Toyota LandCruiser 300 if: You prioritise performance, need more boot space, want lower running costs, value a longer warranty, need stronger towing, or prefer Toyota's approach to design and ownership experience.

The Verdict

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 takes 5 of 5 key spec categories. The Toyota LandCruiser 300 will save you roughly $741 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the Toyota LandCruiser 300 has a clear edge. The Toyota LandCruiser 300 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-7 and Toyota LandCruiser 300?

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 is the cheapest at $97,990 before on-road costs.

Which is the most fuel-efficient?

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 uses the least fuel at 8.9L/100km on the combined cycle.

Which is safest?

They are evenly matched on crash rating: Mazda CX-7 and Toyota LandCruiser 300 all hold a 5-star ANCAP rating. Compare the active-safety features above to separate them.

Which has the most boot space?

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 has the largest boot at 700L.

Which can tow the most?

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 has the highest braked towing capacity at 3,500kg.

Which has the best warranty?

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 has the longest warranty at 5 years / Unlimited.

Which is the most powerful?

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 makes the most power at 227kW.

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