CS
CarSorted
HomeComparisonsMazda BT-50 vs Mazda Mazda3
Spec Battle Updated 20 April 2026 5 min read

Mazda BT-50 vs Mazda Mazda3

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.

SpecMazdaMazda
Price (RRP)$36,400$26,490
Power120kW114kW
0-100 km/h10.9s9.7s
Fuel Economy7.1 L/100km3.8 L/100km
Boot Space295L
Towing3,500kg1,000kg
Warranty5yr / 999.999k km5yr / 999.999k km
ANCAP Safety5 StarsNo data

Price Breakdown

The Mazda BT-50 starts from $36,400 before on-road costs, while the Mazda Mazda3 opens at $26,490. That makes the Mazda Mazda3 the more affordable entry point by $9,910.

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 $40,040 and $29,139 respectively.

Over 5 years, the running costs favour the Mazda Mazda3 by roughly $4,705 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.

Feature Showdown

The Mazda BT-50 features a 7-inch touchscreen paired with a 4.2-inch digital dash, while the Mazda Mazda3 gets a 8.8-inch display and 7-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.

Drivetrain

The Mazda BT-50 uses a Diesel producing 120kW and 400Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a RWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 10.9 seconds.

The Mazda Mazda3 responds with a Petrol making 114kW and 200Nm, paired to a automatic driving the front wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 9.7 seconds.

The Mazda BT-50 has the clear power advantage at 120kW vs 114kW. In the real-world sprint, the Mazda Mazda3 is 1.2s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.

Space & Comfort

The Mazda BT-50 measures 5,320mm long on a 3,125mm wheelbase, 860mm longer than the Mazda Mazda3 at 4,460mm (2,726mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda BT-50 generally means more rear legroom.

For towing, the Mazda BT-50 leads with a 3,500kg braked capacity vs 1,000kg. That 2,500kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.

Turning Circle

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

10.6m to 12.5m

Mazda Mazda3 G20 Pure
10.6mTighter
Best
Mazda BT-50 XS SC 4x2
12.5m
Worst
Mazda BT-50
12.5m · Large

Based on 12.5m turning circle:

  • U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
  • Standard parking bay
  • Tight carparks
  • Narrow laneways
Mazda Mazda3
10.6m · Good

Based on 10.6m 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 $2,024/year for the Mazda BT-50 and $1,083/year for the Mazda Mazda3. That is a $941 annual difference in favour of the Mazda Mazda3.

Estimated annual total: $2,024 (Mazda BT-50) vs $1,083 (Mazda Mazda3). The Mazda Mazda3 saves you roughly $941 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.

Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda BT-50) vs 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda Mazda3). Both match on warranty length.

Who Should Buy Which?

Buy the Mazda BT-50 if: You prioritise performance, need stronger towing, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.

Buy the Mazda Mazda3 if: You want the lower entry price, want lower running costs, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.

The Verdict

The Mazda Mazda3 takes 3 of 5 key spec categories and comes in at a lower price. The Mazda Mazda3 will save you roughly $941 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, Mazda BT-50 and Mazda Mazda3?

The Mazda Mazda3 is the cheapest at $26,490 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Mazda BT-50 by $9,910.

Which is the most fuel-efficient?

The Mazda Mazda3 uses the least fuel at 3.8L/100km on the combined cycle.

Which is safest?

They are evenly matched — Mazda BT-50 all hold a 5-star ANCAP rating. Compare the active-safety features above to separate them.

Which can tow the most?

The Mazda BT-50 has the highest braked towing capacity at 3,500kg.

Which is the most powerful?

The Mazda BT-50 makes the most power at 120kW. The Mazda Mazda3 is quickest to 100km/h in 9.7s.

Get ahead of your next car

Join free for new-car launches, news, reviews and buying guides. The independent take on what's new in Australia and what's actually worth buying, no dealer spin. Plus early access and founding-member pricing on the upcoming CarSorted Pro Report. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

By subscribing, you agree to receive marketing emails. You can unsubscribe at any time. View our Privacy Policy.

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 Utes · All Hatchbacks