GWM Tank 300 vs Mazda CX-3

What's the difference?

There’s a lot to like here. The GWM Tank 300 in any of its forms is a competent vehicle from the helm and backs up its off-road claims with real ability. The ride quality, in particular, is a highlight, and it’s a good size for couples or young families. Its value for money is also quite brilliant.

Add this plug-in hybrid driveline to the mix and the performance is quite astounding, while the petrol engine and EV potential have arrived at a critical point in history where such things carry more weight than ever before. It remains to be seen what happens globally and what effect that has on fuel prices, specifically the price gap between petrol and diesel. There’s also the question of what happens electronically when you dunk the Tank into Nolan’s Brook on the track to Cape York. But for now, this is a car whose time appears to have come.

But while the overall concept deserves praise, there’s still some work required in terms of the way the car drives and in its attempts at keeping its occupants safe. The calibration of both the throttle response and some of the driver aids is, frankly, in need of some final polish. And though it sounds odd, the Tank 300 would be a better thing to live with if GWM ditched the contentious driver aids and took the points hit on its ANCAP rating. Even better would be to stick with the tech but refine it to the point where it works in the background and not as an irritant.

‘You get what you pay for’ comes to mind with the CX-3, which is interesting given it’s neither the newest nor most feature-packed SUV in its class.

The ageing light SUV does however offer one of the best-put-together experiences in a car of this size and its engine is powerful for the class. Build quality feels well above par and there aren’t any annoying inclusions that are becoming more common in new cars.

There aren’t many downsides unless you were hoping for a big screen and the ability to play around with software functions, but at this end of the new car spectrum, a car that drives this well and remains stylish a decade on should be applauded.

Put aside its relative (but forgivable) lack of efficiency and somewhat smaller boot than rivals, and the CX-3 nails everything it needs to.

Derivative is a strong word, but from most angles there’s a little bit of something else in the Tank 300’s exterior. We can easily see a bit of Suzuki Jimny in profile, and a dash of new Ford Bronco in the lights and grille. And if you squint there’s a blob of Jeep Wrangler in the wheel-arch extensions.

Which should mean it’s just a mash-up. Yet somehow, it isn’t, and the Tank has its own vibe.

Inside, that vibe suddenly becomes a bit overdone, and the plastic garnish above the glove box, in particular, looks like it will date pretty quickly (if it hasn't already). There's also a lot going on in here; this is a busy place and even the gear selector looks like a prop form the Star Wars franchise.

For one, there’s the way it looks inside and out.

The Mazda CX-3 hasn’t remained the most popular car in its segment on price, so the fact its styling continues to age gracefully in the design-focused light SUV segment (aimed at young or first-new car buyers) must have something to do with it.

While it’s been lightly updated a couple of times since 2014, the CX-3 is still in its first generation and has stood the test of time.

Looking like a jacked-up Mazda2, the CX-3 brings some traditional aesthetic to a category peppered with more divisive and daring (but admittedly admirable) designs like the Hyundai Venue, Suzuki Ignis (RIP) or the cute but prohibitively expensive Jeep Avenger.

Some elements of the CX-3, like the chrome trim around the grille or the black plastic cladding along the bottom of the body and around the wheel arches, seemed in the past like they had the potential to age poorly, but Mazda’s design language has only slowly changed since 2015, and the CX-3 still looks at-home in the brand’s line-up.

It’s not the most adventurous - even inside its layout is quite basic - but it does give off a premium vibe and the fact it plays things a little bit safe means the CX-3’s broad appeal is undeniable.

While GWM is by no means the worst offender, we still reckon the Tank’s interior would be better without such a degree of reliance of touchscreens and menu-driven functionality. While it’s obvious that there’s a lot going on in the cabin, it still seems odd that important functions such as shifting from conventional hybrid mode to EV mode would require a dive through the on-screen menus when a simple switch would be faster, easier and simpler.

And even when GWM has provided switches, the end result is muddy. Take the volume controls for an example. There’s no central volume knob accessible by both front seat occupants, so you rely on the steering wheel mounted up and down buttons to change the volume. Except they’re not marked as volume controls in any specific way. Okay, if you know, you know. But if you don’t know, you’ve just missed the news headlines.

Overall, it's disappointing. And I resent the fact that GWM (or anybody else) thinks it’s okay for me to have to learn to operate a car all over again. The dashboard is also full of tiny symbols and lettering making things difficult to decipher if you normally wear glasses to read, but not to drive.

