MAZDA BT-50
Did you think it’s ugly? Look again!
When the first edition of the current Mazda BT-50 was released in South Africa about five years ago, a whole bunch of us motoring journalists looked at each other and thought, “What the hell?” The styling was, well, unique. In particular, the front nose and the shiny rear light clusters generated a lot of negative commentary. It was like no other bakkie. But mechanically it was identical to the new Ford Ranger. In other words, it would sell relatively well, surely? Erm, not quite, it turned out. Unfortunately, when it comes to a vehicle’s styling no one sits on the fence. Take for example Chris Bangle, the former head of design at BMW. He was responsible for one of the biggest evolutions in design at a vehicle manufacturer. Unfortunately the market wasn’t ready for his ideas, and his E65 7 Series was widely criticised. His design philosophy included what he called “flame surfacing,” which also featured in the subsequent Z4 range and divided opinions. People were angry, shocked and referred to his designs (many of which were actually penned by his subordinate, Adrian van Hooydonk) as “Bangle bungles.” Errors of judgment, slip-ups, dropping the ball with an open try line before you – those sorts of references.
Time is a funny thing
But here’s the catch: Bangle was right all along. At a time when the chorus of outrage had reached a crescendo, this bearded, bespectacled Californian shook his head and said: “No, vehicle design has reached a dead-end. There must be a renewal, and this is the direction that I believe it should develop in.” Today, if you look at Bangle’s most famous designs, two things become apparent. One, they weren’t as shocking as we used to think they were. And two, they eventually influenced the entire motoring industry. Look at the curves and corners of the new MercedesBenz C-Class. Look at Ford’s Kinetic Design language for the Kuga and Fiesta, Peter Schreyer’s Hyundai and Kia designs. Nissan’s X-Trail and even parts of the new Navara. The list is indeed long. Another manufacturer that de-
cided to go mad with the design is Mazda. Where Bangle spoke about Flame Surfacing, Mazda, in typical Japanese style, spoke about kodo, or “the spirit of motion”. In the BT-50 the result wasn’t that successful. But why did they try it in the first place? To understand this risky approach, you need to understand Mazda as a company. It’s situated on the outskirts of the city of Hiroshima. Yes, that Hiroshima. Mazda’s people will tell you that when the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on the city on the 6th of August 1945, the electricity to factories in the neighbouring areas was restored within two hours! So they are people that don’t believe in sitting still. They keep moving, always striving to go forward. The other thing is that, just like Honda, they are known for their hyper-advanced engines. Where Toyota builds your “meat-and-potatoes” variety, these two manufacturers build refined engines that are either very refined or erupt with performance, or a combination of both. Their rotary engines are the best example of this. Moving forward. That’s why they attempted kodo with a bakkie. Bakkies have always been a secondary vehicle for Mazda. Although, ironically enough, Ford’s Courier and Ranger in non-American markets were just Mazda B-Series bakkies with Ford finishes.
So here we are
And thus we come to the latest edition of the bakkie, with Mazda and Ford badges. Where Ford chose a more angular, American outward appearance, Mazda decided on the kodo design philosophy, in line with their attitude towards passenger vehicles. The reaction of buyers was obvious: For bakkies we don’t like the “spirit of motion” we prefer the “meatand-potatoes”. During a discussion at the launch with David Hughes, the outgoing head of Mazda South Africa, it became clear that even Mazda dealers realised a few years ago that the market wasn’t exactly crazy about the BT-50’s appearance. Well that was five years ago, and here we are now. The irony of the BT-50’s new design, which basically consists of subtle changes to the contentious nose and tail lights, is that it’s more conservative than its predecessor. And if you were to swap the two models around, the new model would have been more appealing five years ago, whereas the design of the 2012 BT-50, as with Bangle’s ground-breaking design, wouldn’t have even raised eyebrows today. Take an honest look at the new Hilux’s nose and tell me it's good looking, anyone? Or that the BT-50 is more outlandish than the new Triton or Navara.
Under the bonnet
Yes, it’s a Ford Ranger, with the same 3.2 litre turbo-diesel that develops 147 kW and 470 Nm. It’s the same transmission and chassis. Mazda chose to emphasise the fact that the new BT-50 is imported in its entirety
from Thailand (compared to the Ranger, which is built locally) and that the new model’s suspension has been adjusted for a better ride. It’s hard to verify this without having driven the old model on the same road on the same day, though. The 2.2 litre engine is the same one found in the Ranger – with a small difference. When Ford upgraded the Ranger two years ago, the 2.2’s power delivery of 110 kW and 375 Nm was pushed up to 118 kW and 385 Nm. This is not the case with the Mazda, which still delivers its previous figures. For a lot of our readers, it’s a thing of academic importance, because the 2.2-litre models are only available as 4x2s. So if you want a BT-50 with four-wheel drive, you’ll have to go for the 3.2 litre, either in 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic. My choice remains the automatic, thanks to the effortless way you can conquer almost any terrain while you think of more important things. Things like Allister Coetzee’s game plan, or the next smashup in parliament. Yes, it doesn’t shift gears as quickly as the new Hilux’s automatic gearbox, but it’s not going to leave you in a lurch either. The rest is Ranger: from the class-leading 800 mm wading depth to a generous 237 mm ground clearance. Then there is a whole lot of electronic assistance that is more or less compulsory in this vehicle class. This includes trailer-sway control, roll control, hill-start assist and hill descent control (the latter only in 4x4 models). The interior is luxurious and modern, although the information and entertainment system hasn’t evolved much compared to its Ford Ranger competitor, which now boasts the manufacturer’s latest Sync 3 technology. The BT's ergonomics are identical to that of the Ranger – in other words, very good – like the comfort of the backseat passengers. Then there is the three-year/ unlimited kilometres guarantee, service plan and roadside assistance, with the guarantee that can be extended to five years.
Conclusion
This remains a generous bakkie, just like its underestimated predecessor. Whether you like its appearance is a matter of subjectivity. But its price counts in its favour. At just over R555 700 for the flagship 3.2 4x4 automatic double cab SLE, it compares favourably to the correspon-ding Hilux’s R573 500 and Ranger’s R588 900. The R33 000 difference between it and the mechanically identical Ranger is something that could help to pay for a new set of tyres and different suspension, for example. As with the new Hilux, which
honestly has an ugly nose, the BT-50 would also benefit from a bull bar. Throw on a good set of A/T-tyres, a few rock sliders and a snorkel and I think it would really look good. Because there’s no doubt about its off-road ability. Let me put it this way: If I was shopping for a double cab (my pimped-out Navara still has to last a couple more years) I’d definitely take the BT-50 for a test drive. And I almost forgot: Mazda and Ford have formally parted ways, as have General Motors and Isuzu. In the interim, Mazda and Isuzu have reached an agreement regarding the development of their next bakkies. Who else is looking forward to seeing the result of this project?