2021 Mazda BT-50 Buyer's Guide
Is the Isuzu D-MAX-based Mazda BT-50 the right new ute for you? Is it really worth buying? Let’s find out.
In this report I’ll tell you exactly why the new Mazda BT-50 is not nearly enough of an improvement on the current one - and why it might even be a step backwards.
The new BT-50 promises to be, at first glance, a world-away from the ugly duckling BT-50 of old and it couldn’t come sooner for Mazda, which has only been seen as a value-Ranger for the last decade. But the new one is as difficult to look at as Gal Gadot.
If you’re in the market for a new ute in 2021, to point you in the right direction, here’s my Ultimate Ute Market Buyer’s Guide >> to assist you in finding the ideal ute for you. And in completing that task, here is Everything wrong with Australia’s top 10 dual-cab 4X4 utes >> lest you think this report is harbouring unjust bias against the BT-50. Pro Tip: It’s not, I’m just not sugar-coating the new Mazda ute like every other motoring journalist.
The fact is, the BT-50 is not perfect - far from it - and it’s my mission to explain why to you, so that you can make a balanced, informed choice when buying your next new ute. You should also be considering the Mitsubishi Triton in the spirit of economic rationalism is concerned, because it does everything you need it to, without the absurd price ceiling of Hilux, Ranger and Amarok.
You’ll also find this useful How to save thousands on new Isuzu D-MAX and Mazda BT-50 >> which will help you save a bunch.
Life-cycle of a modern ute
New utes happen - typically - about once every eight to 10 years. So, essentially, the new BT-50/D-MAX is the platform that has to carry both badges forward for the next decade. In other words - fundamental technical innovation at a platform level on utes occurs in steps, roughly once every decade.
Twins under the skin
These utes are twins. Dizygotic, but twins. They’re being made by Isuzu in Thailand. Mazda has paid Isuzu to latch onto Isuzu’s R&D and production facilities, and cosmetic differentiation. Because that’s all a lot cheaper than doing it yourself from a clean sheet.
You’re currently looking at the next step for both vehicles, on their market debut, and you have to decide if this is enough of a step forward to warrant you opening your wallet and splashing your cash significantly on either one. It might be significant enough for you to give BT-50 the nod - especially if you’re not motivated by technological innovation and engineering progress. And that’s perfectly fine - utes are a tool, and as long as the basics are done right like reliability, capability and pricing, then you’re probably going to be happy with either the Mazda or the Isuzu (when they eventually have stock).
Whether to buy a new BT-50
This report is aimed at helping you make an informed objective choice. Frankly, I’m not seeing the case for either vehicle - and I know I am a voice in the wilderness here, because there is a lot of gushing on these vehicles, currently in news posts and ‘walk around’ reviews.
I suppose you should ask yourself what informs those reviews. Is it the earnest desire to help you buy the right new ute, or is it the desire to keep Mazda and/or Isuzu sweet, keep the ad revenue rolling in, and/or keep the reviewer in question on the invitation list for the next big gig?
I’ll leave that to you to judge for yourself. To me the purpose of this kind of journalism is informed critical assessment to assist buyers like you. You might even decide I’m full of it, but at the very least, repudiating my points will help you crystallize your decision. Debate is a healthy thing.
So, you need to be clear on the facts you need to know in order to decide if the BT-50 is right for you. Is it outright payload or towing capacity you focus on most? Do you need a rounded blend of these heavy hauling capabilities mixed with a comfortable interior, a handsome exterior and infotainment ergonomics? What work is your potential BT-50 going to be doing?
Before we go much further, if you’re looking for a serious towing beast, I’d encourage you to check out my various reports on pulling above your weight and the inherent dangers of dynamic instability - because BT-50 is rated for 3.5 tonnes, but you’re insane to try.
USEFUL LINKS FOR TOWING, UTES AND TRAILERS
My Complete Heavy Towing Guide: GVM, ATM, towballs >>
Heavy towing with an automatic transmission: What not to do >>
Anatomy of a towing disaster: How to prevent one >>
Epic towing disaster Q and A: Reacting to your trailer crash feedback and commentary >>
One small step or a giant leap?
Frankly, if we are looking here at a 10-year step forward in ute evolution, it’s not nearly enough. More of a stumble, really. Mazda appears to have spent the big bucks on the styling, in-cabin comfort and features - things of that nature. But on truly fundamental improvements, I’m hearing crickets.