We’ll take issue with the indicator stalk, too, which has an indistinct feel when trying to discern whether you turned the indicators on for an intersection, or just tipped them on for three flashes for a lane change. And if you have accidentally gone too far and they’re still flashing away merrily after the lane change, turning them off manually is a lottery that might see you succeed, or mistakenly turn on the other side flashers.

The rest is better with proper buttons for the various off-road drive modes, diff locks and hill holder. There’s even an analogue clock for some real nostalgia. You’ll also find a single USB-A and USB-C charge port in the dash, and a pair of cupholders buried deep in the centre console which also has a lid and sliding drawer.

It’s obvious that this is a smaller vehicle than some, and the four-door layout dictates shorter doors. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the driver’s seat slides back a few centimetres every time you shut the car down. The trouble with that if you’re tall, is that the seat is now tucked back in behind the B-pillar, meaning you have to climb out and around it to exit the car. Perhaps you can switch off this slide-back function, but I didn’t have the spare hour to troll through the menus to do so. Oh, and there should be a driver’s grab handle on the A-pillar, too. There isn’t.

The rear seat is better with an adjustable backrest that provides proper comfort, and leg and knee room that hides the 300’s smaller dimensions well. There’s lots of glass and light and a pair of USB charge points. You also get a pair of rear reading lights and central vents, but no climate controls.

Even the cargo area is a decent size with the five seats in place (360 litres, up to 1520L with 60/40 rear seats lowered) but the under-floor storage space has been consumed by the hybrid battery, meaning the jack and tools and charging cable live in the cargo area and the spare tyre is bolted to the tailgate.

The single-piece tailgate is hinged at the side, and needs a fair bit of real estate to be swung open fully.

The Tank features vehicle-to-load capability, too, which means you can operate your power tools using the vehicle as the power source, and there’s a 220-volt socket in the luggage area to do just that. But when camping, too, this feature can also power induction cookers, microwaves, and all the other stuff you probably should have left at home. And if the hybrid battery runs out of charge, the Tank can run its petrol engine to act as a generator (your camping neighbours are going to love that).

The real gadget freaks out there can also download the Tank app which allows you to operate functions such as power windows, climate control, seat heaters, central locking and check your charging status all from the comfort of your smartphone. You can also use this functionality to flash the hazard lights to help spot your Tank from everybody else’s in the carpark.

The Mazda CX-3 isn’t the most spacious light SUV on the inside, but from either of the front seats it’s clear a lot of thought has gone into the best way to make the cabin work.

For example, precious space hasn’t been wasted by two dedicated cupholders, instead there’s a cupholder in the central storage compartment that’s relatively easy to reach into.

Like its design and some of its features, the CX-3’s layout can’t hide its age - there are still big physical controls for the climate settings, the speedometer is a physical dial and the gear selector is a very traditional style.

Mazda’s soon-to-be-gone media control wheel persists in the CX-3, which is by no means a bad thing. It falls nicely to hand, as with many of the controls in the CX-3. Its seating position isn’t too high and the positions you’re able to get the seat and steering wheel into should accommodate most humans.

Behind the front seats it’s a little more spartan. Space is at a premium, with my 178cm frame fitting in the back seat just enough that I had a fair bit of headroom, but my knees were able to brush the seat in front, set to my own driving position.

There are no ports for charging or vents in the second row, but the fold-down armrest has a clever fold-away cupholder. The window shoulder is a little high for young kids to properly see out, but there’s enough light that it doesn’t feel cramped.

The boot is similarly diminutive, a 264-litre space becoming 1174L with the second row folded down. Compare it with the Hyundai Venue and its 355-litre boot, or the Toyota Yaris Cross and its 390 litres, and the CX-3’s simple, well-constructed interior starts to lose points.

Upon updating the Mazda CX-3, the Evolve variant is now a $32,100 ask before on-road costs, which is $900 more than before. It’s a little step up from the $30,370 entry price of the Pure, but falls well short of the top-spec Akari’s $38,890 sticker price.

The CX-3 range now comes with updated autonomous emergency braking and adaptive cruise control, with the Evolve specifically scoring new fog lights and keyless entry.

The Evolve also comes with black machined 18-inch alloy wheels, synthetic leather interior trim and front parking sensors.

This is all on top of the CX-3’s standard kit which includes a leather-wrapped gear shift knob, handbrake handle and steering wheel, keyless start, an 8.0-inch multimedia display, wireless Apple CarPlay and wired Android Auto plus LED headlights, daytime running lights and tail-lights.

For its segment, the CX-3 isn’t cheap. The Evolve grade is more expensive than pretty much the entire line-ups of rivals like the Kia Stonic or Hyundai Venue, and its price somewhat lines up with the newer, hybrid-powered Toyota Yaris Cross.

