Ford Escape vs Mazda CX-30

What's the difference?

The Ford Escape PHEV is a good option for a customer who knows they’ll live within the parameters set by the car. That’s the case with any plug-in hybrid, really, so in that regard, this new model is hardly a standout.

And it isn’t particularly outstanding in any other way either. I personally would have appreciated it if Ford had decided to add the plug-in powertrain to the Vignale flagship model instead - that model is more about luxury than sportiness, and would better fit the character of this powertrain in my opinion.

It’s a decent addition to the brand’s SUV range, and a welcome one to the segment, though it won’t be on its own for long.

I’m glad we checked in on our old friend, the Mazda CX-30. Despite being a car with two wheels planted in the future, and two firmly planted in the past, it manages to hold the line against many of its newer rivals, both on the cheaper and higher-tech end of the spectrum.

What you see really is what you get with this Mazda; it’s lovely to drive, looks fantastic, and punches above its weight when it comes to cabin ambiance. While what’s under the bonnet might no longer be in vogue, driving this car again has only reinforced its standing as small SUV royalty.

I haven’t really warmed to the “I wish I was a hatchback” styling of the Escape, which has a softer-edged look to it than most of its rivals. I mean, compared to a Hyundai Tucson or Toyota RAV4, the Escape looks like a blob.

That mightn’t be an issue for you, and it’s hardly a reason not to buy the car, but I was also a bit disappointed that there’s no real specific highlights to make you realise you’re buying the PHEV model, which - at $15,000 more than the equivalent petrol version - should have something to differentiate it other than the addition of a small badge and the additional filler cap on the front quarter panel for the plug.

Even a different set of wheels would have sufficed. Alas, it’s an identical looking Escape to the petrol. That means the ST-Line trimmings, such as black highlights on the grille and bumper, side skirts, a rear spoiler, and those 18-inch wheels and lowered sports suspension.

The interior, as mentioned in the pricing section, does have a few changes over the petrol version, but they’re hardly game-changing additions.

While the Haval Jolions of the world look ready to hit up the McDonald’s drive thru with their youthful flair, and cars like the Toyota Corolla Cross want to save money and dine at home with their conservative appearance, the Mazda CX-30 looks dressed to impress, as though it should be seen at the valet stand of your nearest Michelin-star restaurant.

A few years of age or not, the design of this car is still spectacular at this price, placing it right at the forefront of looks for the mainstream small SUV segment.

The delicate panel work, signature big grille, and large wheels at this Astina grade match nicely with the minimalist light fittings which themselves come complete with a soft-fade effect for the indicators.

It’s attention to detail like this which makes the CX-30 look like it belongs in a price-bracket above, and demands rivals pay attention.

The interior meets expectations, too, which is no small feat given some cars in this space prove it’s one thing to look great, and quite another to match it with a truly premium feel.

Mazda has done a fantastic job in the cabin which feels the part with an abundance of soft-touch materials, a dark, modern colour scheme, and an overall vibe which is ageing well even compared to more recently launched rivals.

I would go so far as to say, at the Astina grade the CX-30 feels more like it should be competing with Lexus, certainly punching above the mark, even at its mid-$40K price-point.

The Ford Escape looks like it has all the bits to make a midsize SUV buyer happy. And while a fair few of the boxes are ticked, there are some elements that could be better. 

The big party trick is that the second row is on rails, so you can slide it forwards or backwards to improve the space for receipt occupants or improve your boot space. The maximised cargo area is 556 litres to the ceiling, while if prioritise second-row occupant space there is easily enough room for a 182cm / 6’0” adult to fit behind someone of a similar size.

In the boot there are remote levers for the second row seats to fold down, a 12 V outlet, and a soft parcel shelf which is easy to remove, too.

During my time with the car I had the seats slid back as far as they go to maximise cabin space, though I did test out whether it was worth having them forward and the boot space was appreciably better especially for a pram and some baby stuff.

The second-row is a 60:40 split for the backrest, with the smaller portion on the driver’s side. That may sound trivial, but we had our baby seat set up behind the passenger, and had to move it to the driver’s side when we picked up a large parcel as it wouldn’t fit with the smaller portion folded down. There are dual ISOFIX child seat anchor points for the outboard positions, and three top-tether hooks.

