Manual labour has never been a chore for the motoring enthusiast. For decades the dip of a clutch pedal with left foot, flick of the wrist and occasional raise of revs with right heel to feed the engine a gobful of revs has been an intrinsic part of the appeal of driving.

Only a decade ago the alternative in a Porsche 911 was a five-speed ‘tiptronic’ slusher. How times have changed and, oh, how the manual has been threatened since. Dual-clutch transmissions and torque converters with eight and nine gears have left six-speed (seven-speed for 911) manual transmissions looking like the lonely loser.

Instantaneous shift speed between multiple tightly-stacked ratios activated by ones and zeroes and flappy paddles leave manual drivers looking like they’re doing the Dinosaur Dance.

Finally, we have a resurgence of the manual from car manufacturers either returning to the breed after a period of DIY-abstinence, offering the double H-pattern at the expense of any fancy dual-clutcher entirely, or merely including a manual option alongside an established automatic.

It’s worth celebrating with these five seemingly disparate vehicles and we could have included many more that fit the above criteria.

In between, we have another hot-hatchback in the form of the $49,990 Peugeot 308 GTi 270, which, as with its 208 GTi sibling, is available in manual only. We haven’t yet had access to the $50,990 Ford Focus RS, but then we could have also selected the manual-only Fiesta and Focus ST. Likewise we could have wished upon a return-of-the-man 911 R in camp Porsche.

A duo of superchargers prove superb chargers here, with a manual complementing automatic availability. And, mate, both are rear-wheel drive two-door sports ‘coupes’ – the $76,990 HSV Maloo R8 with 6.2-litre LSA V8 and $151,770 Jaguar F-Type S with 3.0-litre V6.

Befitting the simplicity of the three-pedal configuration, there will be no data logging or value measured in milliseconds today. Our plan is for five car nuts to go for a flat-out fang in celebration of the underdog transmission with a simple aim: to find the ultimate driver’s manual.

1. As revealed in the Mazda 3, the Mazda 6 now also features the brand’s G-Vectoring Control – a traction control system that regulates the amount of power delivered to each wheel in response to steering to give a smoother experience. This is part of the Japanese automaker’s pursuit for Jinba-Ittai – “a feeling of unity between drive and vehicle”.

2. In a bid to quieten the cabin, Mazda have used a new technology which they call High-Precision DE Boost Control. This not only gives more control of the engine’s power, but also reduces diesel knock via a connection rod which absorbs the piston’s vibrations thus reducing the engine by a reported 3.5 kHz.

3. To further reduce wind and road noise, Mazda has plugged gaps with better sealing around doors and panels, used thicker glass at the front for improved sound insulation and absorption. The Atenza and GT variants also get an ‘acoustic membrane’ between the layers of glass.

4. It features a range if i-ACTIVESENSE Technologies which include Traffic Sign Recognition, available on GT and Atenza models. Also included in the Smart City Brake Support is pedestrian recognition.

5. The Mazda 6 is one of the few ranges available in both wagon and sedan body styles, with a petrol or diesel engine. Unfortunately, despite being a driver’s car, there’s no manual available in the range.

6. Since the 6 was released in this guise in 2012, its undergone rolling updates with a facelift in early 2015, an update in February 2016 as well as the latest refinements.

7. While both the wagon and sedan offer plenty of space, the sloping lines of the sedan causes the roof to sit low over the rear seats, while the wagon has a slightly shorter wheelbase meaning less legroom.

The 2017 Fiat Abarth 124 Spider is a new two-door convertible sportscar made by the performance arm of Fiat. It shares many of its underpinnings with the highly rated Mazda MX-5, and arrives in Australia in October priced around $40,000. Here are eight unique factoids about it.

1. It’s an MX-5 underneath. Fiat jointly developed the Abarth 124 Spider with Mazda and much of the chassis and interior design touches – like the dials, infotainment screen and steering wheel – are lifted from the Mazda. The Fiat is also built in Japan at Mazda’s HQ, though its unique exterior styling was penned in Turin, Italy.

2. It’s turbocharged. Unlike the Mazda MX-5 which uses naturally aspirated engines, the Fiat sports a more powerful 1.4-litre four-cylinder turbo that produces 125kW/250Nm. That’s 7kW/50Nm more than the most powerful MX-5, and helps the Abarth hit 0-100km/h in a respectable 6.8 seconds.

