Tray chic: 4x4 dual-cab ute comparison

It’s a wonder people don’t look at pick-ups through small holes in cardboard boxes – an all-new model is even more rare than a solar eclipse.

The moon blocks the sun for about seven minutes twice a year. An all-new pick-up usually comes along once a decade, sometimes less often.
That’s because these types of vehicles were originally designed as low-cost transport for developing countries, and had to meet only the most basic utilitarian needs. In some countries they were sold without seatbelts, let alone airbags.

It’s the main reason there has been such a canyon between the safety of body-on-frame pick-ups (as distinct from car-derived utes from Holden and Ford) and regular passenger cars.

We can also thank a lack of action by successive Australian Governments for this anomaly. Decades ago Federal regulators were convinced by the car industry that it was not possible for body-on-frame pick-ups to meet the same crash safety standards as passenger cars.

In reality, as we now know, it would have been possible to upgrade the safety of pick-ups – but it would have made them more costly to build.
The inaction was also despite a report submitted to the Federal

Government in 1996 that strongly recommended the safety of utes be brought into line with, or more closely aligned to, the safety levels of passenger cars.

In effect it asked: why is the life of a tradesman in a ute any less valuable than the life of a salesman in a sedan?

Even today, Federal Government standards are lax for utility vehicles: passenger cars must provide adequate occupant protection in a crash into an offset barrier at 56km/h, pick-ups crash into a less severe, flat barrier – at a lower speed (48km/h).

Fortunately, the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), which tests all vehicles at 64km/h into an offset barrier – a much more severe test – has shone a spotlight on these vehicles in recent years.

Via its star rating system, customers have begun taking notice of the varying levels of safety among pick-ups.

Funded by roads and traffic authorities, motoring bodies and insurance companies in Australia and New Zealand, ANCAP does not have the power to approve or ban the sale of vehicles – rather it is a consumer guide.

But ANCAP has become a regulator by proxy given that its crash safety standards are higher than those imposed by the Federal Government.
The difference in each vehicle’s crash protection is laid bare by ANCAP for all to see. More than any other vehicle type, pick-ups have had a few skeletons in the closet.

ANCAP was established in 1993, a couple of years before EuroNCAP, but the two bodies share crash test data even though they have different rating scales. This partly explains why some vehicles score five stars in Australia and four stars in Europe. More about that as the anomalies crop up.

Thankfully, pick-ups have come a long way – it’s just a pity it took a long time. They initially arrived on our shores because of our proximity to developing countries across Asia.

Today, however, pick-ups have evolved into a compelling new category in emerging markets globally.

Thanks to their ability to work and play, they’re now the third most popular vehicle type in Australia behind small cars and small soft-roaders.

Having seen only three all-new models over the past decade – Mitsubishi Triton, Nissan Navara and Toyota Hilux – we now find ourselves spoiled for choice, with three all-new arrivals – Volkswagen Amarok, Ford Ranger and Mazda BT-50 – in the space of six months.

That was as good an excuse as any to get them together. Given that more than two-thirds of pick-ups sold are powered by diesel, we got the latest diesel offerings from each brand to see how they compare.

Although the Ranger badge was introduced locally in 2007, its roots date back to the 1987 Ford Courier.

The name and appearance may have changed over the past 24 years, but the core structure of Ford’s compact pick-up – shared with Mazda over the same period – has soldiered on across the decades.

Thankfully Ford has attempted to redeem itself for the sins of the past. The new generation ‘PX’ Ranger is one of the biggest programs that Ford has undertaken globally. It will be sold in 180 countries – more than any other Ford model in the company’s history, and in more places than there are McDonald’s outlets.

So you can appreciate what a vote of confidence it was for Ford Australia to be the designated ‘home room’ for this vehicle. Although the Ranger will be built in Thailand, Brazil and South Africa, the vehicle was designed and engineered from the ground up in downtown Broadmeadows.

Starting from a clean slate, Ford had to design a Ranger that would not only last at least a decade – but outclass the as-yet-unreleased future competition.

Ford started by doing what most car makers do: by buying the benchmark vehicles of the time, stripping them down so they have a forensic understanding of each vehicle, and then (hopefully) combining the attributes to make a pick-up that will top the lot.

In the end, Ford borrowed the large window area and most of the proportions of the fuller-sized Toyota Hilux (it was the roomiest at the time), the backseat angle of the Mitsubishi Triton (which had the most car-like comfort among its peers), and the wide rear door openings and clever, moveable cargo hooks from the Nissan Navara.