The boot space is good too, considering it has some extra hardware to contend with under the body, there is also a space-saver spare wheel under there which is nice. However, there is no dedicated hidey hole for the charge cable, and it doesn’t come in a nice stowable bag either - just a plastic ziplock thing. 

Perhaps the biggest letdown of the interior is the fact that you still get the tiny little tablet-style 8.0-inch touchscreen media display, despite there being a big 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster. The two screens almost look at odds with one another, and what’s even more frustrating is that the driver information screen cannot be configured to include the energy flow screen that you see on the smaller tablet style unit. 

That means you can’t watch what’s happening between engine, electric motor and battery, or a combination where you might expect to see that - instead it can only be seen in illustrative form on the smaller central screen. Big issue? Maybe not, but if you’re an eco-conscious customer who wants to know what their car’s high-tech powertrain is doing, while also wanting to use sat nav, or Apple CarPlay or Android Auto, or change the radio station… Well, you’re out of luck.

There is a much more basic and rudimentary display on the driver info screen that shows a small icon of an engine and battery and illuminates them when each part is in use, but really, Ford should have used the real-estate of the big driver info screen better. Toyota, Kia and Hyundai know how to do it better.

The material quality is okay, but it certainly doesn’t feel like a very special environment.There are rubberised liners on the doors which don’t look terrific or feel fantastic, and why there are soft plastic elbow pads, and up high on the dashboard, it is not of the most pristine quality. 

Storage is pretty good. There are bottle holders in the doors and two cupholders in the centre console, and the storage nook in front of the shift dial houses a wireless phone charger and two USB ports, plus a 12-volt plug. There is a strange little shelf section in front of the centre console bin, which is not fantastic in terms of size. There are rear bottle holders in the doors, map pockets and a flip-down arm-rest with cup holders.

That rotary dial shifter which does take a little bit of getting used to. Unlike some others, there is no ‘P’ for park button - instead you have to dial it all the way left. 

It looks good and feels good, but is it practical? While the CX-30 is larger than its smaller CX-3 sibling, it still leaves space to be desired, especially compared to some other segment-bending small SUVs it competes with.

The front seat is not where the bad news starts though. It feels spacious enough inside for a couple, with large seats, plenty of space separating the front two occupants, and plenty of comfort on offer with padded armrests on both sides.

There are big bottle holders in the doors and in a flip-open bay in the console (wouldn’t want to interrupt this design… ), and there’s additional storage once you slide and flip open the armrest.

To keep things tidy, your USB and 12V power connections are also located in the console bay. No need for messy cables, and there’s a little divider, too.

On the downside here, there’s a chunk of dead space under the climate unit, which looks like it could be filled with a shelf or, better yet, wireless charger. As it is, it’s just a plastic panel with a small bay underneath which barely fits a phone.

Adjustability is great for the driver, with a reach- and tilt-adjustable steering wheel, and high belt-line offering a sporty hatch-like feel, which I instantly felt comfortable with.

The rear seat isn’t as impressive. While the fancy seat trim and soft-touch points mostly continue, some of the padding in the doors has been replaced with hard plastic, and there’s a raise in the floor to facilitate all-wheel drive on some variants which eats into the centre occupant’s foot space.

Behind my own seating position, my knees have a tiny amount of room, and so does my head, at 182cm tall. Technically, I fit, but it’s close, and feels it.

Rear occupants get a padded drop-down armrest with two bottle holders, an extra two surprisingly large ones in the doors, but no power outlets. There are two adjustable air vents on the back of the centre console.

The coupe-like design also has a cost when it comes to boot space. There’s 317-litres (VDA) of space available, although we could only fit the CarsGuide luggage set when the parcel shelf was removed.

The space is suitable for a couple on a weekend adventure, but a bit tight if you have more requirements, like a pram-age child, for example.

There is an under-floor space which houses a space-saver spare wheel and part of the Bose sound system.

When Mazda started what seemed like a push upmarket at the time, the CX-30 was an expensive small SUV. The intention with this car’s look and feel seemed to match the pricing, though, so we all thought Mazda was trying to establish a new semi-premium positioning.