3. It’s light. The Abarth 124 Spider hits the scales at 1060kg, with this svelte frame helping everything from dynamics, performance and fuel economy. However it is slightly heavier than the welterweight MX-5 thanks to its beefier turbocharged engine and stronger brakes and larger dimensions.

4. It sounds good. Quad tailpipes give the Abarth 124 a rorty soundtrack, which can be enhanced even further by an optional Monza exhaust.

5. It has pedigree. The Fiat 124 badge has a long history, first appearing in the late 1960s featuring a body created by iconic designer Pininfarina. Abarth produced a racier, more powerful version in 1972, called the 124 Rally, to which this new model pays homage with an optional black bonnet and boot lid.

6. There might be a coupe version. Officially, Fiat says it has no immediate plans for a hardtop version of 124 Spider, but industry insiders hint that market demand could see one join the lineup. It wouldn’t use the folding targa-style hardtop of the yet-to-be-released Mazda MX-5 RF either, with Fiat tipped to develop its own hardtop design.

7. It’s safe, and scores equipment the MX-5 doesn’t. Aussie versions of the Abarth will arrive with optional safety gear like blindspot monitoring, adaptive LED headlights and rear cross traffic alert, which warns you of approaching cars when reversing. There’s also a standard reverse camera, which is a notable omission on the MX-5.

8. There’s a less powerful version, but we aren’t getting it in Australia. Fiat also makes a ‘regular’ version of the 124 Spider that produces less power and focuses more on comfort than performance which it sells in other markets.

There’s never been a better time to review the dual-cab 4×4 class of 2016 than right now. Wheels pitches eight of the biggest sellers in the segment for the title of King of the Heap. Here’s number one, the Volkswagen Amarok.

First published in the May 2016 issue of Wheels magazine, Australia’s best car mag since 1953.

IF THE rest of this field is clearly from working-class stock, it’s equally clear the VW is a cut above. The others may be solid blue-collar performers, but the Amarok creates the impression it’s the only one with a university degree, capable of not spending its life on the tools. It feels polished, with a sheen of sophistication.

Take the refinemed and (relatively) revvy 2.2-litre twin-turbo four. At idle it’s nicely muted and clatter-free; feed it some throttle and the short first gear of the eight-speed torque-converter auto gets it moving smartly. Seamless upshifts make progress feel effortless compared to the other lumbering beasts here. Its 9.8sec 80-120km/h overtaking time may not seem special, but we’ll take the lack of coarseness and induction roar in trade.

This is an engine that welcomes hard work. The transition from small turbo to larger one is fluid and impossible to pick, the peak torque smeared across a generous curve. Spin it up and it still pulls strongly past 4700rpm, an engine speed that the D-Max and Colorado definitely do not like.

The powertrain’s refinement is mirrored in the chassis. With the Amarok, VW has mastered the apparently dark art of mating a body to a separate chassis. It has none of the wobbles and tremors that plague its rivals to varying degrees, instead feeling like a cohesive whole on the road, clearly a more secure starting point for the chassis engineers to tune from.

And the tune is excellent. It blots up bumps that shake like a wet dog in others, and holds its line through dips admirably. Its steering may not be the absolute benchmark – it’s a little remote – but is reliably direct and relaxed enough at backroad cruising speeds.

Further proof VW has it right comes when you heel it into a few bends. It leans without pushing into early understeer and responds to the throttle mid-bend to allow subtle line adjustments. Mid-corner ruts are isolated from the steering column, so it makes swift, relaxing progress in a way none of the others here can match.

Sealing the deal is a level of interior presentation, comfort and refinement that feels Business Class to the others’ Economy. There are front seats with ample side and under-thigh support, a vast range of steering height and reach adjustment, super-legible instruments with a sensible info screen, a decent sound system, lined door bins so your bottles don’t rattle, and a heating and ventilation system that’s instantly familiar and intuitive to operate.

Add to that the widest cabin in its class – even three teenagers sitting across the back won’t complain – and a tray capable of swallowing a full-size pallet, and you can see how Amarok brains the competition in almost all key areas.

And yet Amarok is not the class sales leader. Perhaps more remote buyers are concerned about the lack of VW dealers and aftersales issues. Perhaps all those horror stories of dud Golf transmissions and engine issues knocked around a reputation for bulletproof reliability and strong resale that’s so important in this segment. Address those and Amarok deserves to rule.

