It’s the defining vehicular battle of our times. Just as Ford’s Falcon battled for decades for Australian sales supremacy with the Holden Commodore, its Ranger dual-cab now dons the gloves against the Toyota Hilux.

For many years the Toyota had the upper hand, but the arrival of the RA-series Ranger in 2022 has swung the pendulum back in favour of the Blue Oval.

Despite the current Hilux’s advancing age, it remained Australia’s third-most popular vehicle in 2024, so thousands of buyers are still wondering whether the Ranger or Hilux is the better purchase.

To shed some light on that question, we’re taking a look at the Ford Ranger Sport and Toyota Hilux SR5, variants that sit at the very heart of their respective ranges, to see if one has the upper hand.

Pricing and Features

There are a pair of both the Ford Ranger Sport and Toyota Hilux SR5 to choose from, though the choices don’t mirror one another. On the face of it the Toyota has a decisive price advantage, starting at $60,670 plus on-road costs for the six-speed manual, with the six-speed auto and its 48v mild-hybrid system offered at $63,260 (+ORCs).

However, add the Premium interior (which better matches the Ranger Sport’s specification) and the Hilux costs $65,760 (+ORCs). Like-for-like, the base Ranger Sport auto is $66,140 (+ORCs), but there is also the option of V6 power that comes with a hefty premium at $71,340 (+ORCs).

In Toyota-land, this price tag puts you within a whisker of the Hilux Rogue ($71,530 +ORCs). Conversely, matching the cost of a non-Premium Hilux SR5 only gets you a Ranger XLT, but the ranges of these utes are so diverse and closely matched that this tit-for-tat could go on ad infinitum.

Both manufacturers offer a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty, but Toyota will add another two years of drivetrain coverage if you service at official dealers. Then again, Ford tops up your roadside assistance with every service while Toyota charges between $99-$139 per annum.

When it comes to servicing, Ford charges either $2550 (2.0) or $2680 (3.0) for the first five visits, required every 12 months or 15,000km, though a prepaid servicing plan is available for $1516. Toyota requests the Hilux gets attention every six months or 10,000km and capped price servicing only applies for the first three years/six visits, so over the first five years/10 visits you’re looking at $4072.46 for the manual or $4074.98 for the automatic.

In terms of features, the Ranger Sport has everything you need and a few things you want, without going overboard. Standard are 18-inch wheels, LED lights all around, underbody protection, leather accented upholstery, an eight-way power adjustable driver’s seat, six-way manual passenger seat, dual-zone climate control and wireless phone charging.

Infotainment is handled by a 10.1-inch portrait touchscreen with wireless smartphone mirroring, AM/FM/DAB+ radio, an embedded modem with FordPass app connectivity and there are six speakers.

The optional $1650 Touring Pack is decent value, adding the cargo management system, auxiliary switch bank, 360-degree camera, puddle lamps, zone lighting and Pro Trailer Back Up Assist. Prestige paint – anything but solid white – is $700.

Like the Ranger, the Hilux wears 18-inch wheels and offers (front) LED lighting, dual-zone climate control, wireless phone charging (auto only) and the Premium interior includes leather upholstery and powered driver’s seat, while the Toyota one-ups the Ranger with heated front seats and an air-conditioned cooler box.

An 8.0-inch touchscreen handles the infotainment with wired smartphone mirroring, AM/FM, DAB+ radio, sat-nav and three years complimentary access to Toyota Connected Services, while again there are six speakers. As with the Ford, you’re paying extra for anything other than solid white, in this case $675.

Dimensions

As the table below illustrates, the Ford Ranger is decisively the bigger vehicle, but that might not always be of benefit, especially in terms of width.

The Hilux also has the larger tray, though the Ranger offers an extra 10cm or so between the wheelarches, which may be pivotal depending on what you need to carry.

Ford also gives you more amenities, with a drop-in bedliner, tub lighting and a 400w inverter, whereas the Toyota has just the bare bones with four tie-down points.

Powertrains

As mentioned in the opening section, both the Ford Ranger XLT and Toyota Hilux SR5 come with a pair of engine offerings. The latter features a 2.8-litre four-cylinder turbodiesel that produces 150kW/420Nm in six-speed manual guise.

Selecting the automatic option lifts this to 150kW/500Nm and also adds Toyota’s 48v mild-hybrid technology, reducing claimed combined fuel consumption from the manual’s 8.0L/100km to 7.2L/100km.

In standard guise, the Ford Ranger Sport uses a 2.0-litre bi-turbo four-cylinder diesel producing 154kW/500Nm through a 10-speed automatic, which claims the same 7.2L/100km combined figure as the auto Hilux.

As a V6 this rises to 8.4L/100km, but in our experience both engines use remarkably similar amounts of fuel in the real world due to the larger engine having an easier time of it.

Chassis and Towing

The Ford Ranger is the more modern vehicle – unsurprising given its origins date back to 2022 not 2015, as with the Hilux – with electrically assisted power steering and disc brakes on all wheels. The Hilux makes do with hydraulically assisted steering and rear drum brakes.

Suspension for both is independent double wishbones at the front and leaf-sprung live axles at the rear. In terms of load-carrying capacity, a cursory glance suggests the two are lineball, but it’s worth digging a bit deeper, as the below table shows.

As you can see, while most of the numbers are very similar, the Hilux’s GCM limitation means the Ranger has much more payload flexibility when towing heavy loads.

Off Road

The typical caveats apply here. In standard guise with an appropriate set of tyres, both these utes should conquer anything the majority of owners put in front of them, and anyone needing greater capability will turn to the aftermarket.

Toyota’s traction control system is the benchmark, though Ford’s is very good, and the Ranger has the advantage of retaining the electronics with the rear diff locked. Ironically, the Hilux is less effective with the rear diff locked in most circumstances as the lack of traction control makes it essentially three-wheel drive.

Another useful feature of V6 Rangers – and selected four-cylinder variants like the Wildtrak X and Tremor – is the ability to run in full-time four-wheel drive, even on sealed surfaces. With so much torque and limited rear grip, it adds another layer of confidence.

Safety

The Ford Ranger is as safe as utes get with a five-star ANCAP rating from 2022, thanks to nine airbags and a swathe of well-calibrated driver assist systems like auto-emergency braking (AEB), lane-keep assist, adaptive cruise control with stop-and-go function and much more.

While the Hilux’s five-star ANCAP rating is much older, being from 2019, the Toyota’s safety offering is much more contemporary than the ratings suggest. It has seven airbags, active cruise control, AEB, lane-keep assist, blind-spot monitoring and a panoramic view monitor for parking assistance.

In an effort to find the world’s toughest and most resilient killing machines, the Special Air Service (SAS) subjects candidate soldiers to an horrific series of physical and mental fitness tests, one of which varies in its exact nastiness but goes something like this.

The person is stuffed into a corrugated iron tube, partially submerged in water or somewhere hot, while the exterior is lashed with lengths of heavy chains by huge shouting men. The exercise is designed to disorientate and confuse, and establish the participant’s ability to remain focused on a task and not turn into a shuddering mass of PTSD.

This, I’ve discovered, is a lot like being taken for a lap of the Monteblanco circuit in Ferrari’s new 296 Challenge. The confined space is provided by a scarlet and white onesie, restraints pulled so tight it’s impossible to take a deep breath, and an aluminium-skinned cage that’s being heated by a surprisingly hot Spanish sun. The chains and hollering men? That part of the assault is provided by six cylinders doing 8000 rpm and expelling their breath through two turbos and an un-silenced exhaust system.

That’s how my day in Ferrari’s latest one-make racer started out – with a beating. But as the day unfolded, it turned into one of the most rewarding and addictive four-wheeled experiences money can buy. The best part? You’re more likely to qualify for ownership of Ferrari’s latest track machine than being sworn into one of the most elite special forces on the planet.

Consider that a blessing.

The back story

Few car brands can brag about a greater level of exclusivity than Ferrari. Producing fast, beautiful cars was certainly the kingpin of the early road car formula but deliberately restricting supply to many times less than demand was a strategy that worked brilliantly later in the company’s history.

Today, the number of cars that roll out of the Maranello factory is still capped way below demand and in addition, Ferrari typically reserves its most expensive, advanced and potent models for a select shortlist of the most loyal and longstanding customers. Shelling out a fortune on an invitation-only basis must surely be the greatest definition of exclusivity the retail world has ever seen.

