Ford Ranger v Mazda BT-50 2020 Comparison

If you’re looking for a new dual-cab ute, there’s a bunch of options that have just arrived. A heavily-upgraded 2020 Toyota HiLux, an all-new Isuzu D-MAX and, as of just last week, the Isuzu shared-platform Mazda BT-50.

From the outset, our biggest question is: How does the all-new Mazda compare with its predecessor’s stablemate and Australia’s top-selling 4x4 ute, the Ford Ranger?

We have lined up the top-shelf Mazda BT-50 GT against its old platform buddy, the Ford Ranger, which itself has received a host of running changes in 2020 and is tested here in 2.0 Bi-Turbo XLT trim.

The Mazda BT-50 GT auto tested here is the best BT-50 you can buy, priced at $59,990 plus on-road costs, with any of the seven colours available at no extra cost. You can take off $3000 if you’d prefer the six-speed manual, but for now the GT auto is right at the top of the BT range.

The auto-only Ford Ranger XLT Bi-Turbo starts at $60,940 plus ORCs, but with $650 optional metallic paint as tested here, the price pushes up to $61,590.

While the Ford Ranger Wildtrak (in either $62,490 3.2 auto or $65,790 2.0 Bi-Turbo form) might appear a more logical competitor to the BT-50 GT, Ford Australia was only able to supply us a Ranger XLT Bi-Turbo in time for our test.

On closer inspection, however, the Ranger XLT lines up quite closely to the BT-50 GT, despite the Ford being a rung down from the premium Wildtrak grade.

That’s a testament to the high level of standard features Ford Australia has packed into the Ranger, and constant upgrades to the line-up such as the FordPass Connect app than enables a variety of advanced connectivity services (more on that later).

Both the Ranger and BT-50 tested here have dual-range 4WD transmission, a locking rear differential, alloy wheels, side steps, keyless entry and start, auto-on LED headlights (plus LED front fog lights for BT-50, halogens for the Ranger), dual-zone climate-control air-conditioning, rain-sensing wipers and power-folding mirrors.

The main points of difference between the pair is that the GT scores active cruise control, leather upholstery (the XLT has cloth), a power-adjustable driver’s seat and heated front seats.

While these items are standard on Ranger Wildtrak (except for the seats, which are part-leather), the XLT has leather as a $1500 option and active cruise control (together with forward collision alert and semi-auto active park assist) is available for $800.

Where the Ford comes into its own is with features such as an automatic engine idle-stop system, a 3500kg-capacity tow bar, cargo liner, rear sports bar (with incorporated LED tray lights) and three-pin AC sockets in both the rear seat compartment and cargo area.

Load-carrying features are similar. The Ford has a 1003kg payload, while the Mazda can carry 1065kg. Both can tow up to 750kg without trailer brakes or 3500kg with them (and with a maximum 350kg of that on the tow ball).

Like almost all their competitors, neither ute here can tow to its legal maximum and carry its legal maximum payload at the same time. The Ford has to shed 700kg while the Mazda has to lose 650kg.

Ford offers a five-year/unlimited-kilometre warranty on Ranger, and capped-price servicing over a five-year period costs $1676. The Mazda also has a five-year/unlimited-kilometre warranty and a capped-price service offer that costs $2288 over five years.

Both have 15,000km/12-month service intervals.

Safety has come an incredibly long way for the humble utility since I started testing them as a staffer on a 4WD magazine in the 1990s, despite the basic concept – four doors, diesel power, separate chassis, independent front and rigid-axle leaf-spring rear suspension – remaining much the same.

But even as ABS brakes and airbags became common for passenger cars, such safety equipment on a ute was rare.

Modern utes are very much on par with passenger cars – with one glaring omission. Like most of their competitors, the Ford Ranger and Mazda BT-50 have drum brakes at the rear rather than the more efficient – and potentially safer – disc brakes.

Standard driver-assist safety systems on both these utes include autonomous emergency braking (AEB), attention assist, automatic high beam, adjustable speed limiter, rollover protection, speed sign recognition and trailer sway control.

Over the Ford, the Mazda also has blind spot monitoring, emergency lane keeping, lane departure warning, lane departure prevention, rear cross traffic alert, secondary collision reduction and turn assist.

The Ford’s safety feature advantage over the Mazda comes down to individual tyre pressure monitoring and emergency call assist.

The Mazda has eight airbags (six in the Ford) including the front centre airbag first introduced in the class in the new Isuzu D-MAX.

Both utes also have comprehensive tech features: colour infotainment touch-screen (9.0-inch for BT-50, 8.0-inch in the Ranger) with native sat-nav, Android Auto and Apple CarPlay connectivity (wireless CarPlay on BT-50), plus DAB+ digital radio, a reversing camera, and USB ports.

While both vehicles feature remote engine start, the Ranger requires the just-announced FordPass Connect embedded software and phone app to work. Ford didn’t have the system up and running in time for us to try it out on test, but the system is nonetheless comprehensive, allowing various remote actions such as locking/unlocking, locating the vehicle when parked, receiving live traffic updates and monitoring the vehicle’s tyre pressures, fluid levels, service intervals and so on.

The Ford’s SYNC 3 infotainment system is the easiest to use, with minimal distraction involved digging down into the menus required. The Mazda shares its system with the Isuzu D-MAX, yet we suspect Mazda has had a play with the software. It’s easier to set up than in the Isuzu, but still not as straight-forward or fast as the Ford’s hassle-free unit.

While the Ranger has two colour LCD driver information displays against the Mazda’s single black-and-white readout, it’s actually the Mazda’s that works better. You can’t view the trip computer, digital speedo or tacho at the same time in the Ranger, for example, and to switch between them involves a steering wheel toggle-fest.