Off-road performance

Amarok’s full-time 4WD system means you don’t even need to think about switching out of high-range 2WD to go off-road. While it doesn’t have a low-range transfer case, that’s not a real-world impediment. A short first gear, high-stall torque-convertor and sophisticated chassis electronics means it climbs with the best of them. It just dug in and found traction up our hell-climb where other contenders with better on-paper credentials wilted into steaming wheelspin and lost momentum.

Ferrari supremo Sergio Marchionne’s statement leaves no room for interpretation. Until you take a closer look at the GTC4 Lusso, a facelifted Ferrari FF.

Okay, it’s not a proper SUV. But you would not blush at calling it a crossover. That’s crossover as in experimental mix of wagon, four-seater coupé, go-almost-anywhere sportscar, and of course Ferrari.

The FF was the brainchild of former CEO Luca di Montezemolo, who had remarried, fathered a daughter, and found his carpool lacking. It seated four grown-ups, carried 450 litres of cargo and had the world’s most complicated four-wheel drive system, with two transmissions.

The mighty V12 engine collected plenty of street cred but pushed the car’s price out of reach of mere millionaires. Worse, the FF looked like a Ferrari crossover gone wrong. Sales were not exactly buoyant.

The mildly modified, naturally aspirated, 6.3-litre V12 is redlined at an impressively vocal 8250rpm. For trips to the kindergarten, the bellowing exhausts can be numbed by keeping the revs below 3000rpm. Between 3000 and 5000rpm, the massive V12 plays cool jazz with an extra bass and a couple of saxophones.

Above 5000rpm, the soundmaster adds two electric guitars and a synthesizer – which mimic an increasingly grumpy bunch of grizzlies. Without a limiter, this amazing powerplant would spin enthusiastically to self-destruction.

Even though power and torque receive only a conservative boost to 507kW and 697Nm, Ferrari claims a 0-100km/h time of 3.4sec, which marks a substantial 0.3sec improvement. The maximum speed remains unchanged at 335km/h.

Systems integration forms a piece of art from the various driver aids.

Key protagonists are the rear-wheel steering, AWD, torque vectoring, damper adjustment and the ABS/DSC/ TC controls. A pivotal forte is active torque split, which works north-south and east-west, directing twist to the wheel that makes the most of it. The Lusso cruises along in rear-wheel drive, but as soon as slip threatens to deflect the flight path the front axle will pull the car out of trouble.

Dislikes? The GT steering owes more to the California than to the F12, advanced assistance systems are conspicuous by their absence, and the updated tyre compound feels somewhat edgier at the limit.

Again, it’s that crucial fusion of compliance, control and confidence which makes the big Ferrari feel encouragingly nimble and responsive. Even on D-roads where only proper SUVs never lift, this very special Ferrari has enough ground clearance and wheel travel to stay on top of things.

Supporting this self-confidence are potent carbon-ceramic brakes which employ rotors the size of an old railway station clock.

Instead of the small in-dash monitor which made the FF feel old the day it was released, its successor sports a so-called dual cockpit. No, this is not the reinvention of the wheel, but the large touchscreen is a much better guide for the circling index finger, and the passenger may claim a portion of the screen to check email or watch a movie. Extra money buys a digital fear-o-meter which informs the co-driver of speed, revs and gear selection.

Remember, Ferrari, we have only two eyes and five fingers per hand.

4.5 OUT OF 5 STARS

LIKE: V12 sound and fury; broadly competent dynamics DISLIKE: High weight; fussy control layout

SPECS: Engine: 6262cc V12, DOHC, 48v Power: 507kW @ 8000rpm Torque: 697Nm @ 5750rpm Weight: 1920kg 0-100km/h: 3.4sec (claimed) Price: $578,888

According to Lamborghini, this new Spyder is the ‘lifestyle’ Huracan. What that means is anyone’s guess – perhaps it only drinks organic, ethically-grown unleaded, or likes to hang out in underground heavy metal clubs?

Whatever; we’re far more interested in what effect removing the roof has had on the driving experience than its social status.

The electronically-operated soft top takes 18 seconds to raise or lower and can do so at up to 50km/h, which proves very handy in Melbourne’s highly changeable weather. The reduced sound insulation does increase road and wind noise on the highway, but that’s the price you pay for the ability to put the wind in your hair at the touch of a button.

