PETER LOUISSON 0 of 0
given the versatile nature of a utility’s brief, it’s little wonder they’ve grown bigger and have more haul-ability.
moreover, as utes have gained greater sophistication in the way they drive, and their cabin sizes have increased, they have begun to usurp the large car in many households. however, with their growth have also come increases in mass, with most now being over two tonnes unladen, and thus, more potent powertrains are needed to propel them.
Last year saw a slew of new utes launch, beginning with the Volkswagen Amarok and ending with the Ford Ranger and Mazda BT-50. In between, the Toyota Hilux got a new grille and an expensive new television advert.
what characterises these larger-than-life workhorses is their almost exclusive use of diesel powertrains. As utes increasingly resemble light trucks in their dimensions, it makes sense that they are powered by engines appropriate for the task. which means a diesel. And in an evaluation of a group of modern utes, chances are the one you’d pick as your fave comes down to which has the best powertrain. sure, there will be other differences, like in spec level, refinement, ride, interior space, build quality and towing ability, but if the drivetrain doesn’t do it for you, the rest is largely immaterial.
In this comparison, we pit the first-ever Euro-ute, the Amarok (which is from a German manufacturer but actually built in South America) against the just-released model from the Zoom-Zoom company, the BT-50. And because it lately won our Ute of the Year, we have a few words on where the Ford Ranger sits, and also comment on the Kiwi perennial favourite, the air-brushed Hilux.
Beginning then, with an ever-so-brief look at the Amarok, given as it has already starred once by itself in our magazine (April issue) and also narrowly won a comparison against the more powerful Navara (May issue). it arrived here sporting a couple of firsts. its wellside was evidently able to accept a pallet or quadbike at the narrowest point (1222mm), which is between the wheel-arch indents; and secondly, it fronted with the smallest diesel in all of ute-dom. The claimed advantages for displacement downsizing are the same as ever: better fuel economy and emissions, with no loss of performance. With twin turbos strapped to its 2.0-litre block, it provides enough peak torque that it outmuscles the likes of the Hilux (400 vs 343Nm) and comes close to topping the 2.5-litre Triton’s 407Nm. The Triton was top dog for a bit, besting Nissan’s 403Nm 2.5, until the ST-X model came along and blew them all into the weeds again with its 450Nm tally – and now that figure has been recently routed by the Ranger and BT-50′s 3.2-litre powerplant, which produces 470Nm. Nissan, however, will still hold the ute high ground with its forthcoming 550Nm V6 turbodiesel, but then it will also ‘win’ the price war as well. The traditional tug-o-war in the ute market shows no sign of abating.
back to the Amarok. we thought that Nissan had gone nuts with the introduction of a 2.5-litre turbodiesel when everyone else was using 3.0-litre engines, but the Amarok strolled in with a 2.0-litre unit, albeit a biturbo. at the prelaunch of the vehicle, VW mentioned that not one customer who’d driven it had complained about a lack of power or torque – which immediately raised concerns about a lack of power and torque, of course, or more accurately, a weight-to-power issue. The Amarok, despite its diminutive engine size, still weighed in at a lofty 2175kg. Naturally, the engine wasn’t to blame; on the contrary, it endowed it with one of the most favourable weight distributions ever in the sector, with a sports car-like balance of 53:47. Small wonder, then, that it produced best-in-class handling, and up against the others here, there’s no reason to think that has changed. That said, our evaluation Highline vehicle was shod with road-savvy Continental CrossContact 255/55R17′s, where more dual-purpose rubber served on the rest.
The overall weight is a bit of an issue for the Amarok, given it has ‘just’ 120kW and 400Nm of twist. On its own, and had not the BT-50 and Ranger lobbed in with a truck-like, five-cylinder, 3.2-litre diesel, the Amarok was on or about where it needed to be for performance (Navara excepted) and indeed led the field with diesel economy, its 7.8L/100km overall figure possible to achieve, with a matching low CO2 output of just over 200g/km.
however, it has a black mark against its transmission. While about half of all sales are of manuals in the ute sector, the other half are autos, and this option is not yet (though is soon to be) available – and it will be an eight speeder, something new for the sector. for a while there, the Amarok’s five-star crash rating was unusual, but the Ranger has since matched this.
back to the powertrain, though, and against the BT (and Ranger, which has the same mill), the VW’s unit does pale. we stalled it taking off more than a few times, and while there is adequate performance overall, both photographer Tom and I had a nagging feeling that we’d want just a wee bit more go-power if it were our ute. Certainly, if towing is an issue, the BT-50 and Ranger’s braked towing figures are a half-tonne up on the Amarok’s, and more again on the Toyota’s. furthermore, the Amarok’s engine is undoubtedly noisier than that of the BT-50; the latter has a damped cover over the injectors and cylinder head, while the VW doesn’t. And a five is always going to sound better than a four.