This has been a common complaint on the Ford’s driver info display, and over the eight years we’ve experienced it, it hasn’t really seemed any more logical to use.

The BT-50, in contrast, has clear, analogue dials for key driver info, leaving the 4.2-inch digital centre display for not only setting menus and so on but trip computer and digital speedo as the default readout.

The Mazda has two USB ports – one in the front centre console, and one at the rear. The Ford scores three USB ports – all up the front, with one in the rear-vision mirror housing (for powering a dash-cam) and two in the centre console area. The Ford also scores a 12-volt port front and rear as well as a three-pin AC socket in the rear.

The smaller-displacement (2.0-litre) but twin-turbocharged Ford Ranger takes the power and torque lead with 157kW and 500Nm over the (3.0-litre) Mazda BT-50’s 140kW and 450Nm, and the Ranger’s 10-speed auto transmission also has four more forward ratios than the BT-50.

From there, they share the typical ute features including part-time, dual-range four-wheel drive systems and independent front and leaf-spring rear suspension.

On the road, there isn’t much between them, although the Ranger feels more responsive in its roll-on acceleration. Turbo lag off the line is less obvious in the Ranger than the BT-50, with the Ford’s sequential turbos ironing out most of it.

The only time that the Ranger feel a bit slow to get going is when diving for a gap in an adjacent lane when rolling in slow traffic. This is probably down to the transmission being slow to respond rather than any turbo lag; it certainly isn’t as obvious when the auto is in Sport mode.

While the Ranger emits the typical diesel clatter, it is more muted than the BT-50’s engine overall and is a smoother, more free-revving unit – much like a modern passenger-car diesel.

The BT-50’s engine is more truck-like. When left in drive the BT-50 upshifts at about 3700rpm, and if using manual mode, you soon realise there’s no point revving past that, as the tacho almost seems to come to a halt at 4000rpm, 400rpm short of redline.

Meanwhile, the Ford’s engine will happily sweep its tacho past 4000rpm quickly and smoothly when you boot it.

Both utes achieved close to their claimed ADR combined-cycle fuel economy figures on test – albeit in mostly easy country running. The Ford averaged 8.0L/100km and the Mazda 8.1L/100km.

It’s no surprise that the much newer design of the Mazda BT-50 has the more fresh-looking interior, and while the leather seats (available in any colour you like, so long as it’s tobacco brown) won’t be to everyone’s taste, the overall feel is of a luxury passenger car.

Inside the Ford Ranger it all looks a little dull and dated by comparison, with its black cloth and grey dash highlights.

Perhaps a more important measure is how practical an interior is, and in that case the Ranger is a better place to sit. It has more room, and the seats are more comfortable, although it misses some features such as the Mazda’s rear air vents and neat shopping bag hook on the rear of the front passenger seat.

The Mazda’s front seats seem to lack cushioning because after sitting in them for a while you feel yourself start to squirm to get comfortable.

The back seat area is more spacious in the Ford, while the Mazda’s isn’t exactly cramped. Neither rear seat is wide enough to be ideal for three adults to sit, or even two for an extended journey, due to the upright seat back – which is par for the course in a dual-cab.

The trays share similar dimensions – the Mazda’s is slightly longer, while in the Ford you have a dozen millimetres or so more width and depth, but neither has enough width to fit an Australian pallet, if that matters to you.

The Ford’s tailgate is much lighter to operate and the Ranger also has more standard tray area features as mentioned earlier. Both have useful step rear bars to climb in or out of the tray.

Most utes don’t handle all that well. A half-decent hatchback will run rings around both of these vehicles. Yet if you want to enjoy a safe but reasonably high average speed over a long journey on twisting back roads, the Ford is the one to drive. Its steering is more accurate and direct and it corners better.

It’s a more comfortable journey in the Ranger too. While it won’t let you forget its commercial-vehicle status over bumps, the Ranger’s suspension is much more supple than the BT50’s.

While the Mazda’s ride does improve with a bit more speed (at 100km/h rather than, say, 80km/h) on our 40km back-to-back test loop it was very obvious that it is much stiffer over bumps than the Ford.

We didn’t get the chance to test the pair off-road, but with good ground clearance for each (Ford: 237mm, Mazda: 240mm), high wading depth (800mm for both), locking rear diffs and hill descent control, plus strong underbody protection, it bodes well for rock-crawling.

Aside from sheet metal and interior tweaks, our test revealed that the new Mazda BT-50 performs in a very similar way to its platform partner, the Isuzu D-MAX.

So it’s not a great surprise that, as with our recent three-ute comparison that lined the blue oval’s ute up against D-MAX and HiLux, the Ford Ranger is the winner here – by a nose.

While the much newer Mazda offers more luxury and safety features for slightly less money, has a nicer-looking interior and has a better driver information display, the Ford outshines it in handling and ride, interior space and comfort and powertrain refinement.

How much does the 2020 Ford Ranger XLT Bi-Turbo cost?
Price: $60,940 (plus on-road costs)
Available: Now
Engine: 2.0-litre four-cylinder twin-turbo diesel
Output: 157kW/500Nm
Transmission: 10-speed automatic
Fuel: 7.4L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 195g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety rating: Five-star (ANCAP 2015)

How much does the 2020 Mazda BT-50 GT cost?
Price: $59,990 (plus on-road costs)
Available: Now
Engine: 3.0-litre four-cylinder turbo-diesel
Output: 140kW/450Nm
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Fuel: 8.0L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 207g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety rating: TBC