But there’s more to the CX-3 than just a list of features.

The Tank’s plug-in driveline, starts with a petrol engine measuring 2.0-litres and contributing 180kW to the overall picture. But then there’s a single electric motor, sandwiched between the petrol engine and the nine-speed transmission. That means the Tank is still a mechanical four-wheel-drive platform, and when both powerplants are singing together, there’s an eye-opening 300kW and 750Nm of torque on tap.

The four-wheel-drive system operates as a rear-wheel drive on dry bitumen, and there’s the usual 4WD high range and 4WD low range. What there isn’t, is a 4WD-auto setting that allows you to use four-wheel drive in the dry on a paved road. That sounds minor, but for towing in particular, having all four wheels doing the driving is a major safety bonus.

All Tank 300s get a rear differential lock, but this version, the Ultra, also gets a locking front diff as well. Typically, the Tank also features a range of driving modes (no less than nine of them!) for the four-wheel-drive function, tailoring throttle, transmission and differential response according to the type of terrain being covered.

The Tank 300 is built the old fashioned way with a ladder-chassis upon which the body is bolted, and it still uses a live rear axle, too. But the front suspension is independent and the GWM uses coil springs rather than old-school leaf springs for much better ride quality.

The Mazda CX-3 is still powered by a 2.0-litre, naturally aspirated, four-cylinder petrol engine, as has been the case for years. Its outputs remain at 110kW/195Nm.

It drives the front wheels only, via a six-speed automatic transmission.

The headline number here is GWM’s official fuel consumption number of just 1.9 litres per 100km. Or it would be if it had anything to do with the real world. As it is, nobody is going to achieve that, and our mix of urban running netted an average of about 11.0 litres per 100km, with that dropping to 8.5 litres per 100km in country conditions.

The truth is, your consumption in this vehicle can go from zero to, say, 12 litres per 100km depending on how and where you drive and how much battery charge you have available.

Speaking of charging, the Tank 300 can use a commercial fast charger to absorb voltage at a rate of 50kW. At that rate, it can go from 30 to 80 per cent charged in about 24 minutes. A wall box (GWM offers one as a factory option) can take the 37.1kWh battery from 15 per cent to fully charged in 6.5 hours. And, of course, you can also charge the Tank from a domestic wall socket in a claimed 14.4 hours. We managed to add about 6km worth of charge per hour on such an outlet during our time with the car.

As far as range goes, GWM reckons there’s 115km (NEDC) of EV-only range, while starting a journey with a fully charged battery and a full 70-litre fuel tank should see you covering somewhere between 900 and 950km between top ups.

Mazda claims the CX-3 sips 6.3 litres of fuel per 100km, minimum 91 RON petrol, though on test the small SUV returned an 8.1L/100km figure under a mix of urban, highway and some dynamic driving.

With its 48-litre fuel tank, that means you’re realistically likely to get about 550km to a tank, though theoretically given Mazda’s efficiency claim a 760km trip on a single tank would be possible - if you could recreate the test lab conditions.

GWM claims a 0-100km/h acceleration time of just 6.3 seconds for the Tank 300 PHEV, and that’s impressive. There are two caveats here. The first is that you need at least 40 per cent battery charge on board to extract maximum thrust. And, secondly, even in those circumstances, the Tank never feels that brisk. It’s more effortless than genuinely rapid, although the torque up hills is genuinely impressive.

There’s no getting around the refinement inherent in using volts for some of the time. And when the petrol engine does chime in, it’s all but imperceptible. You’ll eventually hear the engine if you wring it right out, but even then, vibrations are minimal.

All in all, the Tank’s relatively compact dimensions work in its favour in an urban setting, and the range of camera views (including an off-road one showing you the obstacles you’re about to encounter) make parking a lot easier than it might have been. Only a high degree of distortion in the birds-eye-view camera mode takes a bit of getting used to.

On the move the ride quality is quite exceptional, and those coil springs really do make a difference. Even the usual council speed bumps don’t bother the Tank and the short wheelbase pitching we’ve seen in some similar vehicles just never emerges. Well chosen damper rates help, too, and there has been some Australian input into the way the Tank handles. It shows.

Steering, too, feels light and natural, although the almost constant fidgeting at the helm by the lane-keeping assistance program is annoying. And switching it off is not only a multi-button job, it needs to be done every time you start the vehicle.

Far and away the biggest hurdle in living with the Tank, however, is a throttle calibration that is way off the mark. Pressing the accelerator pedal initially doesn’t seem to do much at all, and then suddenly, the power comes in and you discover you’ve input too much throttle as the Tank surges away down the road, threatening to actually spin its tyres if there’s any gravel about. But not until that initial hesitation has caused the driver behind you to wonder aloud (I can lip-read) if you’re ever going to move at all. This needs to be fixed as a running change.