As fate would have it, though, through a pandemic and various fluctuations when it comes to supply and raw material costs, every other manufacturer in this mainstream small SUV space has pushed up the price-scale, too, now making even the more expensive versions of the CX-30 look not so bad value after all.

The specific version we have for this test is the top-trim Astina, using the larger 2.5-litre engine in front-wheel drive form.

The CX-30 range is expansive and confusing, because you can also have an Astina with the smaller 2.0-litre engine, or in all-wheel drive, or even with Mazda’s odd new ‘X20’ engine option which is effectively a supercharged compression-ignition science experiment.

This front-drive 2.5-litre version is probably the pick of the Astina bunch, though, offering the larger engine without the weight or unnecessary cost of all-wheel drive.

Wearing a before on-roads price-tag of $43,310, it now goes into battle with the surprisingly expensive Toyota Corolla Cross (Atmos FWD - $43,550), Honda HR-V (e:HEV L - $47,000), Volkswagen T-Roc (R-Line AWD - $45,200), and the almost as expensive top-spec Kia Seltos (GT-Line FWD - $41,500).

Of course, if these prices, which will approach $50K once you factor in on-road costs, are making you wince, there’s always the more affordable Haval Jolion (from $36,990 for an equivalent high-spec S) or the MG ZST (from $34,990 for an equivalent Essence) from China.

If you’re thinking neither will hold a candle to the Mazda’s dynamics or quality, you’d be right. Read on to learn why.

Before we go on, though, at this Astina grade equipment includes 18-inch alloy wheels, an 8.8-inch multimedia panel with wired Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, LED headlights, a sunroof, heated front seats with power adjust for the driver, a 7.0-inch digital instrument element, surprisingly nice leather interior trim for the seats and wheel, dual-zone climate, a head-up display, and a 360-degree parking camera.

Interesting omissions at this price include a wireless charger, wireless phone mirroring, USB-C connectivity, and while there’s a great safety suite included, there’s also no true hybrid option in the CX-30 range.

The Escape PHEV is the only model in the range to get a 2.5-litre petrol engine, which runs on the more efficient Atkinson cycle, and has a continuously variable transmission feeding power to the front wheels - that’s right, this Escape is 2WD/FWD.

The tricky bit is that it also houses a clever electric motor and generator, which is teamed to a 14.4kWh battery pack - which is big for a plug-in hybrid car. 

The electric motor is capable of 96kW of power, while the petrol engine can produce up to 112kW. All told, the combined system output is pegged at 167kW, though there is no peak torque output figure. Even so, that amount of power is a sizeable number for any midsize SUV, even if this particular one weighs in at more than 1800kg.

Speaking of weight, the PHEV is the least capable towing vehicle in the Escape range. It has a maximum braked towing capacity of 1200kg, where all the others can tow up to 1800kg. Unbraked capacity is unchanged, at 750kg.

This is where the Mazda is really showing its age. G25 variants are powered by a 2.5-litre four-cylinder engine, which isn’t turbocharged, nor is it assisted at the wheels by electric motors in a hybrid arrangement.

It’s punchy enough to keep the pace with most of its turbo rivals, putting out 139kW/252Nm, and some will love the fact it’s paired with a traditional torque converter automatic instead of a rubbery continuously variable or glitchy dual-clutch set-up, but it’s certainly not for the eco-conscious.

Not only is it a relatively large displacement engine, but aside from a start-stop system there’s little to mitigate your emissions. In fact, this unit only complies with Euro 5 emissions regulations, well behind the pace today.

Beware the PHEV fuel consumption figure. That’s a great thing to keep in mind if you’re shopping for one of these cars.

That’s because the combined cycle official figure only takes into account a mix of conditions across 100km of driving. That’s right - only the first 100km. So the best case scenario, for a car that is designed to use its battery to run emissions free until it runs out, before sparingly using the petrol engine to keep going.

As such, it is no surprise that the official combined cycle fuel consumption is just 1.5 litres per 100 kilometres, with CO2 emissions claimed at just 33g/km. That takes into account the WLTP battery range of 56 kilometres stated on Ford’s website.

