Mazda CX-70 vs Toyota LandCruiser 300

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 Toyota LandCruiser 300 gets a 8-inch display and 7-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.

The Mazda CX-70 stands out with head-up display, wireless charging, panoramic roof, heated front seats, power tailgate and Bose audio — features our data doesn't list for the Toyota LandCruiser 300. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.

Interior trim differs: the Mazda CX-70 gets leather upholstery while the Toyota LandCruiser 300 offers cloth. Climate control is 3-zone in the Mazda CX-70 and 2-zone in the Toyota LandCruiser 300.

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 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 Mazda CX-70 has the clear power advantage at 254kW vs 227kW. In the 0-100 sprint (manufacturer-claimed), the Mazda CX-70 is 1.8s 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, 140mm longer than the Toyota LandCruiser 300 at 4,980mm (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 700L in the Toyota LandCruiser 300, giving the Toyota LandCruiser 300 a 102L advantage.

For towing, the Toyota LandCruiser 300 leads with a 3,500kg braked capacity vs 2,500kg. That 1,000kg 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); both turn in a 11.8 m circle, 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 Toyota LandCruiser 300 about $2,537 a year (8.9 L/100km), at $1.90 a litre and 32c a kWh. That is $228 a year less for the Mazda CX-70.

Warranty: 5 years / Unlimited (Mazda CX-70) and 5 years / Unlimited (Toyota LandCruiser 300).

Where each one leads

The Mazda CX-70: the lower starting price ($73,020 against $97,990), more power (254kW against 227kW) and lower fuel or energy costs on our assumptions ($2,309 a year against $2,537).

The Toyota LandCruiser 300: the bigger boot with the seats up (700L against 598L) and the higher braked towing limit (3,500kg against 2,500kg).

The Verdict

Toyota LandCruiser 300 scores higher, 76 vs 72

The Toyota LandCruiser 300 scores 76 to the Mazda CX-70's 72 on the CarSorted Score, and leads 2 of the 6 spec rows that separate them. The biggest gaps: safety (Toyota LandCruiser 300 ahead by 25 points), practicality (Toyota LandCruiser 300 ahead by 17 points), value (Mazda CX-70 ahead by 10 points). At 15,000 km a year, fuel for the Mazda CX-70 costs about $228 less (8.1 L/100km against 8.9 L/100km, at $1.90 a litre). Boot space with the seats up: 598L in the Mazda CX-70, 700L in the Toyota LandCruiser 300.

Common questions