So you’re probably looking at the images of this pared-back, lightened and winged version of Ferrari’s 296 with centre-lock wheels and slick tyres, and thinking it probably comes with a price tag that would have you reaching – not for the mortgage broker’s card – but a dodgy organ trader.

Historically, track-honed Ferraris come with prices to make Russian oligarchs wince, such as the SF90 XX which was a relative bargain at more than $1.5m. Or the 599XX Evo, for which the price wasn’t really ever clear thanks to a weirdly convoluted path to ownership. How about something slightly less exclusive and newer such as a 296 GT3? For this bona fide racer you’d have to shell out about a million so we’re not even close to ‘affordable’, however you choose to define the word.

But this is the new Ferrari Challenge model – based on the 296 – and among its long list of remarkable numbers, perhaps the most surprising is its price. Before we get to that though, it’s important to understand why this car exists at all. After all, with the 296 GT3 looking after the racing market, the GTB and GTS twins catering for the road contingent, and the SF90 XX and F80 created for those who want pretty much the most uncompromising Ferraris available today, regardless of the price, why offer another 296 derivative that’s neither welcome on the public road nor the mainstream circuit? The answer is 32 years old.

There’s never been a shortage of Ferrari owners that want to take their cars to the track and even go bumper to bumper with each other but in 1993, Ferrari brought the road and racing worlds together with the 348 Challenge. The factory off-the-shelf, race-prepped car was just part of the recipe it offered to customers, with a full racing calendar adding the other key component. Finally there was a race car that wore the prancing horse but wouldn’t break the bank… and an equally affordable way to race it.

The Ferrari Challenge was born. Over the next three decades, the company would offer a Challenge version of each mid-engined V8 model. The 355 followed the 348 pioneer, then the 360, and F430, while the more recent 458 and 488 were offered with an Evo version each totalling four Challenge generations.

Not only has the bloodline of Challenge cars grown to eight, the growing popularity of the series prompted Ferrari to expand its global offering and, from that first European championship, North America, Japan and the UK have all since been added.

Here’s where it gets really exciting. It should be fairly obvious by now that this story is about the ninth Ferrari Challenge car based on the 296 GTB but while there’s lots to get into about the latest hardware, the other part of the story is hinted at in its livery, which differs slightly on each of the five demo vehicles that rolled out at the Monteblanco circuit in the south of Spain.

Layered on top of base yellow paint, each car denotes the location of a Ferrari Challenge series and how many years it has been held in that region. By the end of 2025, the longest running will be Europe with 33, followed closely by North America a year later – 32. Then there’s the UK series which joined in the fun in 2019 and which will hold seven events before the year’s out, while Japan’s third event is due later in the year.

Australia joins the party

But what’s this? A fifth car wearing the letters AU and the number 01?

While the Ferrari Challenge has occasionally moonlighted with the odd round in the great southern land over the years, 2025 will be the first time Australia hosts a complete series all of its own, with five races planned around the country. The first round accompanied the Bathurst 12 Hour in February.

Had you wanted to fulfil an ambition to pilot a Ferrari around one of Australia’s most iconic circuits this year, one of the only ways previously would have been to achieve great racing success in multiple disciplines over many years before landing a gig at the wheel of a Pro-Am Ferrari 296 GT3, as demonstrated by racing greats Chaz Mostert and Will Brown.

The pair led the number 26 car to a class win, demonstrating why they were the guys for the job. But now, thanks to the Ferrari Challenge, there is another way and it’ll be the same story for the remaining four races around the country. It’s still not a cheap exercise although hitting the track in a Ferrari 296 Challenge is significantly more affordable than a GT3, thanks to a whole heap of engineering differences (and despite the similar exterior appearance).

For a start, many of the panels in carbon fibre on the GT3’s body are swapped out for plastic, slashing the cost of repair if (who are we kidding – when) there’s a little shoulder-to-shoulder action. It still has a carbon ceramic brake rotor in each corner like the GT3, but for the Challenge car, Ferrari developed a special CCR-M Plus recipe derived from Formula 1 and it’s twice as durable but three times as thermally conductive. Braking performance improvements are one quality but longevity is the real bonus, with Ferrari claiming a single set has the potential to last an entire season, significantly reducing the budget.

