Mazda CX-80 vs Skoda Kodiaq
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.
Data checked: specs 31 Aug 2026, price 6 Sep 2026
Driver assistance, as the maker lists it
Swipe across. Tap a feature to see what it does and each car's source.
StandardOptional: printed price, +pack or NCO (no-cost)No, not offeredNo dataCounts beside each car use the same colours; ? is no option data.
From each manufacturer's Australian equipment list. No data means that car's document does not say. The drawings are our own illustrations of how each kind of system works.
$56,100RRP
- no option data for this car
$54,990RRP
- no option data for this car
Printed option prices only. A pack is counted once and makes the figure a floor when it carries no printed price. Nothing is inferred from the other car.
Track the Mazda CX-80 & Skoda Kodiaq
Get price-drop alerts on these models plus our free weekly new-car rundown. Unsubscribe anytime.
Price Breakdown
The Mazda CX-80 starts from $56,100 before on-road costs, while the Skoda Kodiaq opens at $54,990. That makes the Skoda Kodiaq the more affordable entry point by $1,110.
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 $61,710 and $60,489 respectively.
Over 5 years, the running costs favour the Mazda CX-80 by roughly $5,415 in fuel alone.
Safety Rundown
Both the Mazda CX-80 and Skoda Kodiaq hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating. Adult occupant protection scored 92% for the Mazda CX-80 and 89% for the Skoda Kodiaq.
Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. We can confirm 6 of 10 key ADAS systems on both.
Both include the essentials: autonomous emergency braking, lane keep assist, adaptive cruise control, a reversing camera. Airbag count is 6 in the Mazda CX-80 and 7 in the Skoda Kodiaq.
Recalls on our record
Mazda CX-80
- REC-006434 · published 15 Sep 2025Due to a software programming issue of the Body Control Module (BCM), the instrument cluster fuel level may not operate as intended.Year range on the notice: 2023 - 2025
Skoda Kodiaq
- REC-006554 · published 3 Mar 2026Due to a manufacturing defect, the inner frame edge of the front seats may have been produced with improperly finished surfaces.Year range on the notice: 2024 - 2025
- REC-005419 · published 28 Apr 2022Due to manufacturing issue, the engine compartment cover may become loose.Year range on the notice: 2022
- REC-003887 · published 9 Jul 2019In some instances, there is a risk that one or several fixing nuts may be missing from the individual rear passenger seat.Year range on the notice: the notice prints no build range
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-80 features a 10.3-inch touchscreen paired with a 7-inch digital dash, while the Skoda Kodiaq gets a 13-inch display and 10-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.
The Skoda Kodiaq counters with heated front seats and power tailgate. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.
Interior trim differs: the Mazda CX-80 gets cloth upholstery while the Skoda Kodiaq offers leather.
Drivetrain
The Mazda CX-80 uses a Diesel producing 187kW and 550Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a AWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 9 seconds.
The Skoda Kodiaq responds with a Petrol making 140kW and 320Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 7.9 seconds.
The Mazda CX-80 has the clear power advantage at 187kW vs 140kW. In the 0-100 sprint (manufacturer-claimed), the Skoda Kodiaq is 1.1s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.
Space & Comfort
The Mazda CX-80 measures 4,990mm long on a 3,120mm wheelbase, 232mm longer than the Skoda Kodiaq at 4,758mm (2,791mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-80 generally means more rear legroom.
Boot space is 258L in the Mazda CX-80 and 289L in the Skoda Kodiaq, giving the Skoda Kodiaq a 31L advantage.
For towing, the Skoda Kodiaq leads with a 2,300kg braked capacity vs 2,000kg. That 300kg 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
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 $1,482/year for the Mazda CX-80 and $2,565/year for the Skoda Kodiaq. That is a $1,083 annual difference in favour of the Mazda CX-80.
Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-80) vs 7 years / 999,999km (Skoda Kodiaq). The Skoda Kodiaq has longer coverage.
Who Should Buy Which?
Buy the Mazda CX-80 if: You prioritise performance, want lower running costs, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.
Buy the Skoda Kodiaq if: You want the lower entry price, need more boot space, value a longer warranty, need stronger towing, or prefer Skoda's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
Mazda CX-80: Top CarSorted Score, 79 vs 74, but the Skoda Kodiaq is $1,110 cheaper
The Mazda CX-80 comes out ahead on the CarSorted Score (79 vs 74), taking 2 of 7 key spec rows below. The deciding gaps: fuel economy (Mazda CX-80 ahead by 34), performance (Mazda CX-80 ahead by 8), value (Mazda CX-80 ahead by 3). The Mazda CX-80 will save you roughly $1,083 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the Skoda Kodiaq has a clear edge. The Skoda Kodiaq 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-80 and Skoda Kodiaq?
The Skoda Kodiaq is the cheapest at $54,990 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Mazda CX-80 by $1,110.
Which is the most fuel-efficient?
The Mazda CX-80 uses the least fuel at 5.2L/100km on the combined cycle.
Which is safest?
They are evenly matched on crash rating: Mazda CX-80 and Skoda Kodiaq all hold a 5-star ANCAP rating. Compare the active-safety features above to separate them.
Which has the most boot space?
The Skoda Kodiaq has the largest boot at 289L with the seats up (2,035L with the seats folded).
Which can tow the most?
The Skoda Kodiaq has the highest braked towing capacity at 2,300kg.
Which has the best warranty?
The Skoda Kodiaq has the longest warranty at 7 years / Unlimited.
Which is the most powerful?
The Mazda CX-80 makes the most power at 187kW. The Skoda Kodiaq is quickest to 100km/h in 7.9s.
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!