For reference, I completed my test of the car with a total of 462.7 kilometres travelled, of which, the trip computer stated 292.3km was fully electric. Meaning the remaining 170.4km was driving using petrol.

The indicated energy efficiency was 20.0kWh/100km, which isn’t great against a claimed EV driving efficiency figure supplied by Ford, of 14.8kWh/100km to 15.6kWh/100km. 

While the indicated fuel consumption average was 3.1L/100km, so more than double the windscreen sticker’s indicated economy. 

However, when I did the maths, I used a real-world average of 3.9L/100km of petrol ($36.15 worth of petrol) and 43.2kWh of electricity (meaning a cost of $9.82 based on the NSW average energy price of $0.2274c/kWh).

So, to do 462.7km I paid $45.97. I think that’s okay, but bear in mind I included several longer trips (Sydney to Glenbrook, Glenbrook to the Southern Highlands and back, and Glenbrook to Sydney and back). 

As is always the case, if your intended operation for a PHEV is to use it primarily for urban running within its EV range capabilities, you will be better off than if you push it beyond and use the petrol engine excessively.

For reference, the fuel tank size is 45 litres, which is 12L less than the petrol-only versions. It can run on E10, but only if you can find E10 that is also 95RON premium unleaded.

If you wish, there’s also an app called Ford Pass Connect, which allows you to monitor your car’s state of charge, adjust its start and finish times for recharging and even works as a key for the car to allow remote access, too.

Worth noting the maximum charge rate on a 10-amp plug at home is 2.3kW, while on public charging (which typically runs a higher amperage rate) the max rate is 3.7kW.

Some bad news, of course, comes at the fuel pump. The official claim for this relatively large engine is a bit bold, at 6.8L/100km on the ADR combined cycle, but if you’re using it for mainly urban duties as we did for this review I wouldn’t be surprised to see figures more in the region between 8.0 and 9.0L/100km.

As it stands, our car produced an average of 7.8L/100km, which is better than expected, but still painful in the era of hybrids and fuel-sipping turbos, especially when fuel is close to $2.00 a litre in most capital cities.

Mercifully, the lack of complexity from this engine does mean you can put bog-standard 91 RON unleaded in the tank.

Being the ST-Line grade, you - like it or not - have to deal with the lowered ride and sportier suspension, which makes this car ride a bit more firmly than you might want.

I found the suspension to be the biggest detracting element in terms of the drive experience – the suspension picked up a lot of the small inconsistencies in the road surface and transmitted them into the cabin. It was fidgety a lot of the time, and on road surfaces with very poor quality, it could be a bit uncomfortable.

The steering was also bit too tuned for sportiness for a car that doesn’t really need to be quite so aggressively angled that way. It took a bit of getting used to – it was somehow both twitchy on centre but not quite as responsive across the radius of lock to lock as I’d thought it might be, given the initial steering response.

Having said all that, I threw it through a couple of twisty corners and there was a nice handling balance from the chassis and decent grip from the tyres, but I did notice that - being front-wheel drive, with all that power going through the front tyres, there were some instances of it scrabbling for traction, notably on wet roads and looser surfaces but also out of offset driveways.

Other gripes included brake pedal response that was quite abrupt and very sensitive to stopping inputs.

Now, let’s consider the driving modes.

There are different drivetrain setups depending on what you plan to do. EV Auto does the thinking for you, dipping between EV, hybrid and petrol modes. EV Now prioritises electric driving. EV Later saves your battery charge for when you think you’ll need it. And EV Charge means you’ll use petrol power to drive, and also to replenish the battery pack.

The throttle response was decent in EV mode, and in hybrid mode it is nice and quiet, and it drives in a very smooth way unless you really plant your foot hard, then it can be a bit vocal - but less raucous than a RAV4 under full throttle. 

The transition between the different drive modes was relatively seamless, as it will readily go between petrol or electric as required, and the four-cylinder is mostly hushed enough so that you won’t hear it too much, especially if you’re driving at higher speeds when it does.

Indeed it was relatively quiet for the most part, though the tyre noise was quite excessive at higher speeds on very coarse-chip surfaces. And in those instances I noticed I could feel the road surface through the steering wheel and the suspension, as it was quite jittery at times.