With these bases covered, Ford was well on its way to creating a super-truck.

Of course, the Ranger is not simply a copy of other manufacturers’ designs. As the maker of North America’s favourite pick-up, the F Series, for the past 35 years, Ford had plenty of expertise to bring to the table.

The chassis is the strongest among its peers, and deserves much of the credit for the Ranger’s five-star safety rating (along with the advanced side impact sensors once exclusive to luxury cars).

The impressive way it drives can be attributed to the expertise of Ford engineers in Australia and abroad. The same team who made the Territory SUV and high-riding Falcon RTV ute drive much like a car was embedded on the Ranger team, and joined colleagues from North America and South Africa to develop a pick-up that can handle any conditions.

Inside, the Ranger has adopted many of the operating systems that Ford uses in its European small cars (the airbag hub of the steering wheel is from the Fiesta, for example).

The interior is cavernous, with big door pockets and a recess for drink bottles in all four doors – plus another two cup holders in front of the centre console, which on the XLT has two lids and is chilled.

The glovebox is deliberately large enough to store a couple of bottles of wine – and/or a street directory.

The cleverness of the interior is largely down to the ride-alongs that the Ranger’s chief designer, Detroiter Craig Metros, did with customers. He spent time on the road going to and from work with pick-up drivers to see how they used the vehicles.

The only tragedy here is that more guinea pigs didn’t use portable navigation devices. Because maybe then Ford would have made an inbuilt navigation unit standard on more models (as Mazda and Toyota have done), or at least put a power socket on top of the dash (as, cleverly, the VW Amarok has done). At the moment, only the top of the range Wildtrak gets a built-in navigation unit as standard.

The tradies we know prefer an inbuilt system because portable units are too attractive to thieves, and it’s a hassle to unplug and refit the devices all day long.

Apart from this oversight, which hopefully Ford can address quickly, the Ranger has most mod-cons. It has three power sockets in the cabin (two in the front and, on XLT, one in the rear), plus another in the tray.

Bluetooth phone connection and an auto up and down power window for the driver (passengers don’t get the same luxury however) are also part of the standard fare on all models.

All the safety boxes are ticked: six airbags, stability control, height-adjustable headrests and lap sash belts are standard on all crew cab models. Rear sensors are standard on the XLT but a rear view camera is only available on the WildTrak. Sadly, it’s not even an option on lesser models.

The 4WD versions come with hill descent control, which limits the vehicle’s speed down steep slopes by automatically applying the brakes and bringing the car to a crawl.

The Ranger’s 3.2-litre in-line five-cylinder turbo diesel has enough grunt to ensure the Ranger can clamber up steep slopes with the same ease.
The engine’s output is impressive. It sounds good, too, with a subtle five-cylinder growl in the mix.

With 147kW and 470Nm the Ranger has the most power and torque among its peers (with the exception of the $60,000 Nissan Navara with a 550Nm turbo diesel V6).

However, this appears to translate into towing capability rather than speed. The Ranger has the highest towing capacity among its peers (3350kg, the same as the Mazda BT-50) but it is middle of the pack when it comes to acceleration.

According to our satellite-based timing equipment, the Ranger XLT manual took between 13.1 and 13.5 seconds to reach the speed limit. By comparison, the twin under the skin (and approximately 200kg lighter, according to the published figures) Mazda BT-50 did the same task in 12.6 to 13.1 seconds.

The Mitsubishi Triton and Toyota Hilux both took about 14 seconds, while the VW Amarok lagged the field in about 15 seconds. The 2.5TD Nissan Navara was a slingshot by comparison: 12.5 seconds.

Of course, these vehicles are not about straight-line performance, but the 0 to 100km/h test is an indicator of power and drive-ability.
The Ranger certainly felt strongest when accelerating while on the move. Its peak torque is available between 1500 and 2750rpm, conveniently this is where engines spend most of their time in the daily grind.

Our satellite-based timing device also enabled us to test speedometer accuracy. As is accepted industry practice, speedometers tend to over-estimate speed slightly to account for changes in tyre type or pressure.

The Ford, Mazda, and Volkswagen pick-ups were 5km/h out – displaying 55 and 95km/h at a true 60 and 100km/h. The Mitsubishi and Toyota were the most accurate, displaying 57 and 97km/h while the Nissan was the least accurate, displaying 55 and 93km/h.