I don’t want to take cheap shots here, so let’s acknowledge the positives: Nice front end styling. Nice interior. Wireless smartphone integrations - excellent touch there - because tradies are gonna spend every single day in their ute and not having to drape cords everywhere among paperwork, tools etc., is an advantage.
On creature comforts and interior layout - big tick: you’re going to be comfortable in your BT-50, that’s a given, although I would be considering some heavy duty seat covers if studded jeans, pliers, or any sharp-edged equipment is coming anywhere near your ute. I’m not saying this tongue-in-cheek either - there are plenty of people who need a ute but not a shitbox free to be trashed by the apprentices. One exception I note, for the foreseeable future, is no wireless phone inductive charging pad. Oops a daisy. That might come as an update in coming years.
In the highest model iterations like XTR, it’s going to present well and be heavily equipped. And it should be reasonably safe. So that’s great.
Important upgrades
And they have upgraded the platform. So-called ‘gigapascal’ ultra-high-tensile steel cuts weight and boosts stiffness by a claimed 20 per cent. (Gigapascal steel is roughly four times the strength of conventional mild steel - the stuff beams and columns are typically made from.) Learn more about advanced high strength automotive steel >>.
They’ve also upped the proportion of 390MPa steel in the body - which itself is about 50 per cent stronger than plain old mild steel.
There’s bigger brake discs up front, too, but you’re still looking at drums at the rear. Wading depth is up to 800mm now, from 600 - and, OK that’s an impressive increase. And they’ve added a rear diff lock. (Previous D-MAXs had an open rear diff - not even LSD). So that’s a step forward. But except for the steel in the body - all these things could all be bolted on fairly cheaply. They’re not deep fundamental improvements.
So - leaf springs, drum brakes, rear drive, luxury interior, few more safety features - with the upper-spec models clearly targeted at suits in utes. People using an expensive ute as daily transport, who don’t really need a workhorse.
The ‘new’ engine…
The engine, I’m sad to say, is both an outdated museum exhibit and a missed opportunity.
It’s the same old Jurassic 3.0-litre inline four, only with a different turbocharger and a slight increase in fuel rail pressure. Power notionally goes up from 130 to 140 kilowatts, and torque from 430 to 450 Newton-metres. So it’s got plenty of grunt for moving you and your 1090kg - 1065kg of payload (depending on model - we’ll get to that).
To put this in perspective - and I know this will offend Isuzu fan boys - I’d like to say I’m sorry about that, only, I’m not - here’s a three-litre diesel engine which manages to perform the same as Mazda’s current 2.2-litre diesel. It’s a good engine: 140kW peak power at 6000 RPM, 252Nm peak torque at 4000 revs - currently moves the CX-8 around weighing nearly 1.8 tonnes.
Skyactiv-D diesel engine has a lower compression ratio than previous models which allows for much lighter internal components. The lighter engine was designed to reduce internal friction to enable more responsive power delivery. Multi-hole piezo injectors and variable valve lift optimise engine economy.
-Mazda Australia
Mazda’s 2.2 Skyactiv-D (learn more here>>) does the same job on output with roughly 25 per cent less capacity. The Isuzu engine, in the context of modern diesels, is frankly a monument to thermal inefficiency, which is the exact opposite of the engineering intent of every Mazda SKYACTIV engine.
To me, this is a philosophical bridge too far. You cannot be Mazda and say all that you have said about the intent of SKYACTIV, then sign this contract with Isuzu. You can certainly put this engine in a BT-50, and they have, but I’m not so sure you can do this and hope to emerge with your credibility intact. Or, maybe you can, but I just don’t see how.
This engine is renowned for being unrefined - most reviewers mention this. That’s mainly because large-capacity inline fours (although they are in perfect primary balance) suffer from profound secondary imbalances.
These are significant out-of-balance forces and couples rotating at twice the crank speed. I know, it’s a brain-bender. It’s mainly because the pistons move together in pairs, and it’s a four-stroke engine.
WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT CYLINDER IMBALANCE?
Three cylinders versus four: What’s the best engine for you? >>
These profound vibrational effects cannot be engineered out, without complex countermeasures. This is why reviewers routinely call this engine ‘rough’. Clever engine mounts - just not enough, typically, to fix the ‘shakin’ all over’ character of the large four-potter.
I could even forgive ‘rough’ - if the new ute launched as the best engine in the class - but it’s not, even with the diminutive performance upgrade this time around.
The ageing 3.2 Ranger is gruntier, meaning so is the outgoing BT-50. And it makes me wonder how - exactly - a carmaker justifies downgrading the powertrain on a new model. That alone is extraordinary. Not in a good way.
To put this another way, if the Isuzu engine had the same specific power output as a Triton’s 2.4 diesel, it would be producing 166 kilowatts.
Driveline and 4WD system
The six-speed auto that goes with the Isuzu engine is - I’d have to say - completely in character. It’s just not a slick union. I’m not alone in saying the transmission is rough. Perhaps this can be improved by better powertrain software control - I don’t know. Let us hope so.
And finally, there’s the 4WD system itself, which remains a throwback to the 1970s. You get rear-wheel drive in high range for high-traction surfaces. Four-wheel drive in both high and low ranges for soft surfaces only.
We actually have this thing now, in the broader automotive domain: It’s called ‘all-wheel drive’. It uses a centre diff. If you incorporate one in your ute design it would allow the use of all-wheel drive on high-traction surfaces - without breaking the transmission. Wouldn’t that be nice?
If you’re hazy on the distinction between 4WD and AWD, Subaru has a neat explanation here >>
Mitsubishi already does that, effectively, with the Super-Select II transfer case in the Triton >> and Pajero Sport >>. 4MOTION Amaroks have it, too. And I’d suggest, when you’ve got, like, 450 Newton-metres being pumped to the rear driving wheels, on a rainy night, perhaps with mum driving and your two kids in the ute, completely unladen, on an unfamiliar road with sub-optimal civil engineering, it makes a lot of sense to send drive to both the front and rear axles, as opposed to just the rear. As a primary safety and control consideration.
But no - not on D-MAX or BT-50 - for what looks like the next eight to 10 years. Disgracefully. On vehicles increasingly popular with, and targeted to, families. Still Massey-Fergusson down below, in terms of getting the power to the ground safely.
Lugging loads
The primary task of a ute is, of course, moving stuff. your first task is deciding how much of what type, either humans or actual, you’re most likely to move most.
Depending on which model BT-50 you choose, your limits for how much is going to be legally possible are going to vary, not just because you’re not allowed to carry people in the tray anymore but because, obviously, there are technical limitations on each variant based on drivetrain, weight, and design limits.
So let’s pull back the glossy marketing bullshit about what a hardcore ute this is and look at the bareback facts. Because, like Triton, there are plenty of configurations, all of which alter how much you can carry.
There are three body styles: single-cab, ‘freestyle’ cab and dual-cab. Just like old BT-50.
Within each body style you can have 4x2 (two-wheel drive only) or 4x4. The only manual transmission options in BT-50, is the single-cab 4x4 version, freestyle-cab 4x4 and dual-cab 4x4; it’s a six-speed job, but there’s no manual in any of the 4x2 versions. It’s auto-only in 4x2, although you’ll be wise to note that it could be a good thing because the 4x2 is probably going to be the smartest option if heavy towing is the main game for your BT-50. This is because adding and additional 200-ish kilograms for the sake of having a low-range transfer case and front differential is added kerb weight you don’t actually need and takes away from the vehicle’s GVM - meaning you can’t tow as much with the so-called ‘top-spec’ BT-50s.
I made this point on the previous BT-50, based on Ranger. And it’s kinda still the case now. Here are the numbers, in case you think I’m talking via my posterior:
XTR 4x4 auto ($59,000 driveaway) dual-cab: Payload 1070kg; GVM 3100kg; Towing cap. 3500kg; Kerb weight 2030kg.
XTR 4x2 auto ($53,000 driveaway) dual-cab: Payload 1055kg; GVM 3000kg; Towing cap. 3500kg; Kerb weight 1945kg.
XT 4x2 auto ($50,300 d/away) cab-chassis d-cab: Payload 1081kg; GVM 3000kg; Towing cap. 3500kg; Kerb weight 1919kg.
Clearly the XT cab-chassis is the ideal choice if you need room for four adults and a significant payload in the tray (where heavy towing might be occasional at best). Plus, Mazda offers ‘heavy duty’ leaf springs to cope with additional payload.
But interestingly enough, despite the XTR 4x2 weighing 85kg less than the 4x4, it’s denied additional payload (1055 versus 1070), and in fact the permissible GVM on the 4x4 is 100kg higher despite being the heavier vehicle. Also noteworthy, axle capacity on all three versions is the same: 1450 / 1910 kg (front/rear).
