Isuzu MU-X vs Mazda BT-50

What's the difference?

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.

Key to the success of the BT-50 XS will be acceptance by fleet buyers. The vehicle, however, seems to be pretty well considered as far as that goes, although as with any stripped-down model, there are features that will be missed. Things like the manual air-conditioning probably won’t make much difference, but the lack of a tyre pressure monitoring system is a bigger issue for a working vehicle. Performance from the smaller engine is still well within acceptable parameters, but we reckon any buyer considering using much of the 3500kg touring capacity would be better off with the 3.0-litre engine offered in the rest of the BT-50 range.

The Mazda is not the best riding of its ilk, and there are competitors with bigger cabins, although, notably, at this point on the pricing ladder, these are often from China rather than Thailand where the Mazda is built. Ultimately it will come down to whether the smaller engine and reduced performance is an issue and also whether the money saved over the bigger-engined BT-50 is enough to justify that and the loss of some creature comforts. But since fleet managers are notoriously hard-nosed about this stuff, there’s a good chance to BT-50 XS will find a market.

Note: CarsGuide attended this event as a guest of the manufacturer, with meals provided.

In terms of appearance, the MU-X remains largely unchanged from the most recent iteration. And that’s a good thing. It’s blocky enough to be recognisable but sleek enough to remain inoffensive. Worth noting the door handles, window trims, front fender accents, roof rails, and side steps on the LS-T are gloss black.

Inside, nothing much has changed (other than a newly-introduced idle start/stop button) and, as such, the MU-X retains a low-key familiarity that makes it a comfortable space. Generally, design-wise, the MU-X more than holds its own against the likes of the Toyota LandCruiser Prado and Ford Everest.

Targeting tradies and fleet customers has meant Mazda has embraced the concept of factory accessories. Right now, there are options for tougher front bumpers, bull-bars, snorkels, drop-side trays, an awning, wheel-arch flares (for bigger, aftermarket wheel and tyre packages) driving lights, roof racks, canopies, tub-drawer systems and even a dual battery set-up. All these factory options carry the full Mazda warranty.

But Mazda has gone even further with accessory packs aimed directly at different fleet markets. For instance, there’s the Mine-Spec Pack which incorporates a park-brake alarm, high-mounted brake lights, a reversing buzzer, work-lights, LED rear lighting and pre-wired switches for auxiliary and beacon lighting.

Externally, Mazda's design brief for the BT-50 has clearly been to not frighten the horses. But it's better than that, because it has actually emerged as one of the better looking utes out there. In XS trim, even the steel wheels add a no-nonsense flavour to the overall effect. And where some of the competition appear to be trying very hard to ape the full-sized US-made pick-ups, the Mazda is its own thing.

Inside, the smaller info screens and simple layout in basic black tell the budget story. At the same time, there's a lot to like in terms of the clear, simple analogue gauges and the no-fuss controls including the conventional T-bar, park-brake and ignition key. There's a look and feel that also suggests this is a ute that should be able to take a few knocks in the course of earning a living.

The interior has a familiar and practical feel about it and the cabin is an easy space in which to become comfortable. Controls are easy to locate and operate and charging options are numerous – a mix of USB-A, USB-C (front and second row) and 12V.

Storage places include recesses for the bits and pieces from your pockets, a deep-ish centre console, as well as dual cupholders up front, cupholders in the rear fold-down centre armrest and bottle holders in the doors. There are also cupholders either side of the third row.

The MU-X has physical-button options to activate some functions (including to switch on the audio system, to adjust volume and access sat nav).

Seats are comfortable and supportive through all three rows – yes, even the third row is roomy enough to prevent whining from whoever is back there.

My camera guru/photographer/sergeant-at-arms, Glen Sullivan, reminded me that the third-row seats don’t have ISOFIX or top-tether points for child seats. Thanks, mate.

The cargo area is 311 litres with all three rows in use, 1119L with the third row flat and 2138L with the second and third rows stowed away.

The rear cargo area has a cargo cover, tie-down points, a 12V power outlet, a storage space under the rear cargo area floor and a space for tools inside the driver’s side rear cargo wall. The MU-X’s full-size spare (bravo!) is attached to its undercarriage.

