Volkswagen Amarok vs Mazda BT-50

What's the difference?

The Amarok W600 is impressive when you get it onto a twisty road, and my hat goes off to Walkinshaw for turning a dual-cab into something that is genuinely fun to drive on twisty roads. I’m not kidding, the W600 is proper fun.

But it’s expensive, and despite the tough looks and on-road ability, it doesn’t have any more on-paper performance than its standard siblings. That and its ride is compromised by its new abilities.

Those who spend the cash on a W600 probably won’t be disappointed if they can handle a slightly stiff ride, but it’s possible VW is expecting people will be more into the idea of a corner-carving dual-cab than is the reality.

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

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.

The Amarok W600 looks tough. In fact, it might even look a little too tough given the engine under its bonnet is unchanged from the regular V6 Amarok.

Walkinshaw has done an excellent job making the Amarok look like a properly fierce on-road performer, from the bespoke front bumper and new ‘W’ motif in the grille, to the lightbar across the front of the fascia connecting the lights and the aforementioned 20-inch Walkinshaw wheels.

The side-exit twin exhaust up the back of the ute looks excellent, and the fact that the sidesteps retract to tuck in below the doors gives the ute a sleeker vibe.

It’s a bit underwhelming in the cabin by comparison, with the Walkinshaw stitching in the headrests and the stainless steel pedals the biggest additions to the (admittedly already plush) Amarok interior.

It’s just a little more than a jazzed-up Ranger interior, but not by much.

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 Amarok starts from a solid base in terms of practicality, so the W600 inherits pretty much all of it, including a couple of its downsides.

The positives to start, the W600 uses the same handy multimedia system on a nice, clear vertical touchscreen with always-on climate controls and a few buttons for key shortcuts.

As much as a bespoke steering wheel would feel more special, the standard one from the Amarok has convenient buttons and is nice to hold.

The seats in the W600 are comfortable, and finding a naturally ergonomic position is easy with the 10-way electric adjustment, but as much as everything falls nicely to hand the cupholders are in an awkward position and there’s not a lot of easy storage space.

A little cubby above the glovebox and a small centre storage bin are a little hard to reach or access while driving, and the phone charger isn’t the best place to store items.

There’s decent space in the back, with doorcard bottle storage (as up front) and a centre armrest with cupholders.

Impressively, the Amarok W600 still has a 3500kg braked towing capacity, a 954kg payload, and no intrusion on the 1544mm long and 1224mm wide tray. There’s an optional roller cover for that, too.

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.

Powering the W600 is the standard 3.0-litre twin-turbo-diesel V6 available in other Amaroks, with 184kW and 600Nm.

It’s mated to a 10-speed torque converted automatic and powers either the rear or all four wheels, depending on how you’ve set the all-wheel-drive system.

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.

The Amarok’s diesel V6 engine remains unchanged so the 8.4L/100km fuel consumption rate stands, but if you’re driving the W600 as intended, you’ll see that figure climb.

It’s fitted with an 80-litre fuel tank so theoretically a 950km trip would be possible in WLTP test conditions.

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.

The first and most impressive thing to mention once you’re on the move in the Amarok W600 is that, once you sling the 2.4-tonne dual cab into a corner, you can tell there’s been some rigorous engineering work undertaken here.

The cornering and handling ability of the W600 belies its dual-cab nature to some extent, as it holds relatively flat and is far more confidence inspiring even on soaked roads than any ladder-frame ute I can recall. 

Of course, the tyres help on the cornering front too, with the PS4 SUV rubber being a fairly big trade-off in terms of sacrificing off-road ruggedness for asphalt grip.

Even the exhaust is a subtle reminder that you’re in something that’s had the once-over (or several times over) from a crew of engineers who know what they’re doing.

Sure, it’s not the same burble that used to roll out of the Walkinshaw sheds back in the Holden days, but it growls gently at certain revs or under the right load.

But the ride is firm, and it’s surprising the roads in the south and east of Tassie showed that given they were the test roads used to turn the W600 into the ‘ultimate driver’s ute’.

It’s noticeable enough that you’d probably get a bit tired of it on a long trip, which is a shame as that’s something VW is pretty sure its W600 customers are looking to use it for. That’s why it can still tow 3500kg and has that near-1000kg payload.

I should note that utes with some weight in the tray often feel a little more settled at the leaf-sprung rear, but we didn't test the W600 with any load onboard.

Its big wheels and low-profile rubber probably don’t help the 2.4-tonne ute on the comfort front, but hey, they look good.

The other main issue is it doesn’t feel as ‘special’ as it could in the power and performance department. 

The engine is great for a dual-cab, plenty torquey and doesn’t feel like it needs to work hard day-to-day, but something with a bit of mongrel about it would have been better.

VW not wanting Walkinshaw to detract from its towing and payload ability might have hindered this a little, but I can’t help but wonder if the Amarok W600 could have been more lively with the four-cylinder petrol engine than the diesel V6.

In the Amarok TSI452 variants, it feels peppy enough to be interesting, and there’s probably more scope for chassis balance than the twin-turbo diesel allows.

It’s also the engine used in Ford’s Mustang EcoBoost and the wicked Focus RS of a few years ago, so not bad pedigree.

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 W600 is backed by VW’s standard five-year, unlimited kilometre warranty.

Given most popular utes are covered by the same, that’s pretty standard, but longer warranties are creeping in.

Volkswagen says a five-year servicing plan covers the Amarok for just $3200, which averages to $640 a year. Service schedule is every 12 months or 15,000km.

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.