This is still an eye-wateringly fast car. Officially, the Spyder is 0.3sec slower from 0-200km/h than its hardtop sibling, but at 10.2sec it’s still easily a 10-second car over the quarter mile. It’s a real achievement to even make it to full throttle, let alone hold it for any length of time, and that atmo V10 also makes a savage noise, howling to its 8500rpm cutout and then barking aggressively on downshifts.

The seven-speed dual-clutch gearbox is extremely good by Lamborghini standards, miles better than the Aventador’s ISR system. Take-offs are smooth, shifts are rapid and the paddle action crisp.

Handling is similarly unaffected by the Spyder’s extra heft. Perhaps back-to-back with the coupe its responses would feel slightly dulled, but the drop-top is still capable of tearing down a road at incredible speed. Dry corners were few and far between on our test drive, but those encountered suggested that, like the coupe, you would be brave or foolish to get near the Huracan’s limits on the public road.

It’s easier to do so in the wet, where the security of all-wheel drive is welcome. In either Strada or Sport mode the electronics keep a very tight rein on any wayward behaviour, but selecting Corsa loosens the shackles and allows the Huracan to display some of its dynamic personality. Unlike its rear-drive rivals, there’s no wheelspin to worry about.

It’s still a thrilling and engaging driving experience, but it can be tricky figuring out what Lambo’s baby bull is going to do next – the best of its rivals feel more cohesive at the limit. Ideally you’d combine the lighter steering and softer suspension of Strada with the greater ESP freedom and engine response of Corsa, but sadly settings can’t be mixed ’n’ matched.

Then again, if you’re a driving purist, Lamborghini will point you in the direction of the LP 610-4 coupe or rear-drive LP 580-2. The Spyder’s mission statement is to look amazing and make an incredible noise while helping your tan – it does extremely well, particularly in bright green.

For our money, however, the LP 580-2 remains MOTOR’s Sant’Agata screamer of choice, while McLaren’s 650S or Ferrari’s 488 are the Spiders that best fit our lifestyle.

4.0 OUT OF 5 STARS

LIKED: Beast of a V10; work on your tan while winding along roads DISLIKED: Annoying clunks with gear changes; drive modes not configurable

SPECS: Engine: 5204cc V10, DOHC, 40v Power: 449kW @ 8250rpm Torque: 560Nm @ 6500rpm Weight: 1542kg 0-100km/h: 3.4sec (claimed) Price: $470,800

First published in the April 1997 issue of Wheels magazine, Australia’s best car mag since 1953.

There was never any question there would be another Falcon GT.

Even as the last of the Ford EB Falcon versions rolled out of Tickford’s workshop five years ago, Ford Australia’s marketing mavens had already decided there would be a 30th anniversary version in 1997.

Ford Australia design chief Steve Park began the initial styling work on the EL GT in early 1995. By March he had more or less settled on the controversial front end treatment.

“We wanted something different,” says Park. “Something that gave the car a strong ‘down the road graphic’. We didn’t want to do just another ‘letterbox’ grille.”

The March sketch also included a wild centre-post rear wing, with the high-mount rear stoplight included in the single pillar. The pillar was a more elegant, aerodynamic device than the somewhat agricultural looking attachment HSV uses for the GTS-R wing, but it was felt to be too heavy visually for the Falcon rear end.

There was another, more practical reason why the centre post wing didn’t make it into production, says Tickford product planning chief Howard Marsden: “We’d learned from the race cars that a centre post wing wasn’t as effective on a Falcon as a wing with two side supports.”

To confirm the theory, Tickford borrowed 45 minutes of wind tunnel time from Ford motor sport boss Greg Harbutt’s Ford Falcon EL race car program (the tunnel costs $10,000 a day) and found the production GT wing cut rear end lift by 70 percent at 100km/h.

Tickford’s engineers worked closely with Park’s team to ensure the GT’s cosmetics didn’t affect driveability or performance.

Howard Marsden recalls just one example: “We had to work very hard to allow Steve to hold the line he was after on the front spoiler while improving the airflow into the engine bay.”

A very early prototype of the front spoiler was in fact tested near Tennant Creek last April to make sure it worked.

While the stylists finessed the GT’s form, Tickford attacked the functional bits.

