 |
The humble utility was first mass-produced in Australia more than 50 years ago and today utes, truck-based pick-ups and cab chassis vehicles account for more than 15% of all new vehicles sold nationally. Our home-grown hero is back. We test seven in the pack.
Our test included petrol and turbo-diesel versions of the popular Toyota HiLux (Double Cab SR5 V6/SR5 TD), Nissan Navara (Dual Cab ST-X V6/ST-X TD) and Holden Rodeo (Crew Cab LT V6/LT TD), and a diesel version (petrol version was unavailable) Mitsubishi Triton (Double Cab GLX-R Cdi). |
Part of HiLux’s popularity can be traced back to its engine excellence. The clutches are light, and while the gearboxes are long-throw and truck-like, their effectiveness with these flexible powerplants make chores a cinch. Both cars sit around 2100rpm at highway speed and neither lacks overtaking urge. The diesel is particularly adept, with its low-end pulling power and willing nature. Although the petrol is still stronger throughout, the diesel rarely feels underdone. More importantly, it doesn’t become raucous like the Triton diesel when asked to rev.
At moderate speeds grip levels are sound, steering is light and predictable, and the trucks are capable at cornering. It is too easy to spin the rear wheels in an unladen HiLux and the tyres howl incessantly if cornering at any pace.
Both Toyotas ride firmly without a decent load in the tray, and the diesel feels stiffer again. The greater kerb weight may be a factor there. They can jolt on rough roads and skip around at the rear. Although rebound controls lack the discipline of the Mitsubishi, the ride in a loaded HiLux is more settled and secure.
Both Toyotas were behind their rivals for braking ability, but on a par for noise suppression.
Toyota’s diesel was the most frugal vehicle on test, with an average of 10L/100km. The V6 HiLux was left in its dust, with a 14L/100km average, and its preference for 95 RON premium unleaded petrol is an inconvenience in remote areas.
Generally, the HiLuxes offer simplicity in ergonomics. Build quality is still in evidence, but the interior is inconsistent and low-rent. The front seats slope away from the driver and don’t adjust to underpin your thighs. They also lag in support and padding. However, the rear seats have a decent backrest angle and are slightly firmer.
There’s ample headroom in the back, though less knee room than the Tritons, and the storage space is fine.
HiLux safety suffers due to the inclusion of a lap-only centre rear seatbelt and the lack of a centre rear headrest, while its ABS system is rudimentary. In practicality, the HiLux offers a pair of seatback pockets, four grab handles and a tilt-up rear seat base. However, fitting a child restraint in the HiLux SR5 is almost impossible.
The duo offer just 10,000km between services, are slightly more expensive to insure, and rank a rung above the Triton for parts costs and servicing outlays. High initial prices work against it at resale time. The diesel, in particular, looks like slumping behind its peers for monetary losses.
Navara has the most car-like clutch and simple gearbox. And the engine in the petrol Nissan leads the field with strong in-gear performance. The automatic diesel shifts smoothly and generally works effectively. However, its smaller capacity struggles for the right gear and falls behind on hills. A 600kg test load affected it the most.
Though the heaviest trucks on test, braking from both is good. They also offer the best ride and handling. Both absorb bumps nicely (the diesel a little less so), offer above average suspension control and corner competently. The steering is a little vague but has enough accuracy and feel.
The V6 Navara’s noise levels were best on test, while the diesel was a little noisy under full acceleration.
| At around 800kg, neither Nissan has a great payload. The 3000kg maximum towing capacity seems a huge advantage, until you realise that the towball limit is just 150kg.
The petrol Nissan was the worst on test, with returns of 13.3L–15.8L/100km. An 80-litre fuel tank redeems its sins and, based on the test average, its range would be 530km. The diesel, tested here as an auto, fares much better, with an average 10.9L/100km. |
 |
Nissan has nailed its rivals for cabin practicality and comfort. The driver’s seat is more comfortable and adjustable, and also features lumbar support.
In the back, door openings are more restrictive, the backrest is more upright and the legs lack support, but there’s still plenty of leg- and headroom on offer.
It streaks ahead on seat folding, child restraint points, storage space, driving position and ergonomics. The tray track system and additional tie-down points make it simple to secure loads, and Navara’s safety equipment is just as generous as its rivals. Our biggest quibble is the fiddly key-operated fuel cap.
Nissan recommends services every 10,000km, and outlays for that are higher than the other Japanese brands. Its parts cost more too, though insurance is lower. Monetary losses at resale are likely to be among the lowest in this group if the diesel is any sign.