The all-important off-road driving experience is pretty sharp and the Tank 300 is a genuine competitor in this discipline. It’s extremely stable and capable on unsealed roads and tracks and the front and rear diff locks make it a proper adventurer’s rig.

It’s relatively demure dimensions also mean that it fits down the tracks and trails that have been created by decades of vehicles of a similar size, unlike some of the bigger new off-roaders we’re seeing that simply don’t fit in to the terrain so neatly.

Ultimately, the Tank’s stock tyres will be the limiting factor, but there are plenty of alternatives out there for a bit more off-road bite.

The light SUV category is an interesting one, as it feels somewhat like a gateway to bigger SUVs for those who get a taste of the higher seating position. But in city and urban areas, a light SUV should be as much car as someone needs - unless they have two kids or a bunch of equipment to get around with.

This comes down to the fact cars like the CX-3 are more efficient and easier to manoeuvre than their larger counterparts. And as light SUVs go, the CX-3 feels solid, confidence inspiring and more capable when outside its inner-city comfort zone.

Its naturally aspirated engine is big for the class. Even if it doesn’t feel the punchiest off the line it offers plenty of flexibility at higher speeds and makes overtaking on the highway feel less daunting than it would otherwise be in a car this small.

Its steering is light, which is an advantage in everyday driving, but has enough feedback that more dynamic driving is still engaging. It’s not sportscar-sharp, but you wouldn’t want it to be.

While its age would suggest the CX-3 should feel unrefined compared to newer small cars and light SUVs because of what lies underneath, Mazda’s work on the little SUV over the years has resulted in a car that feels mature and capable.

The suspension isn’t perfect, but it manages low-to medium speeds elegantly and does a decent job of maintaining stability at high speeds. It feels better than you’d expect from a car this size on the highway.

The 1294kg kerb weight and small-enough 18-inch wheels mean there’s not too much weight to manage, and there’s enough cushion in the tyres that harsh bumps don’t come crashing into the cabin.

While the CX-3 feels refined for its class, don’t expect a dead-quiet ride, as some road and wind noise make their way in above 80km/h. Then there’s the fact its engine and transmission will sometimes need to get a bit raucous when accelerating quickly. Aside from this, the CX-3 around town and in suburban areas feels nice and calm.

The Mazda CX-3 is technically unrated by ANCAP, though only because its original maximum five-star rating expired after seven years. While this means it easily passes many of ANCAP’s main criteria for safety (and strict Australian Design Rules - ADRs - to be able to be sold here), the CX-3 is missing some recent, more complex safety features.

Not everything is standard across the line-up, either. The Evolve misses out on adaptive headlights, a surround-view parking camera and traffic sign recognition. The base Pure variant also misses out on a front parking sensor.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other key features like seven airbags, dual-front and front-side plus curtain airbags spanning the sides. The CX-3 also has ABS and emergency braking with forward pedestrian detection and rear cross-traffic alert.

There’s lane departure warning, forward obstruction warning, blind-spot monitoring and a driver attention alert for those times you might miss something or - hopefully not often - are distracted.

All these systems are programmed well to minimise interference while driving, making the CX-3 refreshingly trusting of the driver to actually do the job of driving.

GWM offers a seven year/unlimited kilometre warranty on the Tank 300, as well as eight years of cover for the hybrid battery (also with no kilometre limit). There’s also seven years of roadside assistance thrown in, too.

Capped-price servicing is available for the first seven years, with the first service due at 12 months or 10,000km and subsequent services every 12 months of 15,000km after that. Prices for each service (in order) are: $320, $460, $460, $685, $685, $1075, and $370.

GWM has a network of 123 new-car dealerships able to handle servicing, and the company tells us that regional centres have not been forgotten.

Mazda offers a five-year, unlimited kilometre warranty, which is behind the curve for a mainstream brand these days. Rival brands like Kia and Hyundai offer seven years, for example, with some offering up to 10.

Servicing is undertaken every 12 months or 15,000km, whichever comes first, with servicing costing between $353 and $633 per visit. Total cost over the first seven years currently sits at $3233, averaging $462 a service, which is pricey considering the relatively simple mechanicals under the CX-3.

Mazda says there are more than 150 certified service dealerships across the country, with a tool to find the most convenient one for you. Given the CX-3’s advanced age, chances are there won’t be too many mechanical issues that haven’t been worked out in the last decade.