Its tub dimensions are also more generous than most but our test vehicle came only with a synthetic rubber mat as opposed to the Ranger's plastic tub liner. Six tie-down anchor points are provided but the tailgate has no locking mechanism.
The lower section of the rear seat folds up to accommodate extra gear and there are two storage compartments in the floor. We like the recesses that allow the rear seat belt receptacles to be stowed out of the way when in load-carrying mode.
The BT-50 and the Ranger lead the pack for general cabin storage, with large (and lockable) gloveboxes, a deep centre console storage bin (without cooling, unlike the Ford), and decent door pockets.
The Mazda shares the same class-leading 3500kg braked towing limit as the Ranger and the Colorado.
On a par with the Ranger for comfort and ergonomics, the BT-50 is therefore ahead of all but the Amarok. Supportive cloth-upholstered seating, logical placement of all controls and quality finishes throughout are all pluses for the Mazda.
Back-seat passengers get a 12-volt power outlet instead of the Ranger's cup holders and while the side-steps are quite low, the rear seating is higher than anything else on test. Like the Ranger, two drilled holes are provided to anchor child seats.
No parking assistance is provided standard (sensors and a camera are factory accessories) but vision from behind the wheel is excellent.
The BT-50 recorded a noise level of 72dBA at 80km/h, equal to the Ford. Only the VW was quieter.
The BT-50 shares the Ranger's leading off-road credentials, with switch-actuated 4WD (high/low range), a locking rear diff, 237mm of ground clearance and an 800mm wading depth.
Fit, finish and finesse
Very much a twin to the Ford Ranger, Mazda’s BT-50 differs mainly in overall style and presentation – except, maybe, the company has also paid more attention to small details to give a supposed ‘Zoom Zoom’ edge.
The (hard touch) dash speaks a Mazda design language and shows evidence of being carefully put together, with consistent gaps in the quality plastic trim and more attention to detail in areas (such as the centre bin latch). Little things, but they add up.
The tactility of the controls, too, is more car-like although the cloth seat trim looks appropriately 'tradie' and durable. The carpet is pretty basic and maybe out of place in a vehicle designed to spend time hard at work.
Paintwork in the Mazda displays a nice colour consistency between metal and plastic panels, and a minimum of orange peel. This may have been just our observation, but the paint on the inner B-pillar area looked a bit more presentable, and a bit glossier than the Ford’s.
Not surprisingly, the inner doors were impeccably finished, complete with neat-fitting double seals on all four doors. The sides of the tray area were double-skinned to minimise damage. Our test vehicle also had a thick, tough-looking mat to protect not just the BT-50’s floor, but also anything it might be carrying.
The under-bonnet story is pretty universal: A relatively tidy layout with easily-reached service points along with the usual plastic engine cover to disguise any messy wiring or plumbing.
On the road
With fewer kilometres on the clock than its twin-under-the-skin Ranger (1800 versus 13,300km), the test BT-50 felt crisper in the transmission, yet not as free under the bonnet. Typically, turbo-diesels prefer a longer run-in period than petrol engines, and though the Mazda was still a strong performer, it lacked some of the free-revving feel of its Ford counterpart.
Interestingly, this seat-of-the-pants feel did not translate against the stop watch. The BT-50 was quicker from standstill to 60 and 100km/h than the Ranger, yet slower during roll-on tests (see break-out box for details).
And while these differences are bound to equalise over time, the differences in suspension tune will not. By Mazda’s own admission, the BT-50 is tuned to offer a more car-like experience on-road, where the Ranger is better off-road. In short, the BT-50 feels slightly stiffer than its cousin, and is a little more ‘fidgety’ when unladen.
Throw 600kg in the back and it settles quite nicely, however. The rebound damping improves, as does the tendency for the rear-end to ‘step out’ through sharper corners – especially in the wet or on dirt.
Like the Ranger, the BT-50 managed to hold top gear (sixth) up our loaded grade test (at 80km/h), and also like the Ranger, the brakes proved both capable and well modulated.
The BT-50 was slightly quicker to stop than the Ranger, taking 16.0m to brake from 60km/h against 16.3m for the Ford.
Come the off-road portion of our assessment, however, the BT-50 showed incremental differences that lost it a couple of points. In addition to ‘skipping’ across looser surfaces, we found the tighter suspension meant less traction when the body was articulated. Fortunately the traction and stability control helped to keep things in check.
Compared to the Ranger, the BT-50 (which wasn’t fitted with a tow pack), did prove better when departing steep angles (26.4 degrees v 20.0). Otherwise, the BT-50’s remaining off-road geometry, ground clearance (237mm), wading ability (800mm), electronically controlled transfer case, decisive transmission and rear diff lock all proved just as capable as those in the Ranger.
Suitable integration of technology
The Mazda BT-50 features a good level of technology as standard and, as with the Ranger, it was easy to use. User-friendly audio and communications, near identical to those of the Ranger, include Bluetooth connectivity for hands-free telephony and audio streaming.
The voice command system gives you control over your phone, climate control (temp and fan speed) and audio, and is simple to initiate and navigate.
We also appreciated the seamless operation of the BT-50’s dual-zone climate control, cruise control, basic sat-nav, electric windows and mirrors, foglights and rain-sensing wipers. However, with average centre-screen resolution and illumination, no reversing camera, no acoustic parking sensors and no locking tailgate, the BT-50 fell short in some areas.
Value for money
Expect to pay $50,890 (plus on-road costs) for a Mazda BT-50 XTR as tested – the second-cheapest of the compared dual-cab utilities.
Standard sat-nav, along with Bluetooth streaming, dual-zone climate control, hill descent control and side steps form part of the BT-50 XTR’s standard equipment list, while out the back a tray mat is fitted (a $410 option), but no roll bar.
Alone in this group, metallic paint is a no-cost option.
Tempering the short, 24-month warranty is the fact that it comes with unlimited kilometres. If you haven’t hit six figures after two years, you will be covered for an additional 12 months, or up until you hit 100,000km.
Standard roadside assistance costs $68.10 per year.
Capped-price servicing has recently been introduced by Mazda. For BT-50, the cost of the first service is $392, with intervals set at 12 months/10,000km. Mazda says the capped arrangement lasts the life of the vehicle.
Like the PX-series Ranger, the B32Q-series Mazda BT-50 debuted in October 2011. In 2012, the XTR’s RRP was $50,890. Now, redbook.com.au suggests a median private sale price of $37,850 for that vehicle, retaining 74 per cent of its value.
What we liked: | Not so much: |
>> Great value | >> Fidgety ride when unladen |
>> Excellent load-carrying ability | >> No lock for tailgate |
>> Cabin comfort | >> No parking assistance |