 Mazda BT-50 |
VS |  Volkswagen Amarok |
Welcome to the Mazda BT-50 Vs the VW Amarok comparison. Both are new generation SUV utes or light commercial vehicles designed for not just work duties but for family transport as well. While the Mazda shares it’s platform and parts with the Ford Ranger you can’t really tell at first glance since there is enough exterior, interior and other technical differences to not get them confused.
The all new Mazda BT-50 is a 2012 release and shows. Despite its seemingly awkward exterior design front and rear end design in real life it does stand out in a good way from other utes and looks much better proportioned than we initially expect. It may be a turn-off for the average conservative family trades person but we say to definitely give it a look. The interior design is pretty good too and clearly car like although, like every light commercial vehicle we’ve look at recently the materials are more commercial than passenger car.
The engine options and specification for the initial Mazda BT-50 release is a single turbo diesel with plenty of power for whatever you decide to do with the car. This is both good and bad since there isn’t a cheap model to choose from yet there is no need to feel you’ve paid too much. As a result all models are a great choice. However a petrol engine option would aid more appeal.
The VW Amarok looks good in a conservative way but it is a tad dated in 2012 without the shiny paint work. We think that the Navara for example despite its age looks just as new in terms of design. The Amarok’s interior looks good too being designed along the same lines as the Tiguan and arguable more car like. (We think the BT-50 look more car like) The materials used is class competitive and from their car range in some places.
Unfortunately it goes down hill from here. We think the VW Amarok packages insults the purchaser by offering the same engine in different states of turbo boost. If the engines where actually different then it makes sense but when they are identical then you are being ripped off no matter what version you buy. 3 different settings for the turbo and charging thousands of dollars more – what planet are VW from?
The VW Amarok has so far not really impressed us despite the lead up advertising. The overall package is good with only a few flaws but the long term ownership costs and ‘treat them like they can’t do their sums’ advertising (see prior reviews) really annoys us. More marketing spin of having 8 gears in the automatic is also quite funny when you realise that the Amarok does not have a low range gearbox just very low gears as part of the 8. We are quite sure the 8 speed works well to but knowing their how soft their brake pads and rotors are and their traction control system means you will be paying much more in a very short time if you go off-road. It will be interesting to see whether the Amarok’s braking performance is better than the other utes and what else requires replacement earlier than the others.
You can probably tell we are not happy with the VW Amarok at all. (We inquired very hard about buying one you see.) Sure its probably a decent drive but it doesn’t make financial sense whether you’re purchasing for a company and/or a private buyer. It appeals only if you want something different. The financial combination, engines, specifications reeks of poor judgement by their sales office. When you look at short, medium or long term ownership you are still paying too much. Hence we disagree with every review we’ve read and conclude with a simple avoid the Amarok purely on an overall cost or finance basis.
The BT-50 meets all our expectations in terms of a brand new ute. As a commercial based SUV there is little to really complain about.
|
|
|
| Mazda BT-50 | Volkswagen Amarok |
 |
 |
| Engines | MZ-CD |
|
MZ-CD – IL5 cylinder Duratorq IL4 (P4AT) |
TSI300 – IL4 cylinder CDBA TDI340 – IL4 cylinder DDBA TDI400 – IL4 cylinder DDBA TDI420 – IL4 cylinder |
| Weight | |
|
FROM 2000Kg |
FROM 2047 Kg |
| Fuel capacity & consumption | |
| Up to 80 litres MZ-CD Diesel 8.9 lts per 100km IL4 2.2 Diesel 7.6 lts per 100km |
Up to 80 litres |
| Other specifications | |
| 6 speed Auto or Manual Overall height/width 1821/1850 Overall length/wheelbase 5365/3220 Tray Lxxxxmm x Wxxxxmm x Dxxxxmm Total payload capability 1000kg (Approx) ANCAP safety rating 5/5 |
6 speed manual or 8 speed Auto |
| Capability | |
| Angle of: (degrees) Approach xx Departure xx Breakover N/A Minimum ground clearance xxmm Water Fording depth N/A 4WD system: Part time 4WD High & Low range |
Angle of: (degrees) |
| Performance | |
| 0-100kph 11.1secs (TDI400) | |
| Pricing | |
| 2012 $25,570 – 53,140 AUD (2WD & 4WD) *Always check with the dealer for up to date pricing and specials accessories etc… |
2012 $43,990 – 58,990 AUD (4WD only) 2012 FROM $29,990 – AUD (2WD only) |
|
|
|