Our testers unanimously didn’t like the sticky shift action of the six-speed manual transmission in the Ranger, and time behind the wheel of an automatic has shown us that the auto shifts early and often to reduce fuel consumption.

Our preference would definitely be for the automatic, the manual is one of the few blots on the Ranger’s impressive overall package.

On our test loop on the north-west outskirts of Melbourne, the Ranger was a class above the rest when it came to road holding, whether on bumpy sealed roads, chopped up dirt tracks, or driving with two wheels in the dirt and two on tarmac, which is common on narrow country roads.

It was quiet, comfortable and felt like we were driving on a cushion of air. We also unanimously ranked it ahead of the supposedly identical Mazda.

You may read other experiences elsewhere but that’s how we saw it over the course of our test.
As we would discover, the Ford and Mazda may have been jointly developed, but they are quite different vehicles.

Launch review of Ford Ranger

The Ford Ranger and Mazda BT-50 pick-ups are probably the best examples of their alliance since the original Ford Laser and Mazda 323 twins arrived in 1981.

The compact pick-ups have been joined at the hip – well, the chassis – for even longer than that; 30 years ago they were the same vehicles with a different badge on the grille.

When it came time to develop an all-new model, it was an easy decision to get into bed together again. Mazda couldn’t afford to design and engineer a pick-up by itself – it doesn’t sell enough of them to justify the investment – and Ford was more than happy to share half its development costs with a friendly foe.

So that each brand could inject its own ‘DNA’, Ford and Mazda would retain the rights to key elements of their vehicles by having different designs, features and driving dynamics.

It’s an unusual scenario: both car makers are trying to outdo each other – but had to work together and agree on critical areas such as the basic shape and size of the vehicles.

This time around, the differences between the two vehicles are greater than ever before. Previously they were identical from the windscreen back. Today, the Mazda BT-50 and Ford Ranger share the same key fob, indicator stalks, and the engine and gearboxes – and not much else.

Every surface between the two has changed – inside and out. Ford opted for a truck-like design, figuring its customers preferred a vehicle with a rugged appearance, while Mazda bet on the opposite: that customers wanted car-like looks.

The jury is still out on whether the sweeping lines and bulging curves translate from Mazda’s hatchbacks and sportscars to a heavy duty pick-up.

Mazda, for its part, predictably defends the BT-50’s styling to the point where arteries begin to bulge on the executives’ foreheads. However, it is interesting to note the television commercial hides the dramatic ‘face’ of the BT-50 behind a cumbersome bullbar with large driving lights…

The car-like philosophy has at least worked on the inside. Although the Mazda BT-50 comes off the same Thailand production line as the Ford Ranger, the Mazda interior looks to have better quality and finish.
This is just one of a number of small but important differences that would weigh heavily on us when it came to the verdict.

The Mazda XTR model tested also comes with a built-in navigation screen, we just wish it had a touch screen instead of being linked to Mazda’s time-consuming toggle switch on the steering wheel.

Other equipment differences: the Mazda only gets two power sockets in the cabin (the XLT has three) but it does get one in the rear tray, same as the Ford.

The Mazda also lacks rear sensors (standard on the Ford) but at least has the option of an accessory rear camera (not available on the Ford).

The rear camera in the Mazda looks like an afterthought (it’s attached next to the numberplate) whereas the Ranger’s rear camera is integrated neatly under the Ford badge (just like a VW Golf’s) which ingeniously also keeps it clean of road grime. But it’s only available on the WildTrak.

The Mazda also has a higher payload: a 1256kg maximum compared with the Ranger’s 1041kg. But that’s because the Mazda weighs less – in part because it has less equipment. The Mazda lacks a rollbar and towbar (both standard on the Ranger XLT). That might account for half the weight difference, but not all of it. Neither Ford nor Mazda could explain what the other ‘missing’ 100kg difference could be attributed to.

Unsurprisingly, the same gearbox issue we had with the Ford was also apparent in the Mazda. The six-speed manual (identical in ratios and design) has a sticky, slow shift that certainly doesn’t fit with Mazda’s ‘zoom-zoom’ image. Again, our pick would be the auto.

The biggest difference, however, was in the way they drive. The Mazda’s suspension was busier and bouncier on bumpy roads.

You’re likely to read differing opinions on this, as it seems not all journalists agree on which is the better to drive. In our testing, in our conditions, the Ford Ranger was better all around, especially with four people on board.

But, as we would discover, there is one other strong contender.