Speaking of compounds, the specific Pirelli Challenge tyres are now only available in a single compound, further reducing the necessary stock for each team and therefore the outlay for a season. Not only that, the unique tyre is wider at the front and wears at the same rate as the rears, but manages to be sustainable as one of the world’s first FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified tyres.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that all this cost saving and sustainability means the Challenge is an impotent cousin to the GT3 but you’d be very wrong. Unbound by strict FIA rules, the 296 Challenge is more powerful and faster in a straight line, with 700 horsepower (515kW) and 740Nm versus the GT3’s 600hp (441kW) and 712Nm. Ferrari wouldn’t be drawn on which would cross the line first in a race at any particular circuit but, for comparison, the new 296 Challenge is a whole two seconds a lap faster than the 488 Challenge Evo at the Mugello circuit. So, no, you’re not looking at some well-dressed charlatan with no lead in its pencil. A fact that becomes clear with the first application of throttle.

After that first familiarisation lap with former Honda Racing F1 test driver Luca Filippi in the hot seat, it’s my go and the 18 turns of the 4.7km Monteblanco circuit await. The first task is to not get lost. With a whopping 26 different configurations, this track is one of the most versatile on the planet. The second task is to not spear off at the first corner on cold tyres and in a fog of jet lag.

Fortunately, the shove of 700 horsepower in a car that weighs just 1330kg dry is like a shot of Thai-strength Red Bull directly into the heart. Perhaps the most significant part of the Challenge conversion is the deletion of the road car’s hybrid system. This, Ferrari will tell you, is not an admission that electric bits aren’t yet good enough for racing, but one of many ‘influences’ from the GT3 car – which also has no hybridisation to comply with FIA rules.

Despite the lack of electric assistance, the 296 Challenge manages an even greater output thanks to a little loosening of the turbine taps. The 120-degree dry sump V6 has a new free flowing exhaust system which goes directly through the space where the hybrid system previously resided and, while it retains the catalytic converters, the particulate filters are gone. The resulting lower back pressure allowed the pair of turbos to be turned up another 10 per cent with each spinning at 180,000 rpm before the waste gates crack open, resulting in 10 percent more boost.

All that, plus some ignition retardation, has liberated 37 more horsepower than the road car and an engine that produces an awesome 234 hp per litre – more than any road or ‘road-derived’ racing Ferrari before it. The power delivery is completely astonishing and the aggressiveness of acceleration belies the engine’s 2.9 litres. Peak power happens at 7500 rpm but the engine note and strength is so intoxicating, finding the discipline to tug the paddle shifter at the right moment is almost impossible before the limiter.

More incredible however, is the braking performance. Savagely efficient deceleration is a common personality trait in race cars but the 296 Challenge goes further. It too will haul up from 230km/h to the first corner with stoic repeatability, but its new ABS Evo Track combined with the special rotor compound and brake-by-wire is a masterpiece. Despite no physical connection between the pedal and master cylinder, the brake feel is solid but requires less pressure to reach lock point. So where an open wheeler might require more than 80kg of weight for full force, the Challenge feels as though it needs about half that while still providing the progressiveness and feel of a pure race car. The new ABS adds the final facet of excellence with a brilliant balance of corner-to-corner brake force distribution in unison with the TC/e-Diff. The result is a car that responds impossibly well to trail braking and, in certain turns, is best when brake pressure is bled off until after the apex.

Of course this is only possible thanks to the weight distribution and transfer of a mid-engined machine and some serious aero. For the new car, downforce was increased with up to 870kg available at 250km/h – but that’s not to say the Challenge is infallible and it’ll still allow you to make mistakes. Give in to the temptation to accelerate too early in a corner and the Ferrari will understeer, get stuck in a bit late, and you’ll have oversteer to deal with. The key point though is that no errors are day-ending unless you really try and the four manettino settings (essentially two for wet and two for dry conditions) plus traction control options allow the car to be tuned to individual ability and confidence.

It takes a couple of sessions to learn the track but time taken to learn the 296 Challenge’s breadth of ability is also time well invested. A few telemetry sessions with Ferrari’s ace team – just part of the service when you sign up as a Challenge driver – and seconds are slashed away on track.

