Ford Ranger vs Mazda CX-80

What's the difference?

Our time with the new Ranger was limited in terms of distance driven and the number of variants we could sample. We were also unable to test the vehicle with a trailer attached, so we’re unsure as to how well the new, lower-powered engine will cope with towing duties.

We do know the new engine is being welcomed by owners and fleets who held concerns over the technical layout of the previous 2.0-litre powerplant, but only time will tell if the reduced performance is seen as being balanced by the technical upgrades.

We can also tell you there’s nothing inherently wrong with the new 2.0L in the context of normal driving on normal roads and its refinement is still an improvement on a lot of its competitors’ offerings.

Note: CarsGuide attended this event as a guest of the manufacturer, with meals provided.

The Mazda CX-80 Touring G40e will do everything you ask of it and outside of pricey ongoing costs, there’s not much to annoy. It’s too large for my small family of three and if it’s kid stowage that you’re looking for, a people mover might offer better practicality and comfort than what this does. Would it be a model that you jump through hoops to get? Maybe not, but it still has a place as family hauler and is easy to drive.

Here’s a classic case of leaving well enough alone. Having figured out for sure that the Ranger’s looks weren’t costing it any sales whatsoever, Ford wisely decided to spend the facelift money where it counted most; under the bonnet.

If you have sharp eyes, you might pick the dark highlights replacing the chrome finish on some models, the new wheel designs and a couple of new hero colours for specific variants.

Beyond that, those big, bold, bluff looks continue with more than the odd nod to the US-market pick-ups that seem to inspire so many ute buyers in this country.

Inside it’s the same story, with those fabulous interior door handles that are so easy to use continuing and everything else remaining very, very Ranger-ish.

I've said it before but Mazda SUVs all look like scaled versions of each other to me and the CX-80 looks ridiculously similar to every other larger SUV model in the Mazda stable with the long pronounced nose that features sharp LED lighting and its general robust size.

The rear is where it differs with the proportions becoming a little bulbous but it’s practically shaped and overall is a nice-looking family SUV at the kerb side.

Head inside and the interior is pleasant with its high-quality trims and heavy-handed styling that matches the exterior dimensions with big panelling and air-vents up front to balance out the long width of this dashboard.

However, the whole car tends to lack personality for a model that’s a part of Mazda’s ‘premium SUV’ range. It's nice but doesn't add anything new.

Despite the lower-tech new engine and its power losses compared with its predecessor, the 2.0-litre Ranger in dual-cab 4X4 form retains its full 3.5-tonne towing capacity.

Sticking with towing, if you option up the Touring Pack, the Ranger gets Ford’s 'Trailer Reversing Guidance' which uses cameras and the rotary drive-mode dial to allow the driver to take the hassle out of trailer reversing. Up to a point, anyway. But there’s also a great check-list menu on the info-screen to detect failed trailer lighting and other problems. The Touring Pack is now standard on many versions but still optional of cheaper variants.

Which ever version you buy, any dual-cab 4X4 Ranger styleside has a tub measuring 1547mm long, 1584 wide, 1224mm between the wheel arches (to accept a standard pallet) and a loading height of 816mm. The tub also features inner tie-down rails, a light, a tailgate-lift assist ram and cupholders moulded into the tailgate’s inner side.

Payloads for the various Ranger models are determined by kerb mass, which means the lightest variant, the XL can carry 1135kg, while the heaviest, the Platinum, is restricted to 981kg. Still a decent figure, to be honest.

Inside, the Ranger’s cabin ranges from the starkly utilitarian in the XL (vinyl floor mats and cloth seats to name just a couple of features) to extremely plush in the case of the Platinum with its four USB ports, wireless phone charging and even a row of six switch blanks ready for aftermarket accessories.

The front seating is definitely superior to the rear seat in the Ranger, and the latter features a fairly flat cushion and a backrest.

Lesser versions of the Ranger also get a conventional park-brake compared with the electronic one on more expensive models. We’ll take the manual version any day.