Launch review of Mazda BT-50

This generation model was released in November 2006, about one year after the latest Nissan Navara went on sale, and about 18 months after the current generation Toyota Hilux.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise to find that, initially, it did well in most comparison tests – and on the sales charts.

In GLX-R guise, the Triton is still the only heavy-duty pick-up with a 4WD system that can be driven on sealed roads, or switch to 2WD. (Other switchable 4WD systems can only be used on gravel).

The Triton was the first body-on-frame ute on sale in Australia available with curtain airbags and stability control – even though these improvements didn’t elevate its ANCAP safety score above four stars.

It was also widely praised for having the most car-like back seat (the back angle of the others was too upright).

It was criticised for having too small a tray and not a strong enough towing capacity – but Mitsubishi addressed those issues in late 2009 by releasing an updated tray and a higher towing capacity (now 3000kg).

Mitsubishi is still the only vehicle in its class to offer a five-year warranty. It later sweetened the deal with fixed price servicing, also offered by Toyota and Nissan (although Toyota’s is the most sharply priced).

This month, Mitsubishi introduced an accessory rear view camera and the option of a built-in navigation unit. However despite these regular and worthwhile updates, the Triton’s honeymoon is well and truly over.

The 2.5-litre turbo diesel engine, although upgraded in the past two years, is now the second-least powerful among these six contenders – and it feels like it.

The body feels too narrow – it is the narrowest here, according to the manufacturer’s tape measure – and that means the Triton’s footprint is not as wide or as stable as the other vehicles. On the plus side, this means it has the tightest turning circle (11.8 metres).

The cabin is too shallow. After driving the newer vehicles, you notice that your knees sit higher in the Triton because the floor is higher. We put up with it before, because of the Triton’s other attributes, but not any more. There are better alternatives.

Mitsubishi deserves credit for making continual improvements to the Triton – even when it doesn’t necessarily get kudos for it – but we were all surprised by how quickly it has been overtaken by newer rivals.

Launch review of Mitsubishi Triton

Released in December 2005, the European-designed Navara was praised for its rugged looks and car-like driving dynamics.

Initially, the Navara came to us from Spain, so it had European suspension tuning. Since then, production has shifted to Thailand – but Nissan has kept the Navara’s European driving poise.

As Mitsubishi has done with the Triton, Nissan has introduced new features to the Navara over the past five years.

It gained side airbags and stability control in mid 2010 along with a facelift so minor it’ll cause arguments (the headlights and grille changed but look almost exactly the same).

But despite these improvements the Navara is rated just three stars by Euro NCAP.

In the initial test in 2008 the Nissan scored a “poor” one-star rating after the airbag didn’t deploy correctly. Nissan fixed the timing of the airbag deployment, the vehicle was retested later that same year, and it was awarded three stars out of five, which was below average even by the standards of the day, let alone now. (The Triton and Hilux score four stars).

In the retest, the Navara was again criticised for having an “unstable” body in the crash (it twisted more than usual on impact). The otherwise identical Nissan Pathfinder SUV (which shares its underpinnings with the Navara) scores four stars in the same test because it has extra underbody strengthening that the Navara lacks. Why Nissan deletes this from the Navara is a mystery. Pick-up drivers at least deserve equal status when it comes to safety.

It’s a shame that there is this disparity because there is much to like about the Navara. Its small, 2.5-litre turbo diesel engine packs a decent punch. It has one of the most comfortable driver’s seats, comes with three child restraint anchor points (where most others have two) and has one of the most clever cargo tie-down hook systems in the business (they slide along a rail and can be added to or replaced).

Quality and presentation of the interior are high. And from the outside it looks the business.

When it was released, the Navara felt the most connected to the road compared to its peers and it won numerous comparison tests.
It has generally stood the test of time well, but it has been overtaken (driving wise) by the newer competition in the past six months.

Nissan seems prepared for battle. The ST-X normally sells for $50,990 plus on-road costs – but as this article was published Nissan was advertising it for $46,990 drive-away in the end of 2011 clearance sales –effectively a $6000 discount.

One-by-one they’re all coming up to the Hilux’s dimensions and capability – and then some.

Given its broad capability, the Hilux has helped paved the way for the work and play appeal of these vehicles. Just like the marketing hype suggests, they’re used as workhorses during the week and family cars on weekends.

The Toyota Hilux has been the top selling 4WD pick-up in Australia for the past 14 years in a row – and the biggest selling vehicle in Australia on five individual months over the past three years. It was also the top selling car in three states last year: Queensland, West Australia and the Northern Territory.