With a choice of cab-chassis of pick-up tub, not to mention the option of a single or dual-cab body in cab-chassis form, the XS allows for a fair bit of creativity in how it’s configured. The cab-chassis, for instance, will accept a conventional drop-side alloy tray or any number of service body configurations right up to camper bodies.

The stock tub on the pick-up version gets a drop-in liner but there’s no power outlet or light that some of the competition offer. The tie-down points are also a bit disappointing with two lower points in the rear of the tub and a pair of higher points in the front. Experience tells us that high-mounted tie-down points are vastly less practical than anchor points mounted close to the cargo floor.

The move to the larger engine has, however, increased the Mazda’s towing ability. From the previous version’s 3000kg towing limit, the new 2.2 can now legally tow 3500kg (with a braked trailer and approved tow-hitch). Payloads vary according to specification, but range from about 1000kg right up to 1379kg for the XS singe-cab-chassis.

The factory-option drop-side tray carries it’s load up high, but offers a flat floor with no wheel-arch intrusions. The standard tub is not as large in any direction, but does have a damped tailgate for safety (you can’t drop it) and convenience (the gas struts help raise it).

In the cabin, you get USB charging ports (two in the front, one in the rear seat) and there are central air-vents for the rear seat of dual-cab models. The dual-cab also has an under-seat storage area, two gloveboxes and a 60/40 split fold rear bench. The doors feature bottle holders and there’s a flip-down glasses compartment in the roof lining.

While the front seats are comfy enough for bigger drivers, the rear seat also goes against dual-cab tradition a little by having plenty of room in every direction, as well as a rational seat-back angle.

While the XS remains the entry-level BT-50 variant, you once again have the choice of two or four-wheel drive, with price-tags to match. So, starting at the start, the 4x2 XS single-cab cab-chassis now kicks off at $37,900 before on-road costs with the dual-cab pick-up (styleside) 4x2 variant at $46,710.

Move up to all-wheel drive and there’s no single-cab option. Instead, things start with the dual-cab cab-chassis 4x4 at $53,120 and the dual-cab pick-up at $54,720.

Aside from the bigger engine and stronger performance, you now get an eight-speed transmission and there’s fuel-saving stop-start tech that was once only available on higher-spec BT-50s.

Other additions for the XS include LED headlights, adaptive cruise control, wireless connectivity for both Apple Car Play and Android Auto, a reversing camera and an 8.0-inch touchscreen. There’s also digital radio and hill-descent control.

But the XS’ place at the bottom of the BT-50 ladder is confirmed with the cloth-trimmed interior, vinyl flooring and plain steel wheels for all but the dual-cab pick-up 4X4 variant which gets alloy wheels.

Which is all fine and gives the Mazda something of a pointy stick with which to poke at the incoming competitors (mainly) from China, but where does that place the XS relative to the 3.0-litre BT-50? Well, if you take the XT variant with the 3.0L engine and the same body and driveline layout, the XS comes in at just $2500 less. That’s not a huge saving either as an outright number or in terms of the monthly lease repayments.

Part of that is because Mazda has also hiked prices across the BT-50 range in tandem with announcing the new XS. Which means that spec-for-spec 1.9 versus 2.2-litre XS is now $1500 more than it was. But even if Mazda had held prices on the XS variants, would $4000 be enough of a difference? For reference, the original XS sliced $3000 off the 3.0L price when it was launched back in late 2021.

There are areas where you can see where Mazda has pulled a few dollars out of the vehicle, starting inside with the small centre touchscreen, the truly tiny central dash-cluster screen, and the cloth trim. There’s also a bit of hard plastic in evidence and the air-conditioning lacks the set-and-forget function of climate control systems. The keyless entry and start has gone and the XS is started with an old fashioned ignition key. The XS specification also loses the front and rear parking sensors and the tyre-pressure monitoring system.

You might also imagine the drum rear brakes are another giveaway but, in fact, they’re standard across the whole BT-50 line-up.

