Mazda CX-3 vs GWM Tank 300

What's the difference?

‘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.

The diesel is now the pick of the Tank 300 range. It’s the best fit for this vehicle and offers greater driver engagement than the petrol or hybrid.

It also has genuine off-road chops while still managing to suit family life.

While it could benefit from further refinements to on-road behaviour, cabin noise and the ADAS systems, none of these are deal breakers. 

The fact that it is priced so keenly against some excellent competitors and is stacked with standard gear adds to the Tank 300’s appeal.

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

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.

The only visible difference between the diesel and the petrol or hybrid 300s is a 2.4T badge. So you get the same boxy exterior as before.

It’s somewhat derivative and gives more than a nod to Jeep, but the design has intent - it looks capable off-road and for most people that’s enough. Luckily it is capable off-road. More on that later.

Inside the upright, shelf-like dash is appealing. I like that everything is nicely integrated, like the dual 12.3-inch screens which flow nicely into one another. 

The big T-shaped three-spoke steering wheel looks cool and the aeronautical air vents are clearly inspired by Mercedes-Benz. 

The chunky metal-look plastic glove box cover adds extra visual flair and the stitching throughout elevates the cabin further.

However, the futuristic looking gear shifter is chunky, takes up too much space and is unnecessary.

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.

Up front the Tank 300 offers a commanding view of the road and it’s easy to find your perfect driving position thanks to the power-adjustable seats.

Those seats have good side bolstering but could do with a little extra cushioning for the thighs. The Nappa leather-appointed seats in the Ultra look and feel lovely. 

Storage is average for the segment with room for larger bottles and additional flat items in the door pockets, and a well-sized central bin that also houses two cupholders, although they sit low in the cavity and two coffees sit awkwardly together.

The Tank has one USB-C port for charging only but another USB-A port up front for connectivity. You shouldn’t need that given Apple CarPlay and Android Auto is wireless.

Keen off-roaders will have fun with the extensive Tank Expert Mode in the multimedia screen, which allows you to individualise your 4WD experience. 

Beyond that the screen is neatly laid out, responsive and easy to use. GWM has come a long way when it comes to in-car tech. The icons on the digital instrument cluster, however, are still too small.

There’s ample leg room in the rear, with space between my knees (I am 184cm tall) and the rear of the front seat, and enough toe room. It doesn’t feel enormously spacious across the rear row but three kids should be comfy. Headroom is enhanced by a scalloped section of the roof specifically for rear-seat passengers, but it doesn’t leave a huge amount of space for taller people.

The rear seat bench is flat but the backrests have some support and overall the seats back there are comfortable.

You’ll find lower rear-seat air vents, map pockets, a fold-down central arm rest with two cupholders, room for small bottles in the doors and two USB-A ports.

The boot can take 400 litres with all seats up and 1635L with the rear seats folded. That figure is measured from the floor to the top of the rear seats. 

Jeep says the Wrangler has 898L capacity with all seats in place but that is measured from the floor to the roofline.

There is no under-floor storage in the 300’s boot and the full-size spare wheel is housed in traditional 4x4 fashion on the tailgate.

One of the key selling points across GWM’s entire range is value for money, and the Tank 300 has always had that in spades. 

As with the petrol and hybrid 300, the diesel is offered in two well-specified model grades - Lux and Ultra.

At $47,990 drive-away, the Lux diesel is $2000 more than the Lux petrol, but $3000 cheaper than the Lux hybrid. 

The Ultra diesel, at $51,990, is $1000 pricier than the petrol equivalent and $5000 more affordable than the hybrid Ultra.

The GWM Tank 300 diesel Lux is also more affordable than equivalent grades of a number of ladder-frame 4x4 SUV rivals like the Isuzu MU-X, Toyota Fortuner, SsangYong Rexton and the Ford Everest.

It’s also significantly more affordable than the Jeep Wrangler, with the Tank 300 Lux costing about $30,000 less than a Wrangler Unlimited Sport S.

Note however that many of those models - except the Wrangler - have the option of seven seats, whereas the Tank is strictly a five-seat proposition. If you want a third row, check out GWM’s Tank 500.

There are cheaper off-road large SUVs out there – the LDV D90 and Mahindra Scorpio. But the Tank 300 is a more refined and higher-quality offering than those models.

Standard gear in the Lux includes 17-inch alloy wheels, synthetic leather seats and steering wheel, power-adjustable front seats, dual-zone climate control, seven-colour ambient lighting, keyless entry and start, a sunroof, power-folding mirrors, paddle-shifters, a nine-speaker audio system with digital radio, built-in sat-nav, and a pair of 12.3 inch digital displays with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.

It also gets roof rails, side steps, privacy glass, all-terrain mode selection and a rear diff lock.

The Ultra upgrades to 18-inch wheels, Nappa leather-accented seats, heated and ventilated front seats, a heated steering wheel, more adjustment for the front seats and a memory setting, a massage function for the driver’s seat, a wireless phone charger, 64 colours in the ambient lighting suite, and a nine-speaker premium audio system.

There is nothing obvious missing from the standard features list, but I don’t know why a wireless device charger is limited to the top grade.