To keep the Hilux fresh in the face of newer competition, Toyota introduced an updated model in September 2011.

New from the windscreen forward, it has a more car-like appearance – and more luxury features inside (although the engines, unfortunately, remain unchanged).

Navigation, Bluetooth and voice control are standard on the SR5, and curtain airbags and stability control are now available on more models than before. Rear camera and rear sensors are dealer fit accessories.

With the updated model, Toyota overhauled its Hilux range and cut most prices in its boldest move yet to protect its commercial vehicle dominance and prepare for an onslaught of new rivals – and cheap Chinese pick-ups.

The Hilux range has grown from 32 models to 35 and, in the process, Toyota has killed off four variants and added seven new price-busters.
The entry price into a number of key models has been slashed by up to $8000. For example, the starting price of a crew cab 4x4 diesel is now $38,990 – previously it was $44,890.

Even the top-line SR5 (tested) which accounts for more than one-third of Hilux sales, has been trimmed by $2700 – now $50,990 in crew cab turbo diesel manual form.

“Despite some brave statements by some commentators, there is still plenty of fight left in Hilux,” said Toyota Australia Executive Director of Sales and Marketing, Dave Buttner, at the launch of the updated model in Townsville in September.

“We understand that price has become something of a focus for our competitors. The changes we are announcing today comprehensively address that.”

The Hilux SR5 now rides on 17-inch wheels and tyres, and the suspension has been retuned slightly.

It’s a modest improvement but unfortunately not enough to match the latest competition. To keep the back end from bucking, Toyota fitted about 200kg of ballast in the tray of the Hiluxes on a recent media launch.

When we drove the car unladen on our test loop, it became more apparent why Toyota loaded the vehicles. The Ranger was more stable and drove better unladen than the Hilux did with some ballast.

And empty versus empty, the Ranger was head and shoulders above the Hilux – when it came to driving dynamics across a broad spectrum of conditions.

The Hilux has not yet been completely dusted, but it faces its most serious threat to its dominance in more than a decade.

A new Hilux is at least three years away, maybe even a little longer. Here’s hoping that Toyota uses the Ford Ranger as the benchmark for vehicle dynamics and towing ability – and the Volkswagen Amarok for cabin space, quality, features and ute tub size.

Launch review of Toyota HiLux

Volkswagen Amarok
If you wanted proof of just how big the pick-up market has become, look no further than the Volkswagen Amarok.

Until recently it would have been unthinkable for a German mass-luxury brand to get into the pick-up segment.

But Volkswagen is on a mission to become the world’s biggest car maker by 2018 – and the Amarok is one of its key models.

The pick-up is designed to boost Volkswagen sales in emerging markets – but Australia ranks in the top four destinations from the Amarok’s Argentinian factory, given our appetite for such vehicles.

The Amarok is a triumph of clever design and smart engineering. Before starting development of the Amarok, Volkswagen bought and stripped down a Toyota Hilux – with the aim of bettering it in every way.

The quite elegant design (for a pick-up) disguises its proportions; the Amarok is in fact the biggest vehicle here. It has the widest body and the biggest ute tub. And yet at a glance you could be forgiven for thinking it looks smaller than a Hilux.

You can fit three burly blokes across the back seat with ample shoulder room, and the ute tub is the only one here that can fit two pallets in the back (with the tray open), because it has the widest gap between the wheel arches.

It, too, drives more like a car than a ute. Before the Ford Ranger came along, the Amarok was the new benchmark. It’s a shame that it held onto that title for only six months. It deserved to have it longer.

But there are plenty of other attributes to like about the Amarok. It has a roomy, smartly designed interior, with the most upmarket appearance of them all. It’s the only vehicle here with express up and down windows on all four doors.

It’s the only vehicle here with a covered vanity mirror. It has three power sockets in the cabin (including one atop the dash for navigation units).

It has crawl functions for heavy duty offroad use – and an optional heavy duty suspension for a tougher payload.

But alas, it’s not perfect. Its twin turbo 2.0-litre diesel is the most efficient here – but also the least powerful. And the slowest. And only available with six-speed manual transmission until the eight-speed auto arrives next year (at least the VW manual’s a smooth shifter, unlike the Ford and Mazda).