This MU-X has a 2.2-litre, four-cylinder, turbo-diesel engine, producing 120kW at 3600rpm and 400Nm between 1600-2400rpm and it’s matched to an eight-speed automatic transmission.

Worth noting the 3.0L MU-X has a six-speed auto and produces 140kW (at 3600rpm) and 450Nm (1600-2600rpm) while the outgoing 1.9L MU-X has a six-speed auto and produces 110kW (3600rpm) and 350Nm (1800-2600rpm).

While the 3.0-litre has always been unstressed in most driving scenarios – even low-range 4WDing – the 2.2-litre feels underpowered. More about that in the ‘Driving’ section below.

The MU-X has a part-time 4WD system which includes a dual-range transfer case (with high- and low-range 4WD) and a rear diff-lock. The driver is able to shift from 2H (two-wheel drive, high-range) to 4H (4WD high-range) while on the move up to speeds of 100km/h. The diff-lock may only be engaged when the vehicle is in 4L (4WD low-range).

The MU-X also has a switchable terrain mode system which tweaks the engine, transmission and traction control to suit the driving conditions. 'Rough Terrain' mode, like a steroids-enhanced off-road traction control, is king of these modes when you’re off the bitumin.

The new engine capacity of 2.2 litres is up from the 1.9 of the previous XS version but still well short of the 3.0 litres of the more expensive BT-50 versions. And the specifications are pretty much exactly what you’d expect with the new 2.2 just about splitting the difference between the old 1.9 and the 3.0.

In this case, that equates to 120kW of power and 400Nm of torque, while the 1.9 was good for 110kW and 350Nm, and the 3.0 sports 140kW and 450Nm. So, yep, somewhere right about the middle. And that makes sense given the new 2.2 uses the basic mechanical architecture of the 1.9.

But the switch up to the new engine brings one very important change and that’s the adoption of an eight-speed automatic to replace the six-speed unit fitted to the previous XS and the other BT-50s. That has an obvious potential benefit for drivability, but also for fuel economy.

Mazda has also added stop-start tech to the XS in the name of efficiency. But, as we’ve found many times before, the fuel economy benefits seem restricted to the official test results rather than the real world where this technology serves to annoy many drivers more than anything else.

If you opt or the four-wheel-drive variants, you’ll get a rear diff lock but you miss out on an on-road 4x4 setting. Considering the 2.2-litre’s newfound towing capacity (the full 3500kg of the competition), that lack of a 4x4 Auto setting is a shame, but not an unexpected one at this price-point.

Official combined cycle (urban/extra-urban) fuel consumption for this MU-X is 6.7L/100km. The 1.9L MU-X offers 7.4L/100km while the 3.0L offers 7.6L/100km.

Actual fuel consumption on this test was 8.7L/100km.

The MU-X has an 80-litre fuel tank, so, going by that on-test fuel consumption figure, you should be able to get a driving range of about 920km. But remember, your fuel consumption may be completely different to mine because chances are you'll have friends, family pets, sporting equipment, camping gear, the whole kit and caboodle on board. I've only been carrying vehicle recovery gear, MaxTrax, and a first-aid kit, so I haven't had a huge amount of weight on board.

While one of the expected benefits of the 2.2-litre engine compared with the three-litre unit is a reduction in fuel consumption, the new 2.2 engine goes one big step further by actually being more frugal than the 1.9-litre engine it replaces. Well, in terms of the official government test, anyway.

The single cab-chassis model in new 2.2-litre, two-wheel-drive form posted a combined (urban-highway) fuel number of a creditable 6.9 litres per 100km. Compared with the mechanically similar 1.9 single cab-chassis, that’s a saving of 0.1 litres per kilometre, and a corresponding drop in tailpipe carbon emissions of 1 gram per kilometre.

To be honest, this small improvement is probably largely due to the stop-start system now fitted, which many drivers will turn off at the first opportunity. Even so, the new eight-speed transmission must also be playing a part, so let’s call the old and new engines line-ball in the real world.

The rest of the XS line-up scored official figures of 6.3 litres per 100km for the double-cab pick-up 4x2, 7.1 litres for the double cab-chassis 4x4 and 6.6 litres per 100km for the dual-cab pick-up 4x4.