Tickford boss David Flint concedes the Ford Falcon EB GT suffered in a couple of areas as it was hurriedly conceived and executed; this time, he says, nothing was going to be left to chance.

Powerplant was again to be the Cleveland 5.0 litre Windsor V8 – now only used as a marine and industrial powerplant elsewhere – fitted with off-the-shelf go-faster bits. A 5.8 litre V8 – the legendary 351 – simply wasn’t an option.

“The 351 will not fit,” says Marsden emphatically, adding that the cylinder banks foul against the front suspension towers and leave nowhere for the exhaust manifold to run.

“You need a very big hammer.”

A larger capacity version of the Windsor was considered. “You can stroke it out to about 340 cubic inches,” says Marsden, “but we decided that if we couldn’t get the charisma of the 351, it was better to stay with what we knew.”

Tickford kept the hardware straightforward, opting for the proven Ford SVO GT40 cylinder heads with their bigger 47mm inlet and 39mm exhaust valves, plus a larger diameter throttle body (up 5mm to 65mm) and Showa-type two-piece inlet manifold (up from 62mm to 70mm). The standard camshaft was retained, but roller rockers fitted to give greater lift.

New 42mm four-into-one headers were designed and the full dual exhaust (the twin pipes are hidden inside a single oval chrome extension exiting under the rear bumper) has half the back pressure of any previous Tickford exhaust system.

The previous GT engine, like the XR sixes, was developed by Tickford in the UK. This time, however, all the work has been done at TVE’s workshop just across the Hume Highway from Ford’s Broadmeadows plant. Among the detail tweaks: the addition of a 13mm Phenolic spacer between the upper and lower inlet manifold halves which was found to cool the incoming air and give a 9Nm increase in torque.

Following the embarrassment of the EB GT, which was found to have something less than the 200kW expected, Tickford made sure the new GT engine met the required targets.

“The calibration was the secret,” says Marsden, referring to the tweaking of the sophisticated EEC V engine management computer to make the most of the engine’s improved breathing.

The GT engine has been tuned to run on premium unleaded, allowing four degrees more spark advance for extra power. If you get stuck in an area without PULP, there’s no knock sensor to compensate for the lower octane fuel, but Tickford has run a test engine for five hours at wide open throttle on regular ULP to make sure there are no detonation or overheating problems.

The tricky calibration work – Marsden calls the powerful F1-developed EEC V “a particularly non-user-friendly piece of equipment” – was handled by former Bosch engineer Rolf Glenk. Using an Arcon processor, he was able to make the required changes in the computer’s RAM, then send the data to Dearborn, where it was burnt into the EEC V’s ROM. The modified EEC Vs were then shipped back to Melbourne.

The engine program, which resulted in a genuine 200kW at 4700rpm and 420Nm of torque at 3700rpm, took 18 months to complete. But it wasn’t the most expensive part of the EL GT program.

“In terms of dollars, it was the vehicle dynamics that cost,” says David Flint.

The EB GT’s suspension was developed around Pirelli’s sticky, expensive P Zero tyre. Ford sources now admit the P Zero was chosen simply to give the GT a marketing edge over Holden’s HSV cars, and not because it was necessarily the best tyre for the chassis. “It was a classic case of the tail wagging the dog,” says one insider.

This time, Tickford tested extensively and found Yokohama’s 245/40 VR17 A51 0 suited the Falcon’s chassis best.

“Steve Park was almost on his knees begging for us to go to 18in wheels,” recalls Howard Marsden, “but that would have simply been too much tyre for the car.”

Suspension mods included Tickford’s new front-end geometry, unveiled on the XR cars last year, plus extensive use of neoprene bushes. Asa result the front wheels sit much more upright than before – negative camber is a mere half a degree – and there’s less tyre squirm thanks to improved lateral control. The power steering was also recalibrated.

The aim, says Marsden was “what you steer is what you get”: in other words, near linear steering response.

New front brakes were the other major mechanical change to the EL GT. The larger (328.5mm from 287mm), thicker (up 3mm to 28mm) vented front discs are clamped by two-pot PBR aluminium callipers embossed with the Tickford flying wing logo.

Installing the new brakes, which have 12 percent more pad swept area than the standard items, required a revised forged upper spindle. Ford lent Tickford original moulds which were then modified to suit.