Countering these factors, the VW offers slightly – but only slightly – better fuel economy than the BT-50, with about a single litre per 100km difference, on paper (7.8 vs 8.9L/100km). we often saw much the same figures on the trip computers. The Amarok does get major ups for its interior and ride refinement, which are both marginally better than the BT-50′s, and also for its spec level. It’s the only ute here to get a four-way adjustable steering column, a pair of bins under both front seats and fashionable daytime running lights. Just like cars in their price range, both feature dual-zone climate air (the BT-50 ltd with standard leather is $61,895, while the Amarok Highline costs $400 less).
On to the BT-50. this is a ute that is sure to be a major talking point amongst tradies and farmers, for Mazda’s designers have seen fit to adorn the front and rear with zoomy design cues, and the grille-and-headlamp shape now resembles those of Mazda passenger sedans and hatches. Mazda says it reflects the family-car nature of its new ute. With the VW alongside, there’s no doubt which has the more appropriate ute face. at the rear, the car-like taillights of the BT seem even more out of keeping. They’re different, at any rate. It’s a pity, because the graceful, curving lines of the BT-50 in profile make the Amarok’s upright, square-rigged appearance seem antiquated.
Inside, the BT isn’t quite as lovingly finished as the VW, and nor is it the equal of the Ranger, in our view, particularly in the centre console area. it was here that the Mazda developed an annoying rattle during our time with it, and another also evolved on the right side of the dash. Not a great start.
fire up that 3.2-litre, five-cylinder, inline diesel, and almost all is forgiven. we first encountered this in the Ranger, but here in the BT-50 we also had a chance to check out the six-speed automatic. I’d be happy with either functionally, though the manual seems more positive and agreeable in two-wheel-drive format than four-wheel drive. The VW manual ‘box is better still.
Right from the outset, this brawny modern diesel gets the wood on the smaller VW and never relents. it also clarifies any lingering doubts we had about the VW diesel: it may be economical but it does occasionally fall short on grunt. Performance figures favour the BT-50 by two seconds on each criterion we evaluate. where the Amarok really needs about 1600rpm to get underway (hence, the stalls), the BT will pull down to silly revs with ease.
During the photo shoot, we did everything we could think of to get the Amarok sideways on gravel, and it co-operated only partly. Step into the BT-50, set it up for the corner, stand on the gas, and it’s instantly fully crossed up, requiring lots of oppo to prevent taking out fence and photographer. Game over? Pretty much. about the only glitch we noted – and this also affected the Ranger auto – was an occasional miss when going for reverse during turnarounds. That said, the manual Amarok can be obstructive hitting reverse as well, needing a repeat attempt every other time. And the vibration through the Amarok clutch pedal is a minor annoyance.
Ease of use, though, favours the more logical Amarok, despite it relegating cruise to a wand and having no remotes on the wheel, where the BT gets both. for interior space, they’re about equal; there’s a bit more headroom in the Amarok, a bit more leg space in the BT-50. Ditto the wellside trays, which are much of a muchness.
So in essence, it’s like John Key says, give me the mumbo. however, the handling, ride, ergonomics and build favour the Amarok, although barely. despite its controversial styling, I’d probably still opt for the BT-50, simply for that magical powertrain and extra towing ability.
MODEL: Mazda BT-50 Limited. PRICE: $61,895. ON SALE IN NZ: Nov 2011. ENGINE: 3199cc, IL5, 147kW@3000rpm, 470Nm@1500-2750rpm. TRANSMISSION: 6-speed auto, part-time 4WD. VITALS: 10.31sec 0-100 km/h, 8.9L/100km, 238g/km, 2172kg. RATING: 8/10.
MODEL: Volkswagen Amarok Highline. PRICE: $61,500. ON SALE IN NZ: Feb 2011. ENGINE: 1968cc, IL4, 120kW@4000rpm, 400Nm@1500-2000rpm. TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual, on-demand 4WD. VITALS: 12.29sec (claim 11.1) 0-100 km/h, 7.8L/100km, 206g/km, 2113kg. RATING: 8/10.
Brought to you by New Zealand’s premier motoring magazine NZ Autocar. Sign up to NZ Autocar’s free monthly email newsletter for all the latest news and views Magazine subscriptions to NZ Autocar Like us on Facebook
– © Fairfax NZ News
Related posts: