What's the difference?
Isuzu’s 3.0-litre MU-X has attracted plenty of fans over the years – and for good reason: it’s a seven-seat 4WD wagon packed with features, driver-assist tech and it has a decent 4WD set-up including a recalibrated rough terrain mode.
But the Japanese brand's 1.9-litre experiment has now officially ended – it’s a Gary-goner. So, for this test I’m driving its replacement: the 2.2L MU-X. This 4WD wagon has a, you guessed it, 2.2-litre engine – offering better claimed fuel consumption than the 3.0L, as well as an eight-speed automatic transmission and idle stop-start technology. And this MU-X has the same 3.5 tonne towing capacity as the 3.0-litre version, that’s 500kg more than the outgoing 1.9L MU-X.
So, how does this new 2.2L MU-X perform off-road? And does it make more sense as an adventure wagon than its 3.0L stablemate?
Read on.
Sometimes it really is all a matter of timing.
GWM was always going to offer up the plug-in hybrid version of its Tank 300 4X4, but for it to arrive in showrooms right now must be being looked on as some kind of blessing at GWM HQ.
Consider the circumstances: The Tank 300 Hi4-T PHEV (to give it its full name) not only saves fuel by making use of plug-in hybrid tech, but the fossil stuff it does use is petrol, not diesel with that fuel’s buck-a-litre cost penalty right now.
And with the planet on a knife’s edge waiting for the next increase in brinkmanship from those referred to as our world leaders, overseas travel has never seemed sketchier to the average Aussie. Which is when keeping it local and hitting the outback in a four-wheel drive suddenly looks really, really good. Except for the cost of fuel, that is, which is where we circle back to square one.
All of which means the GWM Tank 300 Plug-in hybrid concept could not really have come at a better time. But does the reality match the promise?
The MU-X has plenty of appeal as a daily driver – dependable and it’s a proven 4WD wagon.
Does the 2.2-litre engine add anything substantial to the mix?
Well, it's better than the 1.9-litre, that's for sure, and there's a lot to like about this MU-X in terms of its off-road capability, driver-assist tech, standard features and all-round driveability. And, while the LS-T lacks the top-shelf polish of the X-Terrain, it’s still an appealing potential purchase.
But the 3.0-litre option is better because while the 2.2L is very effective off-road and general day-to-day driving, it lacks grunt and has to work that much harder and is that much noisier under load than the 3.0-litre in most driving scenarios, including 4WDing.
There’s a lot to like here. The GWM Tank 300 in any of its forms is a competent vehicle from the helm and backs up its off-road claims with real ability. The ride quality, in particular, is a highlight, and it’s a good size for couples or young families. Its value for money is also quite brilliant.
Add this plug-in hybrid driveline to the mix and the performance is quite astounding, while the petrol engine and EV potential have arrived at a critical point in history where such things carry more weight than ever before. It remains to be seen what happens globally and what effect that has on fuel prices, specifically the price gap between petrol and diesel. There’s also the question of what happens electronically when you dunk the Tank into Nolan’s Brook on the track to Cape York. But for now, this is a car whose time appears to have come.
But while the overall concept deserves praise, there’s still some work required in terms of the way the car drives and in its attempts at keeping its occupants safe. The calibration of both the throttle response and some of the driver aids is, frankly, in need of some final polish. And though it sounds odd, the Tank 300 would be a better thing to live with if GWM ditched the contentious driver aids and took the points hit on its ANCAP rating. Even better would be to stick with the tech but refine it to the point where it works in the background and not as an irritant.