Now the Ferrari is starting to feel like it’s tailor-made-familiar. The seat feels like I’ve been poured in, the steering yoke – unchanged from the 488 Challenge – is perfection, while the air conditioning and good visibility all-round makes the cabin almost as civilised as the road car. But it’s still brutal enough and ever willing to fight back through the controls if I lapse concentration for a second, while the constant soundtrack is utterly intoxicating. It’s unofficial, but Ferrari calls its V6 the ‘piccolo V12’ and its shout from behind has a lot of the appeal of its twofold sibling. Each time the throttle is snapped closed, the pair of turbos go from hissing angrily to gasping through the dump valves like a demonic Sodastream.

So how much does the ultimate track-day Ferrari cost? Obviously, there’s a lot more expense associated if you want to take the 296 Challenge racing because, sorry, no one ever said motorsport was cheap. But putting an example of this racer in your truck will cost you about the same as putting a road-going version of the 296 on your driveway – $568,300 and there are not even ‘on-roads’ to pay the dealer.

The latest generation of Ferrari’s lauded Challenge cars is surprisingly affordable and viciously capable but easily its most impressive attribute is its breadth of appeal. No one would be surprised to see a prancing horse race car going fast in the hands of a Ferrari test driver but when handed over to someone with much less experience and talent such as a gentleman racer or me, the 296 Challenge is still fast and offers a rewarding and educational experience.

The latest addition to the Challenge family is a triumph of circuit car engineering that is neither frightening to the uninitiated nor soft at its fringes for a pro. That is the 296 Challenge’s true genius.

BYD has officially launched the Sealion 07 DM-i, a mid-to-large-size hybrid SUV, in China, the fourth addition to the automaker’s popular Sealion family and a hybrid sibling to the all-electric Sealion 07 EV introduced earlier in May 2024.

The Sealion 07 DM-i comes in three variants – the 150 Pilot edition priced at RMB 169,800 (A$36,570), 150 Pilot plus edition at RMB 179,800 (A$38,725), and 135 Performance radar edition at RMB 205,800 ($A44,325). Built on BYD’s latest fifth-generation DM (Dual Mode) hybrid platform, known as DM 5.0, the vehicle promises enhanced fuel efficiency and improved hybrid performance.

Measuring 4880 mm in length, 1920 mm in width, and 1750 mm in height, with a 2820 mm wheelbase, the SUV is powered by a 1.5T engine delivering 115 kW of peak power and 225 Nm of peak torque. It features a 60-litre fuel tank and a standard 26.6 kWh blade battery, offering a CLTC electric range of up to 150 km. Combined, the hybrid system enables a driving range of up to 1320 km on a full charge and full tank.

The two entry-level models – considered as competitors to cars such as the Tesla Model Y and Toyota Kluger – are front-wheel-drive configurations with 200 kW peak power and 315 Nm of torque, capable of accelerating from 0 to 100 km/h in 7.9 seconds. The top-tier variant adds a 150 kW rear motor and delivers 340 Nm of additional torque, reaching 0–100 km/h in just 4.7 seconds.

In terms of technology, the lower two variants are equipped with the God’s Eye C driver assistance system and DiPilot 100, supporting highway NOA (Navigate on Autopilot). The premium model features God’s Eye B and DiPilot 300, extending NOA capabilities to urban areas. All versions come with BYD’s DiLink 100 infotainment and an AI voice assistant powered by DeepSeek.

The Sealion 07 DM-i also supports the Ling Yuan drone system, developed in collaboration with DJI.

No word yet on whether the new hybrid will be sold in Australia though BYD’s Chinese executives have indicated global sales are imminent as part of its expansion of the Sealion offering.

It’s a fun game, predicting which cars are likely to become future classics. Of course, if anything becomes old enough and rare enough, it gains a certain curiosity value, but once in a while a car is launched and it becomes instantly and unambiguously apparent that it’s a nailed-on cert for classic status. And not even future classic status – it’s a fixture from launch.

The BMW Z3 M Coupe is just such a car. But as if to undermine the sheer arbitrariness of it all, the car that it was based on – the drop top M Roadster – has often had a lukewarm reaction from car enthusiasts. That’s because so much of what makes the M Coupe special is the way that it looks. True, the more rigid coupe body also delivers better dynamics than the rather wobbly convertible, but the divisive and extreme styling of the M Coupe has always had people either drooling or peering through their fingers in horror. There’s almost no middle ground.