The Rodeos are aptly named in some ways as steering can give a savage kick on mid-corner bumps. These Holdens are characterised by a soft, disconnected feel in both ride and steering. Any roughness in the roads make the Holdens unpredictable and they often skip off-line. The brakes also feel soft but actually work well.
Holden’s petrol engine struggles with low-end torque and needs plenty of gear changes to keep up. To compound its woes, the gearbox ratios are not ideal, particularly the second to third shift.
The diesel engine avoids these criticisms; though it lacks the punch of its direct rivals, it can be driven with less fuss and copes well with a substantial load. The only drawback is more engine clatter and idle din.
Holden’s diesel is thirstier than its peers, while the V6 proves a penny-pincher. The test figures were 11L and 13.8L/100km respectively.
 |
The years have not been kind to Rodeo’s once-innovative design. The soft, unsupportive front seats are tiresome, the footwell is tight and its plastics look dated. Rodeo’s ergonomics are sound but uninspiring. Of note is a pleasing, push-button 4x4 system and, on the downside, rear headrests that hamper rear vision.Access to Rodeo’s soft and comfortable rear seats is through a narrow opening, and once inside headroom is restricted.
On the positive side, there is a trio of moderately accessible child restraint anchor points. Storage space is average and in the tray, the four tie-down points are too low. Holden lacks the front seatbelt safety aids of its rivals but otherwise matches their safety features. The Holdens are due for services every 10,000km, and up to 60,000km are the worst for servicing costs (the diesel a substantial jump again). Although insurance outlays are average, parts pricing is steep. Rodeos are mid-field for depreciation losses. |
The Triton engine pulls strongly from low revs and is relaxed at cruising speeds. Although the manual gearbox has long throws, its ratios are well sorted and the diesel Triton is now in the top echelon as a performer.
The Triton offers a 1010kg carrying capacity. To cope, the rear suspension is firmly sprung and Triton doesn’t dismiss bumps as well as some. However, rebound control is excellent.
The brakes, with drums at the rear like its compatriots, work well in this group and on loose surfaces.
 |
There is a downside to the diesel, though, and it makes itself felt as soon as the engine gets above mid-range revs and clatter and noise levels increase markedly. They are less apparent but still noticeable at idle.
Triton’s grip levels and cornering balance are fine, although the steering is slower to respond and imparts a larger feel to the vehicle, while its smaller turning circle is well ahead of the competition. |
Tritons trail on fuel efficiency. On test, the diesel nearly matched the supposedly superior HiLux, with 10.4L/100km.
High points include the best safety equipment in the group and, for the diesel at least, a higher – though still ordinary – rating in the Green Vehicle Guide (2.5 stars). Most of this pack emits more greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions than the standard.
Inside, its colours and dashboard are a breath of fresh air, but the switchgear, controls and instruments could be easier to operate and monitor.
Triton offers the best rear passenger space and comfort, but that privilege is not extended to the driver. There are some ups and downs in practicality too, with no seatback pockets, but power maintained to the windows for a short time after the vehicle is switched off.
The rigid tonneau cover, sports bar and body kit arrangement is hit and miss: it guards well but restricts load flexibility. The dual-key tonneau locking system did not gather much support either. And Triton’s pair of child restraint holes would be extremely difficult to access and use.
Mitsubishi’s ownership costs lead the pack, with 15,000km service intervals, low parts pricing and competitive servicing requirements (the diesel is more expensive to maintain). Triton trails a little on depreciation costs.
| All four brands are surprisingly similar and competent off the bitumen. There are differences in wheelbases, ground clearances and approach and departure angles, but none struggled in ruts, down steep slopes or in sand.
Stability improves with drive running to all four wheels, instead of just the rear pair. Only the Holden still proves dire in four-wheel-drive. Both Triton and HiLux are good on gravel; they lack for ground clearance. |
 |
For low-range engine braking, diesel is supreme. Navara led the way, followed by HiLux and Rodeo, and lastly Triton. The petrol Navara also has an edge in that department, with petrol Rodeo a place back and HiLux last.
Best vehicle here? Toss a coin between the petrol Navara and the turbo-diesel HiLux. Both are outstanding examples of the breed.
TESTERS: Chris Bishop, John Ewing, Barbara Cumming, Ernest Litera, Greg Hill, Tim Pomroy and James McEwen.
By Chris Bishop
Photography by James McEwan
Car reviews
