Mazda CX-70 vs GWM Tank 500
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.
Price Breakdown
The Mazda CX-70 starts from $76,720 before on-road costs, while the GWM Tank 500 opens at $59,990. That makes the GWM Tank 500 the more affordable entry point by $16,730.
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 $84,392 and $65,989 respectively.
Over 5 years, the running costs are nearly identical since both have similar efficiency.
Safety Rundown
Both the Mazda CX-70 and GWM Tank 500 hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating.
Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. The Mazda CX-70 packs more ADAS features with 7 out of 10 key systems fitted, compared to 5 in the GWM Tank 500.
Both include the essentials: autonomous emergency braking, lane keep assist, adaptive cruise control, a reversing camera. The Mazda CX-70 adds a 360-degree camera that the GWM Tank 500 misses.
Feature Showdown
The Mazda CX-70 features a 12.3-inch touchscreen paired with a 12.3-inch digital dash, while the GWM Tank 500 gets a 14.6-inch display and 12.3-inch instruments.
The Mazda CX-70 stands out with head-up display and Bose audio that you will not find on the GWM Tank 500. The GWM Tank 500 counters with Apple CarPlay. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.
Interior trim differs: the Mazda CX-70 gets leather upholstery while the GWM Tank 500 offers synthetic leather.
Drivetrain
The Mazda CX-70 uses a Petrol producing 254kW and 500Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a AWD layout.
The GWM Tank 500 responds with a Hybrid making 255kW and 648Nm, paired to a 9-speed auto driving the rear wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 8.5 seconds.
The GWM Tank 500 has the clear power advantage at 255kW vs 254kW. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.
Space & Comfort
The Mazda CX-70 measures 5,120mm long on a 3,120mm wheelbase, 42mm longer than the GWM Tank 500 at 5,078mm (2,850mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-70 generally means more rear legroom.
Boot space is 598L in the Mazda CX-70 and 98L in the GWM Tank 500, giving the Mazda CX-70 a 500L advantage. Fold the rears and you get 2015L vs 795L. The GWM Tank 500 seats 7 vs 5.
For towing, the GWM Tank 500 leads with a 3,000kg braked capacity vs 2,500kg. That 500kg 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 11.8m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Based on 11.2m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Turning circle ratings
True Cost to Own
Based on 15,000km of annual driving, fuel costs roughly $2,309/year for the Mazda CX-70 and $2,423/year for the GWM Tank 500. That is a $114 annual difference in favour of the Mazda CX-70.
Estimated annual total: $2,309 (Mazda CX-70) vs $2,423 (GWM Tank 500). The Mazda CX-70 saves you roughly $114 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.
Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-70) vs 7 years / 999,999km (GWM Tank 500). The GWM Tank 500 has longer coverage.
Who Should Buy Which?
Buy the Mazda CX-70 if: You need more boot space, want lower running costs, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.
Buy the GWM Tank 500 if: You want the lower entry price, prioritise performance, value a longer warranty, need stronger towing, or prefer GWM's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
The GWM Tank 500 takes 4 of 6 key spec categories and comes in at a lower price. The Mazda CX-70 will save you roughly $114 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the Mazda CX-70 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, Mazda CX-70 and GWM Tank 500?
The GWM Tank 500 is the cheapest at $59,990 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Mazda CX-70 by $16,730.
Which is the most fuel-efficient?
The Mazda CX-70 uses the least fuel at 8.1L/100km on the combined cycle.
Which is safest?
They are evenly matched — Mazda CX-70 and GWM Tank 500 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-70 has the largest boot at 598L.
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 / 1000k km.
Which is the most powerful?
The GWM Tank 500 makes the most power at 255kW.
Get ahead of your next car
Join free for new-car launches, news, reviews and buying guides. The independent take on what's new in Australia and what's actually worth buying, no dealer spin. Plus early access and founding-member pricing on the upcoming CarSorted Pro Report. 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!