Unlike the previous GT, Tickford wanted suspension and engine tune identical for both manual and automatic transmission versions. With autos expected to account for 54 percent of EL GT production, Tickford persuaded BTRE to develop a form of adaptive shift for the Aussie designed and developed four speed.

The transmission’s computer monitors a number of inputs, including throttle opening, current gear selection and main gearbox shaft speed, and selects one of five different shift protocols. The standard protocol is equivalent to the economy setting on the standard Falcon auto, and the shifts get progressively firmer and further up the rev range.

In addition, the gearbox has been programmed to start in second gear if it senses two first to second shifts have occurred and the vehicle has stayed under 45 km/h with no more than 60 percent throttle. The aim is for smoother running in stop-start traffic.

Improved quality at BTRE means Tickford could use a locally made gearset for the TS five-speed manual, instead of the beefy imported set used in the EB GT, in a bid to reduce transmission noise. Gear lever travel was reduced 16 percent and the detente spring stiffness cut by 30 percent to improve shift feel.

The TS has also benefited from an improved oil flow to a couple of gears, a fix developed by BTRE for Maserati, which uses the Aussie five speed in its Quattroporte sedan.

Tickford also worked with Dana to develop a lightweight aluminium driveshaft wrapped in a 3mm thick carbon-fibre sheath. Stiffer, yet lighter, the new driveshaft was intended to eliminate the chronic driveshaft flex problem which effectively speed limits Falcons – especially autos – to 180km/h.

Will it appear on regular Falcons? Probably not, as the unit cost is high.

Finally, Tickford chose the Aussie Hydratrak limited-slip diff for the live rear axle. The GT’s Hydratrak features 20 percent higher torque transference than used in the IRS HSV Holdens.

Most of the GT is built at Broadmeadows. Using a Fairmont as a base, it is fitted with Tickford underpinnings and the V8 engine – imported as a completely built-up unit from the US – on the line. The modified seats and black painted dash surround are also fitted on the line.

“We are not in the business of pulling cars apart and building them back up again,” says David Flint.

The body kit – largely fibre-glass, apart from the RIM (reaction injection moulding) grey inserts on the front spoiler and the leading edge of the side skirts – is all installed at Tickford. Precisely 272 EL GTs will be built – 250 for Australia, 20 for NZ, and two for South Africa.

GT Job One went down the line at Broadmeadows on February 3, and was completed at Tickford on February 18.

This car, labelled P1, was the first of 11 pre-production cars to be included in the GTs earmarked for Australia. The remainder will be coded GT1 through to GT239. But fear not, we won’t be short-changed – all 11 P-cars will be refurbished once their testing duties have been concluded and sold off.

At least they’ll be well run-in…

There’s never been a better time to review the dual-cab 4×4 class of 2016 than right now. Wheels pitches eight of the biggest sellers in the segment for the title of King of the Heap. Here’s number two, the Ford Ranger.

First published in the May 2016 issue of Wheels magazine, Australia’s best car mag since 1953.

WHILE it was once possible to consider the Mazda BT-50 and Ford Ranger the same, a 2015 facelift introduced noticeable mechanical and cosmetic differences.

Unlike previous Mazda/Ford joint developments, which were mostly the work of the Japanese brand, the Ranger was engineered by Ford in Australia, is built in Thailand, and up until recently differed only in its spring rates, which were slightly softer than in the Mazda.

In the facelifted Ranger, the biggest departure is evident as soon as you turn the wheel. A new electric power steering system (the BT-50 retains the old hydraulic system) provides light, smooth steering at parking speeds. It’s at odds with the butch look but isn’t a bad thing, making the Ford easy to wheel around the suburbs.

As speeds rise, the weighting becomes more natural, without the wheel losing its lovely, frictionless feel. This steering system is where the Ranger stands head and shoulders above its rivals, providing a great sense of connection that encourages you to push on, which few utes do.

But there’s more than one area in which the Ford ute stamps its authority on the segment. The Ranger’s 147kW/470Nm outputs are impressive and translate to the real world, where the Ford keeps company with Navara and Colorado from 0-100km/h (10.5sec) and 80-120km/h (7.7sec), while feeling more effortless in most everyday – and off-road – scenarios. To top it off, the 3.2-litre five-pot sounds throaty and has gained refinement thanks to quieter new injectors and cylinder-head revisions as part of last year’s facelift.

