CS
CarSorted
HomeComparisonsToyota LandCruiser 70 vs Mazda CX-90
Spec Battle Updated 20 April 2026 5 min read

Toyota LandCruiser 70 vs Mazda CX-90

A detailed look at how two of Australia's most popular cars 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.

SpecToyotaMazda
Price (RRP)$65,690$74,385
Power151kW254kW
0-100 km/h12s7.8s
Fuel Economy10.7 L/100km8.2 L/100km
Boot Space257L
Towing3,500kg2,500kg
Warranty5yr / 999.999k km5yr / 999.999k km
ANCAP Safety5 Stars5 Stars

Price Breakdown

The Toyota LandCruiser 70 starts from $65,690 before on-road costs, while the Mazda CX-90 opens at $74,385. That makes the Toyota LandCruiser 70 the more affordable entry point by $8,695.

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 $72,259 and $81,824 respectively.

Over 5 years, the running costs favour the Mazda CX-90 by roughly $3,565 in fuel alone.

Safety Rundown

Both the Toyota LandCruiser 70 and Mazda CX-90 hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating. Adult occupant protection scored 85% for the Toyota LandCruiser 70 and 91% for the Mazda CX-90.

Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. The Mazda CX-90 packs more ADAS features with 6 out of 10 key systems fitted, compared to 5 in the Toyota LandCruiser 70.

Both include the essentials: autonomous emergency braking, lane keep assist, adaptive cruise control, a reversing camera. Airbag count is 2 in the Toyota LandCruiser 70 and 6 in the Mazda CX-90.

Feature Showdown

Both come with modern infotainment systems.

The Mazda CX-90 counters with wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, wireless charging and power tailgate that the Toyota LandCruiser 70 does not offer. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.

Drivetrain

The Toyota LandCruiser 70 uses a Diesel producing 151kW and 430Nm of torque, sent through a manual to a 4WD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 12 seconds.

The Mazda CX-90 responds with a Petrol making 254kW and 500Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 7.8 seconds.

The Mazda CX-90 has the clear power advantage at 254kW vs 151kW. In the real-world sprint, the Mazda CX-90 is 4.2s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.

Space & Comfort

The Toyota LandCruiser 70 measures 4,990mm long on a 3,085mm wheelbase, 130mm shorter than the Mazda CX-90 at 5,120mm (3,120mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-90 generally means more rear legroom.

0

For towing, the Toyota LandCruiser 70 leads with a 3,500kg braked capacity vs 2,500kg. That 1,000kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.

Turning Circle

Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.

10.8m to 11.8m

Mazda CX-90 G50e Touring
10.8mTighter
Best
Toyota LandCruiser 70 Single Cab Chassis Workmate
11.8m
Worst
Toyota LandCruiser 70
11.8m · Average

Based on 11.8m turning circle:

  • U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
  • Standard parking bay
  • Tight carparks
  • Narrow laneways
Mazda CX-90
10.8m · Good

Based on 10.8m turning circle:

  • U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
  • Standard parking bay
  • Tight carparks
  • Narrow laneways

Turning circle ratings

Under 10m, Excellent
10 to 11m, Good
11 to 12m, Average
Over 12m, Large

True Cost to Own

Based on 15,000km of annual driving, fuel costs roughly $3,050/year for the Toyota LandCruiser 70 and $2,337/year for the Mazda CX-90. That is a $713 annual difference in favour of the Mazda CX-90.

Estimated annual total: $3,050 (Toyota LandCruiser 70) vs $2,337 (Mazda CX-90). The Mazda CX-90 saves you roughly $713 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.

Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Toyota LandCruiser 70) vs 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-90). Both match on warranty length.

Who Should Buy Which?

Buy the Toyota LandCruiser 70 if: You want the lower entry price, need stronger towing, or prefer Toyota's approach to design and ownership experience.

Buy the Mazda CX-90 if: You prioritise performance, want lower running costs, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.

The Verdict

The Mazda CX-90 takes 4 of 6 key spec categories. The Mazda CX-90 will save you roughly $713 a year in fuel. The best pick depends on what you value most. Explore the full specs for each model below.

Common questions

Which is cheapest, Toyota LandCruiser 70 and Mazda CX-90?

The Toyota LandCruiser 70 is the cheapest at $65,690 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Mazda CX-90 by $8,695.

Which is the most fuel-efficient?

The Mazda CX-90 uses the least fuel at 8.2L/100km on the combined cycle.

Which is safest?

They are evenly matched — Toyota LandCruiser 70 and Mazda CX-90 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-90 has the largest boot at 257L.

Which can tow the most?

The Toyota LandCruiser 70 has the highest braked towing capacity at 3,500kg.

Which is the most powerful?

The Mazda CX-90 makes the most power at 254kW. The Mazda CX-90 is quickest to 100km/h in 7.8s.

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!

More head-to-heads

Other matchups worth a look

Same segment, similar money. Tap any pair for the full side-by-side spec sheet.

All comparisons

Images are representative. Actual variant trim, colour and equipment may differ.

Browse all cars · All Cab Chassiss · All SUVs