Mazda CX-60
Car comparison
Mazda CX-60 3.3 e-Skyactiv GvsLand Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonLand Rover Range Rover Sport III
3.0 D300
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Mazda CX-60 3.3 e-Skyactiv G
- Fastest top speed219 km/h136 mph
- Lightest1,949 kg4,297 lb
- Best power-to-weight146 hp/t109 kW/t6.9 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption7.4 L/100 km31.8 mpg US38.2 mpg UK
- Largest trunk477 L
- Best economy score87/100
- Best practicality score84/100
Land Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.6 s
- Most powerful301 hp224 kW
- Highest torque650 Nm479 lb-ft
- Best estimated range988 km614 mi
- Best overall score68/100
- Best performance score61/100
Specification comparison
| Model | MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 284hp212kW | 301hp224kW |
| Torque | 450Nm332lb-ft | 650Nm479lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,949kg4,297lb | 2,315kg5,104lb |
| Gross weight | 2,500kg5,512lb | 3,220kg7,099lb |
| Top speed | 219 km/h 136 mph | 218 km/h 135 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 72.7s99% target: 217 km/h / 135 mph Calculated | 71.5s99% target: 216 km/h / 134 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.9s | 6.6s |
| 0-200 km/h | 34.8s Calculated | 34.7s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.5s Calculated | 6.2s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 7.4L/100 km31.8mpg US38.2mpg UK | 8.1L/100 km29mpg US34.9mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 9.8L/100 km24mpg US28.8mpg UK | - |
| Fuel consumption highway | 6L/100 km39.2mpg US47.1mpg UK | - |
| Quarter mile | 15.0s Calculated | 14.7s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 146hp/t109kW/t66hp/1000 lb Calculated | 130hp/t97kW/t59hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 231Nm/t154lb-ft/ton Calculated | 281Nm/t188lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 784km487mi Calculated | 988km614mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 3,283cc200cu in | 2,997cc183cu in |
| Length | 4,745mm187in | 4,946mm195in |
| Width | 1,890mm74in | - |
| Height | 1,688mm66in | 1,820mm72in |
| Wheelbase | 2,870mm113in | 2,997mm118in |
| Front track | 1,640mm65in | 1,702mm67in |
| Rear track | 1,645mm65in | 1,704mm67in |
| Ground clearance | 179mm7in | 281mm11in |
| Trunk volume | 477L | 450L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,726L | 1,860L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 58L | 80L |
| CO2 emissions | 171g/km | - |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Mazda CX-60 3.3 e-Skyactiv G: Power / Torque
- Land Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 5,000-6,000 rpm | 2,000-3,500 rpm | 6,250 rpm |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 4,000 rpm | 1,500-2,500 rpm | 4,250 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.5 s | 6.2 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.9 s | 6.6 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 34.8 s | 34.7 s |
| Top speed | 219 km/h 136 mph | 218 km/h 135 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.4 s | 2.4 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.4 s | 6.3 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.7 s | 9.6 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.6 s | 12.4 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.0 s | 14.7 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 152 km/h 95 mph | 153 km/h 95 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 284 hp 212 kW |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 301 hp 224 kW |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300 has 17 hp more than Mazda CX-60 3.3 e-Skyactiv G.
The biggest power difference is between Mazda CX-60 3.3 e-Skyactiv G and Land Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300: 17 hp (13 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 450 Nm 332 lb-ft |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 650 Nm 479 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 1,949 kg 4,297 lb |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 2,315 kg 5,104 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 219 km/h 136 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 218 km/h 135 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 6.9 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 6.6 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Land Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300 and Mazda CX-60 3.3 e-Skyactiv G: 0.3 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 7.4 L/100 km 31.8 mpg US 38.2 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Mazda CX-60 3.3 e-Skyactiv G and Land Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300: 0.7 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 146 hp/t 109 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 130 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 784 km 487 mi |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 988 km 614 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 284 hp 212 kW | 6.9 s | 219 km/h 136 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 301 hp 224 kW | 6.6 s | 218 km/h 135 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G |
| 7.4 L/100 km 31.8 mpg US 38.2 mpg UK | ||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 |
| 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK | ||||||
Land Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 7.4 L/100 km 31.8 mpg US 38.2 mpg UK | 6.9 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK | 6.6 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | 146 hp/t 109 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp | 7.4 L/100 km 31.8 mpg US 38.2 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | 130 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp | 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | MazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv G | Land RoverRange Rover Sport III3.0 D300 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 284 hp 212 kW | 301 hp 224 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 450 Nm 332 lb-ft | 650 Nm 479 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.9 s | 6.6 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 219 km/h 136 mph | 218 km/h 135 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,949 kg 4,297 lb | 2,315 kg 5,104 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 7.4 L/100 km 31.8 mpg US 38.2 mpg UK | 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 784 km 487 mi | 988 km 614 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 171 g/km | - | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 477 L 16.8 cu ft | 450 L 15.9 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 146 hp/t 109 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp | 130 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Mazda CX-60 3.3 e-Skyactiv G | Land Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 7.4 L/100 km31.8 mpg US38.2 mpg UK | 8.1 L/100 km29 mpg US34.9 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 12.95 LC100 km | 14.17 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 20.84 LC100 mi | 22.81 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,110 L293 US gal244 UK gal | 1,215 L321 US gal267 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,943 LC/year | 2,126 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Mazda CX-60 3.3 e-Skyactiv G
- Is 366 kg lighter
- Has 1 km/h (1 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 0.7 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 16 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 27 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
Land Rover Range Rover Sport III 3.0 D300
- Has 17 hp more
- Has 200 Nm more
- Is 0.3 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 204 km (127 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