With the BT-50’s standard 76-litre fuel tank, the theoretical range is more than 1000km. In reality, that’s going to be closer to 800km.

The BT-50 engines do not require AdBlue additive to reduce exhaust emissions.

Before we launch into the off-roading section of this test, it’s worth noting the MU-X has always been decent on-road; composed, reasonably refined (for a 4WD wagon, anyway) and comfortable. And thankfully, with the 2.2-litre engine, not all of those characteristics have been thrown out the window.

It is quite noisy, especially under pressure when you have to do some heavy acceleration or when you have a bit of gear on board. When it has to work that bit harder than it usually does, it can become quite noisy. Admittedly, the 3.0-litre MU-X is also quite gruff, but there's an edge to the roughness in the 2.2-litre that is very noticeable on road.

This MU-X is quite sluggish off the mark, exhibiting a disconcerting lag under heavy throttle from a standing-start. And it’s far from the most dynamic vehicle to drive. But it has a tractability about it that manages to mostly negate these flaws.

Otherwise, the new eight-speed auto deserves credit as it’s slick and smooth in application and feels right at home in this wagon.

Now to off-roading. The MU-X is still very capable. In fact, even with the 2.2-litre engine, it remains one of the better-performing 4WD wagons straight out of the dealership, in terms of pure off-road capability.

The 3.0-litre MU-X is not the torquiest in this segment, but it offers ample pulling power available across a wide rev range – count on peak torque between 1600rpm and 2400rpm – and it delivers that pulling power in an even-handed fashion. The 2.2-litre MU-X has to work harder than its stablemate, and it’s noisier and harsher.

However, those characteristics don’t take away from how effective this MU-X is because it offers impressive off-road performance. It still has a decent amount of low- and mid-range torque, which makes dirt-road cruising and low-speed 4WDing easy.

The MU-X has part-time 4WD with high- and low-range 4WD gearing, a rear diff lock and overall it retains all of that off-road capability the 3.0-litre MU-X has been renowned for – so you don't lose any efficacy there.

The line-up’s off-road traction control system, which once was a bit patchy in its effectiveness, has gone through a couple of phases and it’s been recalibrated/tweaked over the years and it is much better now.

Of course, the MU-X also has Isuzu’s much-vaunted Rough Terrain mode (a form of early-acting off-road traction control which converts lost grip into torque for the wheels with grip), and it is smooth and effective, giving the driver better overall control in challenging terrain.

Some of this MU-X’s listed off-road angles appear shallower than the 3.0-litre MU-X’s – approach: 23.9 (3.0L = 29.2), departure: 26.4 (3.0L = 26.4) and ramp-over: 19.6 (3.0L = 23.1) – but, even if that is the case, it has very similar driving characteristics in low-speed, low-range four-wheel driving to its 3.0-litre stablemate.

If you drive with control and consideration, you shouldn't have any trouble tackling light to moderate 4WDing in this MU-X. It could even, if push comes to shove, handle challenges that may be considered by some to be on the edge of hard-core 4WDing – for a showroom-standard 4WD wagon anyway.

Ground clearance is 235mm and wading depth is 800mm, so there’s an adequate amount of clearance to work.

The MU-X – with a turning circle of 11.6m and a kerb weight of 2130kg (3.0L = 2185kg) – feels quite nimble on bush tracks.

This wagon’s wheel travel – how far the axle can move up and down relative to the chassis – has more than an adequate amount of flex, stretching its tyres close, if not all the way, to the dirt.

A noticeable trade-off is its 20-inch wheel-and-tyre combination, which is best suited to sealed surfaces and so are far from ideal for dirt-track touring. There’s an easy remedy, though. Buy a set of decent all-terrain tyres on 17- or 18-inch rims to replace the showroom-standard 265/50R20 Highway-Terrain tyres. If you are using your MU-X, avoid dropping pressures too much because you’ll risk sidewall pinches and punctures on these low-profile road tyres.

In terms of packability: the 2.2L MU-X has a listed payload of 670kg, whereas the 3.0L version offers 615kg.