If however, you need to move strictly as much equipment, feedstock, tools, and as many copper and brass plumbing offcuts as possible, with almost zero chance of needing to seat more than one additional arse, then the XT single-cab is gonna be the one you need. Unless of course you need the addition of more square-area in the tray (than dual-cabs), but 9/10 on the payload front, in which case, the ‘freestyle cab’ has your name on it. Here are those figures:
XT freestyle cab-chassis 4x2 auto ($50,300 d/away) dual-cab: Payload 1171kg; GVM 3000kg; Towing cap. 3500kg; Kerb weight 1880kg.
XT single-cab-chassis 4x2 auto ($42,800 d/away): Payload 1195kg; GVM 3000kg; Towing cap. 3500kg; Kerb weight 1829kg.
PRICING & COMPETITION
BT-50 XT single cab-chassis 4x2 auto starts at $43,000 and hits $65,000 for the GT dual-cab 4x4 auto.
Compare this with a Mitsubishi Triton range which starts at around the $40k mark for dual-cabs and tops out at $57k for the GSR.
Meanwhile, you’ll have to wait for exact pricing updates on others like the Ford Ranger and Volkswagen Amarok, and the new Toyota Hilux as their respective new models arrive later in 2021.
Ute sales in Australia
Finally there’s sales. When you look at 4X4 utes, last year, in ‘Straya. Ford sold 37,000 Rangers. Narrowly the country’s most popular 4X4 pickup. (Hilux was second.) Triton came third, behind a substantial gap. Mazda sold just under 8000 Ugly Rangers. Smiley Rangers. Whatever…
4X4 Ute sales in Australia, 2019
And in my view it wasn’t just the killer grin holding BT-50 back. Ford has done an outstanding job making Ranger seem sexy - the Wildtrak. I mean, I want a Wildtrak - and I know how badly Ford treats its customers in ‘Straya. I get why people want them.
But it’s not just the look - they’re essentially twins under the skin. Ranger has momentum and desirability and perceived status among ute buyers. BT-50 never has enjoyed any of those things. And not even being $10,000 cheaper has been an effective countermeasure there. Go figure.
BT-50 is currently the ninth most popular 4X4 ute in the country. D-MAX is number five. It’s hard for me to see this unlikely partnership constituting a win in sales for the BT. The whole gamble seems to be riding on cosmetic appeal and interior features.
Buying a Ranger (or a Hilux, or even a Triton) gets you automatic entry to ‘Club Cred’. You don’t need a reason to justify these vehicles to your friends, family or colleagues. But with a BT-50 - you need an explanation. It’s kinda like a note from your parents about why you were late.
Should you buy the next BT-50?
This makes me think about the new look, and imagine how I might feel about it with my blue singlet on. On the road to Cape York. Or on a building site, tooling up for a concrete pour.
I’m wondering if the new nose - I’m henceforth calling this design process ‘Mazdabation’ - of new BT-50 will get it up there with a Hilux Rugged X, or a Wildtrak, or even a Mighty Morphin’ Mitsubishi Triton GSR? Or will I still need a note from Mum and Dad to escape derision?
Ranger, Hilux, Triton: They’re all Tonka Tough - at least in visual presentation, and contemporary perception. And they’re numbers 1, 2 and 3 in sales - not coincidentally.
To me, the new BT-50 is at least no longer visually abhorrent. And that’s a relief, because the current one’s styling is a real reason not to buy one. But the new one could be perceived as looking soft and effeminate by ‘club tradie’ and ‘club off-roader’ - and that could be almost as big an impediment to actually selling a few.
Especially as there’s not some super-sexy underlying, objective factor that makes the new BT-50/D-MAX actually special. Being no longer hideous looking is hardly a unique selling proposition.
Conclusion
On my world, the newest ute should leap out of the gate, instantly in front of competitors. This should occur simply because the competitors are older - some, like the Amarok, are approaching their 10th anniversary. Unfortunately, BT-50 has not jumped ahead in this way.
Let me know what you think in the comments feed below. Are you going to get one? I’m sure there will be strong opinions on this.
More reports
The anatomy of the most common off-road disaster. Do not let this happen to you. The road to 4X4 hell: so often paved with good intentions. What could possibly go wrong?