Seven-seat SUVs tend to really be a 5+2 combo, where the rear two seats are for kid- or emergency-use only. You'll be pleased to find that all passengers enjoy a decent amount of space in each row in the CX-80. The third row is still a little cosy for an adult but my 6ft2 brother managed to get back there without too many grumbles. However, we all giggled as he sort of fell in due to the lack of handholds (sorry, Mack).

Otherwise, the 170mm ground clearance and wide door apertures make it an easy SUV to get in and out of. The doors are heavy and sometimes miss their 'hold' position if you open them too quickly, making them swing back. My eight-year-old got whacked a few times because of it!

Amenities and storage are best in the first and second rows with front occupants enjoying those heated seats, two USB-C ports, a 12-volt socket and wireless charging pad. You also get dual-zone climate control, and powered seats with adjustable lumbar support. The seats are well-padded but fairly narrow and short in the base, making it easy to fatigue on longer journeys.

Storage includes a large glovebox that can hold a manual and a fair bit more, a shallow but handy middle console because of its dual-opening lid and a total of four drink holders. There's a sunglasses holder but not much else for smaller loose items.

In the second row you get two map pockets, a small storage bin in each door and a total of six drink holders. There's also individual reading lights, two USB-C ports, climate control, directional air vents, a fold-down armrest and retractable sunblinds (always a winning feature in my house).

The third row gets four drink holders, two USB-C ports and two directional air vents.

Feedback from my passengers (kids and adults alike) hasn't been great for the air-conditioning system with all complaining how long it took for the rear two rows to cool down. The low and awkward positioning of the air vents also prevents direct air flow to passengers. The third row is impacted by this as the passenger's legs cover them.

The rest of the technology is solid with the multimedia system offering a rotary dial operation. The system hasn't seen any recent updates, so if you're familiar with the Mazda system, you'll get along just fine.

The built-in satellite navigation is simple enough to use and the wireless Apple CarPlay is easy to connect to. There's also wireless Android Auto. Call connections remained consistent but feedback was that there seemed to be a fair bit of background noise on my end during calls.

Rounding out the interior is the boot space which offers a level loading space, retractable cargo blind and underfloor storage which houses the tyre repair kit. There's also a 12-volt socket and 220-volt/150W AC socket housed on a side panel.

With all three rows up, you get 258L of capacity and that figure jumps up to 566L when the third row is stowed. The CX-8 offered more boot space but the CX-80 is still respectable for the annual family road trip. Plus you get a powered tailgate function in the Touring model, which is always appreciated.

Mazda offers a choice of five CX-80 grades and for almost all of them, you get the option of a new mild hybrid petrol or diesel, or a plug-in hybrid powertrain.

The Touring G40e model on test for this review is second-from-the-bottom and has a petrol mild-hybrid powertrain. It is priced from $61,950 before on-road costs and the Artisan Red Metallic paintwork our test model has adds $995 to the price tag.

The Touring is more affordable than some of its rivals, including the Toyota Kluger GXL at $70,440 MSRP and Hyundai Santa Fe Elite at $62,500 MSRP. However, these two models are full hybrids and the Santa Fe has a slightly longer features list for only a little bit more money which makes it better value overall.

The great thing about Mazda is once you move up from the entry grade, you often benefit from a host of great standard features that would usually come as part of a package or cost extra with other brands. For example the Touring gets leather upholstery, heated and powered front seats and a wireless charging pad, which isn't too bad for a grade that sits towards the start of the range.

There are some solid practical features like the keyless entry and start, rain-sensing wipers, dusk-sensing headlights, powered tailgate, three-zone climate control, retractable sunblinds (second row) and 360-degree view camera system.

Tech feels well-rounded with a 10.25-inch multimedia system, six USB-C ports, two 12-volt sockets, a 220-volt/150W AC socket, satellite navigation and wireless/wired Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.

In terms of value within the CX-80 range, the Touring G40e is the pick of the litter.

While the V6 turbo-diesel remains unchanged with its 184kW and mighty 600Nm of torque. It remains paired with the 10-speed automatic transmission and the availability of a '4-Auto' setting for the drive system which allows for the use of all-wheel drive on dry bitumen.

