Mazda CX-80 vs Volvo XC40
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 30 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 & Volvo XC40
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 Volvo XC40 opens at $54,990. That makes the Volvo XC40 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 $2,995 in fuel alone.
Safety Rundown
ANCAP safety ratings have not been published for both models yet. We will update this section when crash test results are available.
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
Volvo XC40
- REC-006368 · published 23 Jun 2025Due to a software issue, there is a risk that the vehicle’s braking performance may be temporarily disabled if the car has been coasting downhill for at least 1 minute and 30 seconds in ‘B’ mode (in the plug-in hybrid cars) or One Pedal Drive (in the pure electric cars).Year range on the notice: 2022 - 2025
- REC-006080 · published 24 Sep 2024Due to a manufacturing defect, the front passenger seat mounting bolts may not have been tightened according to specifications and could become loose or detach.Year range on the notice: 2023
- REC-005877 · published 24 Jan 2024Due to a software issue, the left turn indicator lamp may not illuminate as intended.Year range on the notice: 2023
- 3 more on the model page.
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 Volvo XC40 gets a 9-inch display and 12.3-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.
The Volvo XC40 counters with head-up display, wireless charging, heated front seats, power tailgate and Harman Kardon audio. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.
Interior trim differs: the Mazda CX-80 gets cloth upholstery while the Volvo XC40 offers textile/leather blend. Climate control is 3-zone in the Mazda CX-80 and 2-zone in the Volvo XC40.
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 Volvo XC40 responds with a 2.0L 4-cyl turbocharged 48V mild hybrid making 145kW and 300Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 8.5 seconds.
The Mazda CX-80 has the clear power advantage at 187kW vs 145kW. In the 0-100 sprint (manufacturer-claimed), the Volvo XC40 is 0.5s 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, 550mm longer than the Volvo XC40 at 4,440mm (2,702mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-80 generally means more rear legroom.
Boot space is 258L in the Mazda CX-80 and 460L in the Volvo XC40, giving the Volvo XC40 a 202L advantage. The Mazda CX-80 seats 7 vs 5.
For towing, the Volvo XC40 leads with a 2,100kg braked capacity vs 2,000kg. That 100kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.
Turning Circle
Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.
11.0m 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 11.0m 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 $2,081/year for the Volvo XC40. That is a $599 annual difference in favour of the Mazda CX-80.
Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-80) vs 5 years / 999,999km (Volvo XC40). Both match on warranty length.
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 Volvo XC40 if: You want the lower entry price, need more boot space, need stronger towing, or prefer Volvo's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
Mazda CX-80: Top CarSorted Score, 79 vs 70, but the Volvo XC40 is $1,110 cheaper
The Mazda CX-80 comes out ahead on the CarSorted Score (79 vs 70), taking 2 of 6 key spec rows below. The deciding gaps: safety (Mazda CX-80 ahead by 23), fuel economy (Mazda CX-80 ahead by 19), performance (Mazda CX-80 ahead by 13). The Mazda CX-80 will save you roughly $599 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the Volvo XC40 has a clear edge. 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 Volvo XC40?
The Volvo XC40 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.
What are the ANCAP safety ratings?
Mazda CX-80 holds a 5-star ANCAP rating. We have no published ANCAP rating for Volvo XC40, so there is nothing to compare on crash performance. Compare the active-safety features above instead.
Which has the most boot space?
The Volvo XC40 has the largest boot at 460L with the seats up.
Which can tow the most?
The Volvo XC40 has the highest braked towing capacity at 2,100kg.
Which is the most powerful?
The Mazda CX-80 makes the most power at 187kW. The Volvo XC40 is quickest to 100km/h in 8.5s.
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!