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 big news with the Tank 300 is, of course, the new engine.

It is a 2.4-litre four-cylinder turbocharged diesel engine borrowed from the GWM Cannon and Cannon Alpha utes.

It pumps out 135kW of power and 480Nm of torque. That’s more torque than an MU-X but not as much as an Everest.

It is paired with a nine-speed automatic transmission and has part-time four-wheel drive. 

If you need to tow, the diesel has a 3000kg towing capacity, which is 500kg more than the hybrid and petrol. It can’t beat the 3.5-tonne towing capacity of the MU-X and the Everest.

Payload has also increased compared with the petrol and hybrid, up from 400kg to 600kg.

GWM says it conducted extensive testing internationally but also in Australia to improve towing performance. There are approximately 20 different parts compared with the other powertrain variants to get the best out of towing in the diesel.

A rear diff lock is standard on both grades while the Ultra gains a front diff lock.

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.

The diesel Tank 300 consumes 7.8 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres on the official combined cycle, which is better than the 9.5L figure for the petrol and the 8.4L quoted for the hybrid.

That figure also sits somewhere between a 2.0-litre bi-turbo Everest (7.1L/100km) and a 3.0L MU-X (8.3L/100km).

It has a 75-litre fuel tank and GWM claims an NEDC range of about 950 kilometres. GWM says the Euro 5 engine does not require Adblue.

Given the restrictions of a media launch, we did not obtain real-world fuel use figures.

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.

I last drove a Tank 300 in late 2023 and it was the hybrid variant. While the hybrid has some positives, its driving characteristics were not high on that list.

It had an erratic throttle response, hesitation on take-off and it felt underdone.

In contrast, this new diesel variant just feels like the right fit for this SUV. 

There is slight lag accelerating from a standing start, but the powertrain is torquey and there’s plenty on tap when overtaking or just increasing speed when already on the go. GWM has not provided a 0-100km/h time.

It is clear you’re in a diesel as soon as you turn on the ignition - it has that typical diesel rattle, but it is not as unsophisticated as some oil-burners I have driven.

The cabin could do with some extra insulation with wind and tyre noise detected, but it’s hardly a deal breaker.

Given the vehicle’s size, heft (nearly 2.3-tonne kerb weight) and the fact it’s shaped like a brick, the 300 holds its nerve on winding stretches of road with only a little body roll. In saying that, best not to treat it like a Mini Cooper on your favourite twisty road. 

Ride quality is a bit mixed. We only drove the Ultra on 18-inch wheels and while it manages to soak up bumps, the ride is jittery, and that’s even more evident on uneven road surfaces.

Steering is heavily weighted and a little vague, but fine for a big off-roader, and the brakes need to be pushed hard.

One quirk is the indicator - it appears to be a one-touch setup for indicating to change lanes, but then the indicator stays on. I tried several times to test this, even flicking it to the opposite side to turn it off and it was very stubborn. 

The good news is it appears GWM has toned down the awful indicator sound of its earlier models and is now much more subtle. 

So on-road the Tank 300 is more than competent, and a much nicer vehicle to drive in an urban setting than a Jeep Wrangler, for example.

We also drove it briefly on an off-road trail, and in low range the Tank 300 proved that it can do what it says on the box. 

I’m no off-roading expert and there are much more challenging trails out there, but I had confidence that the Tank 300 would not let me down traversing the many chunky rocks, massive holes and fallen tree limbs.

ANCAP awarded the Tank 300 a five-star crash safety rating from testing done in 2022, scoring highly across all four of the major test categories.

GWM says it is waiting to hear from ANCAP but expects the diesel to be covered by the same rating.

As well as seven airbags including a front centre bag, the Tank 300 has a long list of safety gear covering both the Lux and Ultra. 

There’s a suite of collision mitigation systems that includes auto emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning, lane-keep assist, emergency lane keep, lane centring, front and rear collision warning, front and rear cross-traffic alert and lane change assist.

It also has driver fatigue monitoring, a rear seat child monitor, door opening warning, adaptive cruise, traffic sign recognition and hill-descent control.

I noted this in my recent GWM Haval H6 GT PHEV review, but GWM has made consistent tweaks to improve its advanced driver-assist systems (ADAS) and as a result they are less intrusive than they were when the Tank 300 launched in 2023.

There is still the occasional tugging of the wheel but it’s much less of a tug-of-war than it once was.

For the first 45 minutes of our test drive there was an annoying beep every 10 seconds that my co-driver and I could not identify. There was no icon on the driver display to indicate that it was a lane departure warning or speed limit alert, but eventually it just stopped. We still have no idea what it was but it was, thankfully, not present in the vehicle we drove in the second half of the launch drive.

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.

GWM covers the Tank 300 with its seven-year/unlimited-kilometre new-vehicle warranty, which is an impressive offer.

You are covered for seven years of roadside assist and the Tank is offered with a seven-year capped-price servicing program.

GWM is yet to confirm the Tank 300 diesel’s servicing offer (including pricing), but expect a service schedule similar to the Cannon ute with the same powertrain.

That means the first service might be required at 5000km or six months and beyond that it will need a service every 12 months or 10,000km, whichever occurs first.