Although near-identical twins until recently – and despite the Mazda’s price advantage – the Ranger has historically sold twice as many as its sibling. Would you believe it’s all down to image and aesthetics? And we thought passenger car buyers were a superficial bunch…

However, while both vehicles are equally terrific in terms of refinement, there are real reasons to choose the Ford over the Mazda, such as the Ranger’s more compliant ride on bitumen surfaces.

From the front seats, the other difference is obvious. While the Mazda is relatively sleek and car-like, the Ranger has a dash that drawls ‘Yank truck’, which fits perfectly with its pervading image.

As in the BT-50, the Ranger’s rear compartment is roomy and has terrific legroom thanks to its long 3220mm wheelbase and sculpted front-seat backs. It’s still upright, but at least rear occupants get air-conditioning vents, a centre armrest with cupholders, big bottle-holders in the doors and 12V and 230V outlets.

Off the beaten track, the big Ford takes it all in its broad stride, dismissing even the most challenging climbs with insouciance and a minimum of wheelspin. It’s not quite as accomplished as the Hilux – nor as much of a known quantity long-term – and it’s not quite up to the urban polish of the new-school Amarok, but the Ranger will take you just about anywhere you’d expect with a standard roadgoing 4×4.

You can tell that much about the Ford by looking at it. Just ask anyone who’s ever overlooked the Mazda BT-50.

Off-road performance

Ranger’s muscular 3.2-litre five-cylinder turbo-diesel is a terrific basis for an off-road-capable ute with class-leading load capacities of 3500kg braked and 750kg unbraked. The fact the engine draws intake air from inside the front guard helps deliver a superior wading depth compared with those utes with under-bonnet air pick-ups. The Ranger also boasts a generous 237mm ground clearance, which lets you go further before snagging its undercarriage. The updated version’s revised traction control ensures solid climbing credentials and stays activated across the front axle when the rear diff lock is engaged.

Tips of fingers pointed downwards, back of the palm tilted upwards and wrist flicking slightly sideways – engineers of the Toyota 86 understand the language of driving.

Sidestepping a combination of our non-existent Japanese and their broken English, in the pits of Fuji Speedway’s short circuit we talk cornering attitudes with hand movements and there are nods of agreement all-’round.

Without a detailed PowerPoint presentation – surprisingly for Toyota – before track-lapping both old 86 and new 86 under Japan’s sweltering summer heat, it’s left to trackside engineers to expand on the four years of development work since the coupe’s 2012 debut.

Our rising palm is meant to indicate the perceived extra rear roll of the new car when arriving hot into a corner. Cue the rise and fall of craniums, then an explanation.

The first facelift of this beacon of rear-wheel drive accessibility is simply softer than before. Already criticised by keyboard warriors for having been given a mere five extra kilowatts when Toyota should obviously have stuck a bloody turbo on the thing, it now appears the latest model is cushier as well. The Internet, do your worst.

Leaving pit lane in the old 86 – a metallic orange flagship GTS – the 2.0-litre boxer four-cylinder still sings with a sweet single-pitch blare as revs crest towards its 7800rpm cut-out and the six-speed manual falls slickly to hand nestled within a deep, low driving position.

It doesn’t take long to be reminded of the 86’s crude Sport mode stability control, which allows some throttle-steer and sideways action but curtails movements with abrupt and seemingly random bites of the brakes.

The new 86 GTS wears the same 215mm-wide 40-aspect 17-inch Michelin Primacy HP shoes as the old one, but inside the steering wheel is smaller (though thankfully the tight, slick steering is unchanged) and it adds audio and trip computer buttons for the first time. The latter set control fresh lap timing, G-force and even power and torque graph functions on the new 4.1-inch TFT screen fitted within the instrument cluster.

The boxer now produces a modicum of extra power, 152kW instead of 147kW at an identical 7000rpm. Torque rises to a greater degree, with 212Nm up from 205Nm and served between 6200rpm and 6800rpm, which while high is 200rpm earlier than before.

A Ferrari-esque red-hue cast aluminium intake manifold replaces the previous plastic unit that is retained in six-speed automatic models. Apparently the manuals are a fraction louder than before, but teaming the upgraded FA20 engine – which also gets redesigned pistons – with the auto ran afoul of drive-by noise regulations.

When the front-end bites into the first uphill left-hander, the so-required decisive throttle is applied and the new GTS quickly requires a quarter-turn of opposite lock, with the barest electronic intrusion and without any staccato graunching of discs.

