When the Mazda CX-60 first arrived in our market, the intent from the brand was clear from the get-go. A premium feel and mild hybrid straight-six powertrain put it inline with prestige brands, at least on paper.
The price point was somewhere in-between where Mazda was and where it aspired to be. Now, for the 2026 model year, Mazda has looked to broaden the appeal of the CX-60 by introducing some more mainstream flavours into the otherwise aspirational range.
In addition to a new entry-level Pure trim level, the most notable addition is a 2.5-litre naturally aspirated four-cylinder petrol engine that eschews any form of electrification. Dubbed the G25, it also ditches all-wheel drive for a rear-wheel setup.
Alongside the new engine and trim options, Mazda claims to have revised the CX-60’s spring and damper rates to improve ride quality. To see just how well it stacks up, we decided to pitch the new G25 engine against an otherwise evenly specified G40e.
The latter is fitted with the 3.3-litre turbocharged straight-six. That means the two cars tested here are both Evolve models, the G25 finished in Machine Grey Metallic and the G40e in Platinum Quartz Metallic.
Beyond drivetrains and paint, they are otherwise identically specified, although rather separated on price. In Evolve guise the G25 will set you back $49,740 and the G40e a noticeably steeper $55,740 – both before on-roads.
The G25 is offered in Pure, Evolve, and Touring, while the G40e petrol, D50e diesel, and P50e plug-in hybrid are offered across the entire range. Aside from a fake vent on the front quarter panel that reads INLINE 6 on the latter, you’ll spot no clear differences from a distance.
Both ride on the same 18-inch alloy wheels, have the same bumper designs and black plastic wheel arches, and thus won’t shame you for choosing the more affordable four-pot. Inside, it’s a very similar story.
The Evolve is worth stepping up to over the Pure as it features a much nicer array of cabin materials, with ‘Maztex’ synthetic leather used to cover the seats and other key touch points. It’s clear to see how the CX-60 was initially intended to push Mazda into a more premium tier.
The design feels thoroughly modern, classy, and almost European. Sure, the Evolve grade misses out on some niceties such as heated and ventilated seats or a panoramic sunroof, but it does still feature a fully digital 12.3-inch instrument cluster.
You’ll also find a colour head-up display, 10.25-inch infotainment screen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, eight-speaker audio system, and dual-zone climate control. Crucially though, yet again, there are no in-cabin differences between engine options.
Where they do differ quite a lot is when it comes to the way they drive. While the four-pot G25’s outputs of 138kW and 250Nm might look fairly meagre on paper, in reality there’s more of a spring in its step than you’d imagine.
That’s largely due to a substantial weight saving of 158kg thanks to it losing the all-wheel drive system. Being a four-cylinder, it doesn’t make the most inspiring noise, but it’s fairly quick to rev up and doesn’t mind being pushed reasonably hard.
It feels pleasantly dynamic, with it quite possible to get the rear end to step out. It’s surprisingly easy to control sideways thanks to the long wheelbase and responsive steering. Odds are, however, that you won’t be engaging in such shenanigans.
It serves as evidence of what a solid chassis and responsive throttle this thing has though. In traffic, it has more low-end pickup than you might expect. However, there are still two sticking points when it comes to city driving that are a constant for both models.
One is ride quality: the changes Mazda has made are certainly detectable on particularly pothole-laden streets, but there’s still a firmness to the suspension that leaves you a bit jiggled about on less than perfect roads.
The other is the transmission: rather than use a traditional torque converter, the eight-speed ‘Skyactiv-Drive’ automatic features a multi-plate clutch with the aim of improving fuel efficiency and delivering a more direct feel.
Indeed, it does feel more direct than a normal auto, and Mazda has made some changes to the clutch control to make it smoother than before; in both vehicles, it certainly appears to be far smoother than in pre-update models.
That said, it can sometimes be caught off guard and then delivers the odd clunky shift. As for the G40e in contrast to the G25, the difference is night and day in terms of performance, even if the four-pot gives it a fair go.
The 209kW and 450Nm of the inline-six, with its mild hybrid system, blow it out of the water, particularly when it comes to torque. With a nice warble and induction noise as you make progress in the G40e, there’s a feeling of immenseness.
It truly evokes the European feel Mazda aimed for when it first launched this engine. It’s a played-out analogy, perhaps for a reason, but it quite simply pulls like a freight train when you plant your right foot.
You can definitely feel the G40e’s extra weight when you sling it at some corners though. It might have all the grip in the world thanks to the all-wheel drive system, but all that heft over the nose means it never feels quite as crisp in the handling department.
It’s a bit like the difference between old four and six-cylinder BMW models where the ‘lesser’ engine rewarded with sharper handling as a trade-off for less poke. What’s most perplexing though is how little difference there is in terms of fuel consumption.
On paper, the G25 actually uses slightly more with a 7.5-litres/100km claim versus the G40e’s 7.4-litres/100km. In reality, the former used 9.4-litres/100km over 621km of testing, while the mild hybrid inline six used 9.7-litres/100km over 332km.
Both were driven in a similar manner and conditions across Adelaide and the nearby Adelaide Hills. They’re tuned to accept regular 91RON or E10, which is good to note amid troubling times. The introduction of this four-cylinder engine couldn’t be more important either.
The brand expects it to account for roughly one-third of all CX-60 sales despite only being offered on three of the five trim levels. The $6000 saving it presents makes it an attractive prospect in that regard alone.
The fact it doesn’t present much of an improvement when it comes to fuel efficiency is perhaps the biggest drawback. It also lacks the character of the six-cylinder, along with most of the power, although sweeter handling is a fair trade-off.
Our test vehicles were provided by Mazda Australia for independent review purposes. Exhaust Notes Australia has not been paid to review these vehicles.