The big change to the V6’s status is that it’s now available across the entire dual-cab 4X4 range, right down to the XL version with its rubber floor mats and steel wheels.

Now, if you were cynical, you might suggest Ford has made the V6 more widely available, because the four-cylinder engine option (once the only one available on lesser versions like the XL) has lost a bit of mojo in the transition to Ranger 2026.5.

The thought of a carmaker going backwards on specification and output for an engine goes against the grain somewhat, but in this case, the move to a simpler, potentially more robust engine design makes some sense in the context of long-term ownership costs.

Opinions are divided on how many of the previous 2.0-litre engines posed problems for their buyers, but the fact remains that the wet timing belt (where the rubber belt runs in an oil bath) design had a less-than-perfect track record here and abroad. And even if failures were only a small percentage of units sold, when that failure happens to you, it’s a 100 per cent failure rate…

So, Ford has re-engineered the 2.0-litre unit to use an utterly conventional timing chain, designed new pistons, a different fuel-injection system and reduced the turbocharger count from two to one. The theory is the more robust timing chain will reduce problems, while the single-turbo installation will save money at a production level. In the process, however, both power and torque outputs have fallen. In this case, the bi-turbo engine’s 154kW and 500Nm have fallen to 125kW and 405Nm respectively in the new engine.

Payloads and towing capacity have not been affected (the Ranger can still tow 3500kg) but there’s speculation that 125kW won’t drag a huge trailer around with the same ease as the old engine, even with the 10-speed automatic that’s fitted. Hence the V6 being made available across the board. Allegedly.

The counterpoint is that Ford has dropped the final-dive ratio of the 2.0-litre Rangers which should help with in-gear flexibility and acceleration.

The 2.0-litre-engined Rangers also lack the 4-Auto setting and operate in two-wheel drive mode exclusively on bitumen.

 The CX-80 Touring G40e model has an eight-speed auto transmission and all-wheel drive via a 3.3L turbo-petrol in-line six-cylinder engine coupled with a 48-volt mild hybrid system that produces up to 209kW of power and 450Nm of torque.

It’s not ridiculously powerful but pick up is great and there's more than enough to move the CX-80's big body around and support a 2500kg braked towing capacity.

Ford claims a combined cycle (urban/extra-urban) fuel economy figure of 6.8 litres per 100km for the new 2.0-litre engine. We didn’t get too close to that, but that’s hardly surprising given real-world figures almost never match the official test figure. Rather, we managed 8.2L/100km in mainly relaxed country driving and about 9.5L/100km with a little peak hour traffic thrown into the mix. Either way, the Ranger should be pretty frugal.

The real question mark crops up when you hook a bobcat and tandem trailer to the tow-bar. We’ll have to wait and see how that affects economy on the 'little' Ranger engine.

Meantime, those real-world figures, combined with the Ford’s 80-litre fuel tank, mean a typical range of something like 800 to 900km between visits to the service-station.

And while you might be thinking a newly-developed, modern turbo-diesel would need AdBlue, the 2.0-litre as fitted to the Ranger line-up does not.

The Touring G40e model has a 74-litre fuel tank and an official combined fuel cycle usage of 8.4L/100km, which gives you a theoretical driving range of up to 880km.

The mild-hybrid system works well enough that I didn’t hit double digits for fuel usage despite not being shy on using the power while hauling cargo and people on a mix of open road and urban trips.

My real-world use popped out at 9.3L/100km and while the diesel variant has much more efficient outputs and range, this result is pretty good for such a massive SUV.

Since Ford has made no changes to suspension, steering, tyre specifications or braking hardware, it’s no surprise to find that the new version feels very familiar.

The V6 variants remain something of a revelation after some of the competitors’ four-cylinder engines, and the sophistication and refinement comes through immediately with the V6 slurring away at its upshifts and generally feeling like a high-end solution to a dual-cab propulsion problem.

But of course, we knew that, didn’t we? Exactly, so the big questions surround the new 2.0-litre four-cylinder turbo-diesel with its new specification and downgraded outputs. Specifically, can 125kW and 405Nm cut it in this cut-throat market?