To understand this car is to spool back a long way, firstly to the initial conception of the Z3 family in general. Development of this model began in 1991, partially in response to the runaway success of the Mazda Miata in the US, and also to dovetail with the end of Z1 roadster production. Many lessons were learned from the Z1 project, chiefly around not throwing good money after bad.

Widely – and wrongly – perceived as a parts-bin special, the Harm Lagaay-styled Z1 proved both costly and difficult to build, with a peak build capacity of between 10 and 20 units per day. Only 8000 were built during its 27-month production run and none went to the US. In fact, 6443 units were sold in Germany. Rather belatedly, BMW realised quite how much money it had left on the table.

The name? The PR line is that the Z in Z1 stands for Zukunft, German for ‘future’. The truth is a
little more prosaic. ZT was the internal designation for BMW Technik GmbH, the department run by Dr Ullrich Bez where the Z1 was conceived. All project codes there started with Z. With typically Germanic logic, large projects got the Z code with a single digit following, medium-sized projects had the Z appended by two digits and there were three digits for small projects. So Z1 was simply the first big project that Technik undertook. Once the car was approved for production, it needed an official Entwicklung (development) number. It was assigned the internal designation E30/Z. It was also the very first BMW to use the sophisticated Z-axle rear suspension, more of which later.

BMW realised that the Z1’s successor could not be such a boutique offering. It needed to shift some serious units, and the most cost-effective way to do this, the company reasoned, was to build a factory in the US. Spartanburg, South Carolina was chosen, due to its road and rail infrastructure, plus access to Inland Port Greer. It was a smart choice. There was ample available labour, due to the recent downturn in the region’s textile industry, and Tier 1 suppliers such as Bosch and Michelin were also co-located. The local airport’s runway expansion was part of the deal, as was then-state governor Carroll Campbell’s promised USD$35m in incentives. The deal was inked in June 1992 and the first car to roll out of Spartanburg was a BMW 318i on September 8, 1994. You could say that BMW’s decision was vindicated, as Spartanburg is now quite comfortably its largest production facility.

It was also a brave choice. Having acquired Rover in 1994, BMW knew that the Brits were developing a roadster themselves. It would have made short-term financial sense to piggyback onto the development of what would become the MG F, a far more technically advanced car with a mid-mounted engine and Hydragas suspension. Instead, BMW knew it had to play a longer game.

Running on a shortened version of the E36/5 3 Series Compact platform, with a hefty 246mm chopped out of the wheelbase, the Z3 was developed on the cheap. Burkhard Göschel, carrying the job title ‘Project Manager Roadster’, was in charge of the development. He commissioned Joji Nagashima to style the Z3, with the exterior design study approved in July 1992 and final design freeze coming in early 1993. The car was officially announced on June 12, 1995, with production beginning in September of that year. The Z3 featured in the generally rather awful Bond movie GoldenEye in November of that year, with the result that the entire 1996 production run was instantly sold out.

So let’s spool forward to 1997 and the launch of the M Roadster, or E36/7 if you’re an unreconcilable BMW tragic like me. At this point, the Z3 needed some help. To date, the brawny-looking Z3 had been offered with a choice of an 85/87kW M43 1.8-litre four or a 103kW M44 1.9-litre four. The ultimate driving machine it certainly wasn’t.

Cue the sixes. For the masses, the lovely M52B28 137kW 2.8-litre inline six-cylinder engine made its debut. For the M-car enthusiasts, the magnificent S50B32, all 236kW and 3.2 litres of it. Unless, that is, you lived in the US, whereupon you got the slightly less lovely S52B32 inline-six rated at a mere 179kW. For a bit more back story on that, dig out the November 2024 issue of Wheels, and the Modern Classic piece on the E36 M3.

The full-fat M Roadster was a wild and hairy thing. We strapped Peter Robinson into what was at the time the fastest-accelerating production BMW of all time and set him loose at Jerez in the May, 1997 issue.

