Mazda CX-70 vs Mitsubishi ASX

Price and cost per week

Safety Rundown

ANCAP's published ratings include no record for the Mazda CX-70. With no pair of ratings to compare, the active-safety features in the spec table above are the fairer comparison.

Recalls on our record

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-70 features a 12.3-inch touchscreen paired with a 12.3-inch digital dash, while the Mitsubishi ASX gets a 10.4-inch display and 7-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.

The Mazda CX-70 stands out with wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, head-up display, wireless charging, panoramic roof, heated front seats, power tailgate and Bose audio — features our data doesn't list for the Mitsubishi ASX. The Mitsubishi ASX 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 Mitsubishi ASX offers cloth. Climate control is 3-zone in the Mazda CX-70 and 1-zone in the Mitsubishi ASX.

Drivetrain

The Mazda CX-70 uses a Petrol producing 254kW and 500Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a AWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 6.8 seconds.

The Mitsubishi ASX responds with a Petrol making 113kW and 270Nm, paired to a automatic driving the front wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 11.9 seconds.

The Mazda CX-70 has the clear power advantage at 254kW vs 113kW. In the 0-100 sprint (manufacturer-claimed), the Mazda CX-70 is 5.1s quicker. 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, 882mm longer than the Mitsubishi ASX at 4,238mm (2,639mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-70 generally means more rear legroom.

Boot space is 598L in the Mazda CX-70 and 484L in the Mitsubishi ASX, giving the Mazda CX-70 a 114L advantage.

For towing, the Mazda CX-70 leads with a 2,500kg braked capacity vs 1,200kg. That 1,300kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.

Neither U-turns in one sweep on a 7 m local street (both need a three-point turn); the Mitsubishi ASX's turning circle is 0.7 m tighter, 11.1 m against 11.8 m kerb to kerb. The street estimate is indicative, worked from the published turning circles.

Cost to own

At 15,000 km a year, fuel for the Mazda CX-70 costs about $2,309 a year (8.1 L/100km) and fuel for the Mitsubishi ASX about $1,824 a year (6.4 L/100km), at $1.90 a litre and 32c a kWh. That is $485 a year less for the Mitsubishi ASX.

Warranty: 5 years / unlimited km (Mazda CX-70) and 10 years / 200,000 km* (Mitsubishi ASX). Capped-price servicing: no data (Mazda CX-70), 10 years (Mitsubishi ASX).

Where each one leads

The Mazda CX-70: more power (254kW against 113kW), the bigger boot with the seats up (598L against 484L) and the higher braked towing limit (2,500kg against 1,200kg).

The Mitsubishi ASX: the lower starting price ($37,740 against $73,020) and lower fuel or energy costs on our assumptions ($1,824 a year against $2,309).

The Verdict

Mitsubishi ASX scores higher, 73 vs 72

The Mitsubishi ASX scores 73 to the Mazda CX-70's 72 on the CarSorted Score, and leads 2 of the 6 spec rows that separate them, at the lower price. The biggest gaps: performance (Mazda CX-70 ahead by 34 points), practicality (Mazda CX-70 ahead by 16 points), fuel economy (Mitsubishi ASX ahead by 15 points). At 15,000 km a year, fuel for the Mitsubishi ASX costs about $485 less (6.4 L/100km against 8.1 L/100km, at $1.90 a litre). Boot space with the seats up: 598L in the Mazda CX-70, 484L in the Mitsubishi ASX.

Common questions