The initial answer appears to be yes. In fact, when you consider that not every dual-cab owner tows three-and-a-half tonnes with one, you can see why a smaller, more frugal engine might do the job. And there’s always the optional V6 if the job demands it, right?

Acceleration is nothing like the V6’s of course, but the new four-cylinder rolls along at highway speeds without a problem and can still accelerate to overtake. That’s largely a function of having 10 gears and a lower final-drive ratio, but the latter doesn’t seem to have made the engine feel manic or short-geared in any way.

Normal overtaking ranges, say, 70km/h to 100km/h feature lots of mid-range and it’s only when you wring the new engine out that it starts to feel a little puny at the top end. But it never fails to impress with its refined feel and fairly low noise levels and, if nothing else, it proves that smaller capacity four-cylinder engines have an inherent advantage in being smoother and silkier to rev than some of the big bangers out there.

Perhaps if you jumped straight from the outgoing bi-turbo variant into the new single-turbo Ranger, you might notice a decent fall-off in performance, but if you’d never driven a bi-turbo, you’ll never dismiss the new engine as anything other than completely adequate.

The caveat to all that is when we get to hitch a big load to the new Ranger and see what a couple or three tonnes does to that apparent adequacy.

The Touring G40e model is pleasant, if a little boring, to bum around in. Boring may be too strong a word but there's not much that gets you excited about the driving experience. The Touring performs and has decent power through most situations but it lacks a certain edge. It's not particularly sporty, nor does it sound mean when you put your foot down.

It's nice and does what you expect it to do.

The ride comfort is good with cushioned suspension with enough road feedback but people in the back will jostle a bit over the worst of the bumps.

Road noise can creep in at higher speeds and third rowers will struggle to be a part of the conversation but overall the cabin is refined for longer journeys.  

Visibility is mostly good because of the big windows but the wider pillars mean I check my blind spots very carefully, as the side mirrors seem a tad too small for the bulk of the car.

The CX-80 has a small turning circle of 11.6m and most of the time it never feels like it lumbers, but when you’re manoeuvring it in a tight car park the steering can feel heavy and a three-point turn starts to feel clumsy.

A saving grace is the excellent quality of the 360-degree camera system which takes out some of the puff from parking it. The CX-80 fills a space and it’s one you'd be careful to park so you don't get crowded.

At the time of this review the new Mazda CX-80 hasn’t been tested with ANCAP and is thus unrated but it has 10 airbags which is great for a big family SUV and includes side-chest airbags for the second row and curtain airbags that extend to the third row.

The Touring G40e model features a robust list of standard safety features including auto emergency braking (AEB), safe exit assist, front and rear cross-traffic alerts, blind-spot monitoring, driver attention alert and monitoring, forward collision warning, lane keeping aid/departure, front and rear parking sensors, a 360-degree camera system, traffic sign recognition, intelligent seatbelt warning and a tyre pressure monitoring system.

The adaptive cruise control is one of the most user-friendly I’ve sampled recently and other than a sensitive lane keeping aid, all systems follow that user-friendly vibe.

There are a total of five top-tether points and two ISOFIX child seat mounts. The width of the middle seat means you should be good to fit three child seats side by side if they're not too large.

Ford’s standard factory warranty for the Ranger is five years/unlimited kilometres.

There’s also the option of pre-paid servicing, available when you purchase the vehicle brand-new. By locking in the servicing cost, you can pay for the first four scheduled services up to 60,000km or four years, whichever comes first. That’s worked out in accordance with the vehicle’s 12 month/15,000km service intervals.

The Ford Australia website also has a service-cost calculator function where you can input your vehicle’s details and a fixed-price service cost will be worked out for you.

Ford Australia also has a huge dealer network, so parts and servicing should not represent a problem anywhere in the country.

The CX-80 is let down a bit by its ongoing costs.

Mazda offers the CX-80 with a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty which is fairly standard. A number of its rivals are offered with up to seven-year terms these days.

You get a five-year servicing program with services averaging $694, which makes it on the more expensive side, but servicing intervals are reasonable at every 12 months or 15,000km, whichever occurs first.