There is a low speed warning sound that is omitted below about 25km/h and it was quite handy while driving in enclosed car parks - no more accusations of creeping around silently at the shops.

Further, there are multiple drive modes, including Normal, Eco, Sport, Slippery, and Snow/Sand Assist, all of which are designed to make different situations easier to deal with. They will adjust engine transmission and steering response as well as stability and traction control limitations. I kept it in Normal, though a dabble in Sport showed that you’re allowed a bit more aggression from the powertrain in terms of acceleration.

The CX-30 is awesome to drive. In a sea of lacklustre small SUVs, it’s instantly easy to connect with this Mazda. Yes, the engine and transmission here aren’t the most recent additions to the landscape, but they are predictable, smooth, and easy to deal with.

In fact, one thing Mazda is particularly good at is making its entire range feel homogenous in terms of the drive experience, maintaining the great dynamics which the brand has become synonymous with.

The touchpoints continue to be fantastic on the move. The steering feels light and easy to turn at low speeds, but becomes purposeful and full of feel at higher speeds.

The direct feedback on offer from the rack and the firm springs up front give a great handle on what the front wheels are doing.

The overall feel is firm and reactive, ready for action, and while not everyone will love the hard edge to the suspension, it helps the car feel springy and agile in the corners.

You can feel the Mazda 3 DNA on full display when you’re driving this car in haste, and it’s a kind of dynamism which most rivals can’t match, even if the Mazda’s drivetrain is feeling a little low-tech.

You certainly don’t need to worry about the six-speed transmission, which is a smooth-shifting unit.

There’s no glitchy behaviour on hills or from a stop like you might get in a dual-clutch, or rubbery surging under acceleration often delivered by a CVT, just the feeling of the car riding each gear out, and shifting between clearly defined ratios.

Drivers of older vehicles especially will appreciate its instantly familiar feel.

Ergonomically, it’s pretty straightforward, with the one major downside being the dial set-up. We like physical controls rather than touch controls, but Mazda has taken this to the extreme by not making the main multimedia screen a touch unit.

Instead, you’re forced to negotiate with phone mirroring software using a rotary dial, which is at best clumsy, and at worst distracting.

It’s also a tad difficult to see over this car’s high beltline, making it hard to tell where the corners are, front and rear, and a common Mazda problem is the wing mirrors which seem to have a zoom factor on them. Why? It limits your view into the lanes next to you.

Thankfully the active safety suite spends most of its time in the background and unlike some more recent offerings in the small SUV space, not interfering with the excellent drive experience.

The lane keep software is light handed, and the driver monitoring tech is more basic, which is honestly all you should need.

Overall then, the CX-30 is predictable, familiar, and has a fantastic quality to its handling which fits the Mazda brand promise.

Aside from a few blemishes then, it’s one of the best cars to drive in the segment, just don’t expect it to feel as cutting-edge as it could.

I love the lack of invasive safety tech in the CX-30, but that’s not to say this car lacks any of the required gear.

Active equipment includes freeway-speed auto emergency braking, lane keep assist with lane departure warning, blind-spot monitoring with rear- and front-cross traffic alert, adaptive cruise control, adaptive high-beams, driver attention alert, and traffic sign recognition.

You also score a very nice 360-degree parking camera and sensors, as well as a suite of seven airbags.

The CX-30 scored particularly highly across all of ANCAP’s testing criteria, with a particularly impressive 99 per cent in adult occupant protection. It achieved this rating in 2020.

As with the rest of the Ford range, you get a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty on the car, while the battery pack has its own eight-year/160,000km warranty plan.

And just like most other models in Ford’s range, there is a lifetime capped-price servicing plan, with the first four maintenance visits (due every 12 months/15,000km, whichever occurs first) incurring a $299 fee, which is cheap for the class.

You also get up to seven years of roadside assist if you service your car with Ford’s dealers.

As with all Mazdas, the ownership proposition is pretty straightforward. There’s five years of warranty, five years of roadside assist, and five years of capped price servicing.

Service costs are pretty tame, too, with our front-drive G25 Astina working out to an average of $360 per year for the first five years.

You’ll need to visit a workshop once every 10,000km or 12 months, whichever comes first.