The 2.2L MU-X can legally tow 750kg (unbraked trailer) and 3500kg (braked), so theoretically you can tow the same load as a 3.0-litre MU-X. But, as mentioned, the 2.2-litre engine feels underpowered, even in general day-to-day driving, so with a load and/or towing that’s an added burden.

For reference, the 2.2L MU-X has a listed gross vehicle mass of 2800kg and gross combined mass of 5900kg.

Striking the right balance between ride comfort and load-lugging capacity has always been the big trick with utes in general. The fact is, there’s probably no ideal setting, especially considering the range of payloads a ute can be expected to carry on any particular day. In the BT-50’s case, Mazda has opted to go for a stiffer suspension tune. That means it can technically tow and haul with the best of them, but it also dictates that ride quality is far from what you’d call plush, even in this market segment.

The ute handles bumps best when the undulations don’t come too hot and fast. But strike a patch of high-frequency lumps and bumps and the suspension, particularly at the rear, starts to pogo about with a corresponding decline in ride control. The steering, too, seems to lack a little feel and is relatively slow-geared (although that has its benefits off-road).

The engine certainly does the job in isolation, but it’s likely to struggle a little with the full three-and-a-half tonnes on the hitch. It’s pretty noisy, too, and definitely sounds like a diesel, unlike some modern diesel designs that are more refined. There’s also a sense that Mazda has ditched some of the sound deadening of other BT-50 models, as the engine is certainly heard and felt. The optional snorkel moves the induction noise right into the driver’s window when it’s open, too.

But the new eight-speed automatic transmission is a beauty. Upshifts are crisp and smooth and even the downshifts as you approach a full stop are measured and calibrated to never intrude. And it’s nice to see a conventional T-bar shifter with no separate park button or non-intuitive movements required.

We didn’t get a chance to try the BT-50’s off-road chops, but past experience tells us that the Mazda will be pretty good. As with many four-wheel-drive utes, the limiting factor will be the standard tyres fitted at the factory.

While alloy wheels and carpets on the floor might be negotiable on a vehicle like this, a basic level of safety gear is not. So, the XS gets front, knee and side-curtain airbags, as well as givens such as anti-lock brakes and stability control.

But it doesn’t stop there with the BT-50 XS also fitted with the bulk of the current driver aids. Those include blind-spot monitoring, lane keeping assistance, lane-departure warning, rear cross-traffic alert and the reverse camera system. There’s also autonomous emergency braking which can also identify pedestrians and cyclists.

You also get Mazda’s own take on the controversial driver-attention monitor which many ute makers simply haven’t managed to get right in terms of the system’s calibration and how aggressively it acts. The BT-50’s is one of the less intrusive ones.

What’s missing? On a vehicle designed to tow big loads, a tyre pressure monitoring system is a great addition, but not one you’ll get on a BT-50 at this price. We’d also like to see an on-road 4WD setting which would allow the use of all-wheel drive when, say, towing on a bitumen road. More expensive competitors have this, but the Mazda is hardly alone in not offering this tech at this entry-level price.

The XS variant picks up the five-star ANCAP safety rating already awarded to the rest of the BT-50 line-up.

The MU-X has a six-year/150,000km warranty and seven years of roadside assistance. Unlimited km in the warranty would be welcome.

Service intervals are scheduled for every 12 months or 15,000km, whichever occurs soonest.

Capped price servicing covers the first five scheduled services for MY24 and later vehicle models (up to 5 years/75,000km – whichever occurs first) – at a flat price of $469 for each service.

Isuzu Ute Australia has a nationwide network of more than 160 dealer sites.

Mazda’s standard five-year/unlimited-kilometre warranty applies to the BT-50 range, and includes the first five years of roadside assistance, too.

Service intervals are every 12 months or 15,000km, whichever comes first. Capped-price servicing is available with the first five years of servicing costing $2188 on 4x2 versions and $2302 for 4x4 variants.

It’s worth mentioning that the BT-50’s new engine is Euro 5 compliant but doesn’t require AdBlue, reducing running costs.