The Amarok scored four stars in Euro NCAP tests – but five stars in Australia because there is a different criteria. Unfortunately, Volkswagen only developed four airbags for the Amarok – not six, as per every other vehicle in this test – which means back seat passengers don’t get side airbag protection.

Rear view cameras are not available, even as an accessory. Only the permanent AWD Highline model gets rear sensors as standard. And Bluetooth is optional as a dealer fit accessory on all models (standard on every other car in this test).

All this, despite the Amarok being the second most expensive…

Launch review of Volkswagen Amarok

At $53,390 the Ranger XLT is the dearest vehicle here – and $4580 dearer than the twin-under-the-skin Mazda BT-50 XTR.

The Ford’s price premium buys a tow bar, sports bar, bed liner, privacy glass, a chilled console, reverse sensors, and heated electric-folding mirrors, among a few other tricks. But in our opinion, although worthwhile, these items don’t quite add up to $4580.

The Mazda XTR comes with an in-built navigation unit for its sticker price of $48,810 – and a rear camera and sensors are available accessories. (Note to all manufacturers: given that 4WDs and pick-ups are over-represented in driveway deaths of infants, both these safety items should be standard on these vehicles in our opinion).

By comparison, navigation and a rear camera are currently not available on the Ranger XLT at any price – you’ve got to step up to the $57,390 Ranger WildTrak.

So, even though we all preferred the way the Ranger drives and looks, this contest fell in favour of the Mazda because of its sharper price, higher payload, standard sat-nav and the availability of a rear camera.

We just hope Ford realigns the price and equipment of the Ranger urgently, because more people deserve to get behind the wheel of what is arguably the best car ever engineered in Australia (even if it is made in Thailand).

The best of the rest, predictably, is the VW Amarok, the third newest vehicle here. We’re not sure how long Volkswagen can command a price premium while lacking such basics as Bluetooth, a rear camera and in-built navigation – and the lack of side airbags for the back seats – but we hope they also make some changes soon.

Old faithful, the Toyota Hilux, comes in next even though it’s not as nice to drive as the Nissan Navara. But the changes in equipment to the SR5 – in particular the standard fitment of navigation and the availability of a rear camera and sensors, help edge it ahead.

We should note that we’re comparing the Navara based on its RRP of $50,990 (the same as the Hilux), not the Navara’s current promotional price of $46,990 drive-away. If that price were to continue, we’d reverse the order of these two.

Lastly, that leaves the Mitsubishi Triton GLX-R. Never before has a vehicle come from the top of the class to the back of the pack so quickly.
We still have a soft spot for the Triton – its $47,990 sticker is a strong value proposition and its roomy back seat, five year warranty, and 4WD system that can be used on tarmac, will appeal to many – but the game has moved on.

The next generation Triton needs a bigger cabin and a bigger footprint, and much better driving dynamics if it is to keep pace with the new class leaders.

In the meantime, buyers of crew cab 4WD utes have never had a better choice of vehicles.

The good news is, these pick-ups will get better still. And about time too. We’ve been waiting long enough.

Given how hard the mainstream brands will be discounting in the coming months, you’re better off doing a deal on one of the lower grade Toyota, Nissan or Mitsubishi pick-ups. Don’t be afraid to twist an arm.

All prices and specifications are for diesel manual models and do not include registration and dealer charges.

Mitsubishi Triton GLX-R
Price: $47,990
Engine: 2.5-litre four-cylinder turbodiesel
Power: 131kW at 4000rpm
Torque: 350Nm at 2000 rpm
Consumption: 8.3L/100km
Payload: 979kg
Towing capacity: 3000kg 
Turning circle: 11.8m
Airbags: Six
Safety rating: Four stars
Warranty: Five years/130,000km

Toyota Hilux SR5
Price: $50,990
Engine: 3.0-litre four-cylinder turbodiesel
Power: 126kW at 3000rpm
Torque: 343Nm at 1400 to 3400rpm
Consumption: 8.3L/100km
Payload: 860kg
Towing capacity: 2500kg
Turning circle: 12.4m
Airbags: Six
Safety rating: Four stars
Warranty: Three years/100,000km

Volkswagen Amarok Highline
Price: $52,990
Engine: 2.0-litre four-cylinder twin-turbodiesel
Power: 120kW at 4000rpm
Torque: 400Nm at 1500 to 2500rpm
Consumption: 7.9L/100km
Payload: 971kg
Towing capacity: 2800kg
Turning circle: 12.95m
Airbags: Four
Safety rating: Five stars
Warranty: Three years/unlimited km