Traction control? That was our man from Glebe’s right boot. With front suspension, brakes and some of the steering from the E36 M3, there was little wrong with the strut front end. It was the rear that was in doubt, the old semi-trailing arm setup from the E36 Compact being beefed up with a rear subframe that was twice as stiff as in other Z3s, and an oil cooler for the differential. Unfortunately, the Z3 floorpan didn’t allow for the fitment of the M3’s six-speed manual, so the more compact five-speed unit had to do. At the time, with that power output it was more a rival for a Porsche 911 than a Mercedes-Benz SLK or Porsche Boxster.

BMW has a long history of what it rather appealingly calls ‘submarine projects’. To us, they’re the sorts of after-hours flights of fancy perpetrated by the most committed and enthusiastic designers, engineers and visionaries within the company. BMW even has a fund for them nowadays.

“That wasn’t planned,” says Burkhard Göschel of the coupe body. “We had several variants and said to ourselves: It looks kind of sharp. But that wasn’t an official plan, and somehow we pushed it through. But there were actually a lot of opponents. The car’s shape is somewhat polarising. But it wasn’t in the plan, and neither was the effort involved. The plan was also to develop and build the Z3 only with a four-cylinder engine. But that traditionally goes wrong at BMW.”

Yep, that’s right, the Z3 body was never originally designed to have a six-pot under that long bonnet
either. “We had to modify the rear end, with the rear axle,” said Göschel. He claims that the tin-top’s
unusual aesthetic created some internal conflict. “The sales were at war with the car,” he noted, claiming that BMW’s Italian sales manager pushed for the vehicle with an argument that it could only be understood with the heart, not the head. Ultimate sign-off responsibility lay with the urbane Wolfgang Reitzle who, we’re told, took quite a bit of convincing.

“So the Coupé slipped through,” chuckles Göschel. “From the construction it was a welded roof. Bodywork totally stiff. I just wanted to say if you built it on the Roadster then you had additional stiffness, but also heavier than the Roadster,” he noted.

It wasn’t by too much though, the Coupe adding a mere 25kg to the Roadster’s 1365kg dry weight.
The M Coupe’s additional stiffness wasn’t just provided by the roof panel. Reinforcing panels were placed around the windscreen, the doors and the subframe. As a result, BMW M claimed that the M Coupe was the stiffest car it had built to date, with a torsional rigidity of 16,400Nm per degree of twist – 2.6 times as torsionally stiff as the M Roadster. Dynamic stiffness was rated at 29.2Hz, the same as the E36 M3 coupe.

This additional body stiffness gave BMW’s chassis development team more options with suspension tuning, allowing the fitment of firmer springs and dampers versus the Roadster, while retaining the same gauge anti-roll bars. Firming up compression helped negate the noticeable toe change – and thus bump-steer – that afflicted the M Roadster.

Again, there were a couple of engines offered in the M Coupe. Initially, it was a choice of the 236kW S50 for most markets, with the US getting the 179kW S52. To give you some sort of idea as to how US-focused this car was, 2999 units were built with the US-spec S52 engine and a mere 2180 were shipped off overseas with the punchier S50 engine. German market cars had engines that clocked up a bizarre amount of mileage before they ever found owners, as the powerplants were built in Germany, shipped to the US to be mated with the M Coupe body in Spartanburg and then shipped back to Germany for sale.

No fewer than 11 body colours were initially offered on right-hand drive cars, comprising Alpine White III, Imola Red II, Dakar Yellow II, Evergreen, Cosmos Black, Black Sapphire Metallic, Arctic Silver Metallic, Titanium Silver Metallic, Boston Green Metallic, Oxford Green II Metallic and, of course, the hero launch colour, Estoril Blue Metallic, a paint finish that had first appeared on the E36 M3 in 1992.

Peter Robinson was again Wheels’ man on the spot for the first comparison test of the Z3 M Coupe, in this instance in the September 1998 issue where it faced a notably stern test against the then-new Porsche 996 Carrera in the UK. Whereas European markets also got a 2.8-litre six in the Z3 Coupe, Australia only received the flagship M Coupe, priced at $137,000 when it arrived on our shores, versus $183,900 for the entry-level 911. In other words, it already had a significant advantage out of the blocks.