As the top of second runs into third for the higher-speed S-bend that follows, less steering lock is required as the 86 finds a new tippy-toes disposition. The rear passively helps the nose point yet there is nothing soggy about the coupe’s body movements and the Track mode continues to let the suspension breathe without intrusion.

Back in the pits there are clenched fists as Ishioroshi-san attempts to explain the increased body rigidity of this latest model, which was key to allowing the softening of suspension without losing control.

There is no percentage improvement in torsional rigidity claimed, but the body-strength benchmark was the GT86 CS-V3 racecar that in 2013 won its class in the Nürburgring 24 Hours. That production-car-based model also had no turbocharger, Internet.

Kerb weights aren’t yet provided, but Ishioroshi-san admits the figure will slightly rise. Swapping into the base GT – which shares with the GTS new LED head- and tail-lights as well as the original’s alloy wheel design, but misses its lip spoiler, steering wheel controls and TFT screen – easily provides the most fun of the day.

The more pliant suspension teamed with the reduced grip of the 205mm-wide 55-aspect 16-inch Yokohama dB Decibel rubber make for a riotous dorifto combination, even, perhaps surprisingly, with the optional auto.

The manual – also now with a shorter 4.3:1 (down from 4.1:1) final drive ratio – can slide on exit in second, although slamming the auto multiple times into its cut-out before grabbing second can be an equal joy.

The biggest issue is with Toyota’s OH&S department, which recommends the more-subtle-than-Sport stability control is reserved for racetrack usage when it is actually now a genuinely improved on-road setting with a still-obvious safety backing.

There is also something un-86 about this latest MY17 facelift and it clicks after a few laps. The 86 now feels more like a Mazda MX-5, a car celebrated for feeling soft yet impeccably balanced, with a stability control that lets drivers slightly slide.

So we ask Ishioroshi-san one final question: has he driven an ND Miata? But of course. When the facelifted 86 arrives locally in November, hopefully today’s final hand movement – a provisional thumbs up – can turn into full-on applause when the $30K-plus foes face off.

4.0 OUT OF 5 STARS

LIKE: Balance with softness; new stability control DISLIKE: Still won’t please power junkies, Track mode incorrectly labelledSPECS Engine: 1998cc flat-four, DOHC, 16v Power: 152kW @ 7000rpm Torque: 212Nm @ 6200-6800rpm Weight: N/A 0-100km/h: 7.1sec (estimate) Price: $30,000 (est)

Electronic stability control (ESC) is the now well-known name given to the safety focused collection of sensors, actuators and electronic control unit found in most cars of the last five years.

Studies have shown that ESC could prevent a third of fatal crashes – clearly, it’s a powerful safety ally, which is why it’s been mandatory in new cars sold in Australia since November 2013.

But beyond its core safety role, the powerful high-performance potential of electronic stability control has become starkly obvious to the world’s car makers. When you have sensors that can measure handling behaviour and actuators that can, to some degree, control the chassis, the possibilities of a hi-po handling system are too tantalising for any chassis engineer to resist.

Sensors in an ESC-equipped car already monitor the steering angle, throttle position, the speed of individual wheels, chassis roll and yaw (the car’s rotation about the vertical axis), as well as the lateral and longitudinal acceleration of the car.

This ESC hardware is standard from cheap hatchbacks up and hi-po models invariably take advantage, offering anything from a sporty ESC calibration or switchable intervention threshold, to a full torque vectoring system.

Forthcoming mega-Mercs, such as the AMG GT R, will feature a nine-step adjustable traction control system which, working in concert with an electronic LSD, will let the driver pick precisely how much rear tyre slip he or she wants.

This differs from the ESC-based limited-slip diff functions found from the VW Golf GTI and BMW M135i to the McLaren P1, which apply braking at the slip-prone wheel to divert torque to the other.

The new Mazda G-Vectoring Control system takes a different approach. The GVC system slightly cuts engine power in a fraction of a second during turn in, mimicking the trail braking technique of an expert driver to deliver enhanced steering communication, precision and involvement.

It seems that the days of routinely deactivating your hi-po car’s ESC may soon be gone (and not just because many modern cars won’t let you). For a quick – or good – time, it’ll instead be essential to ensure it’s switched on.

Who did it first?

Credit to these car makers