It was quickly clear that the M Coupe was something quite special. Robbo reckoned “the improved suspension control allows for better handling when the road surface is rough. This lends a refinement and a cohesiveness to the driving that’s completely lacking in the Roadster,” he said at the time. “The rawness of all that power can’t be disguised – nor would you want to cloak it any way. Now you can punch out of lumpy second gear corners, lighting up the rear tyres if you insist, the Coupe tracking true and without body shiver. It’s going too far to say the steering is sensitive by ultimate standards – it’s too meaty for that. But this M changes direction more consistently and effortlessly, and is thus far more rewarding; it is also quicker and better riding on any undulating road.”

What it wasn’t was a better all-rounder than the Porsche 911, but while the evergreen Neunelfer was the better overall car, Robinson opined that “there are those, however, who find this newfound refinement excessive, as if some of the desirable 911-ness of character has been engineered out of the new car.

Maybe, in truth, such people were exactly those that the BMW engineers had in mind when they developed the M Coupe. By the standards of the new Porsche, this is a raw beast, loud, aggressive and extroverted.”

It was a telling point and one that helps explain the lasting appeal of the M Coupe. In a world where cars have become more sanitised and easier to drive, here was a vehicle with huge power and no stability control. Some form of electronic safety net appeared in February 2001 when, after a six-month production hiatus, all M Coupe models got the same BMW S54B32 engine as seen in the BMW E46 M3.

Now good for 252kW/365Nm in most markets (again, the Yanks were dudded), the engine was bored-out compared to the S50, now displacing 3246cc rather than 3201cc. Revised camshafts, finger follower valve actuation, an increased compression ratio, a Siemens MSS54 ECU with electronic throttle control (allowing the fitment of Dynamic Stability Control) were all introduced with the S54 lump.

The colour palette was also subtly revised, the most significant change being the introduction of Laguna Seca Blue. Some modest aesthetic changes, such as revised dials, curved M-badging and a revised rear-view mirror also debuted. A total of 1112 M Coupes were built with the S54, 678 of which stayed in the US. In other words, a right-hand drive S54-engined M Coupe is a rare beast, with only 165 ever built. With an attrition rate of around 25 per cent, there’s probably little over 100 cars still in circulation. The 40 S54-engined cars sent to South Africa were equipped by the importer with AC Schnitzer suspension and exhaust, a short shift kit, a unique gear knob and 18-inch Type III alloys.

Opinions differ as to which is the better installation. Some prefer the analogue throttle action and the rawness of the S50-engined car while others lean towards the extra refinement and broader spread of torque of the S54. BMW also ironed out some of the teething issues with the double-VANOS system with the S54 unit. It also solved the irritating issue with the throttle cable stretching on the S50 engine.

One malady that can affect all vintages of M Coupe is that flex from the differential can pop both the rear cross member welds and the boot floor spot welds. Aftermarket bracing kits fix this and are recommended. You’ll also need to remember that with a 51-litre fuel tank and a fuel thirst that can easily climb above 25L/100km, you’ll have less range than most EVs if you pedal an M Coupe hard.

Still, by today’s standards, the Z3 M Coupe isn’t in the senior league of quick cars. At 5.4 seconds to 100km/h, it’s in the same ballpark as a Honda Civic Type R, and it’d take a very skilled and determined driver to keep the Honda in sight on a challenging road. Nevertheless, it’s plenty quick enough to have fun, and it demands a focus and intensity, the cab-back driving position making it always feel an occasion. You feel the rear suspension at work, you have to manage the weight transfers of the car deftly, and the straight-six engine is never anything less than magnificent. Sure, you’ll go quicker in lots of modern cars, but it’s doubtful that many of them are more of an event, in this price bracket at least.

What’s more, everybody wants to talk to you about your ‘clown shoe’, your ‘bread van’ or any one of the many nicknames that the M Coupe has worn over the years. Auto Motor und Sport even dubbed it “a bullfrog with a damaged hip”. Talk about a harsh appraisal. The Z3 M Coupe lasted in production until May 2002, whereupon Z3 manufacture as a whole was ceased.

Today, any version of the Z3 M Coupe is highly collectible. Because of their limited production run, and consequent attrition rate, the law of supply and demand ensures that prices are punchy. The opening price is around $100,000 for higher mileage cars, lifting closer to $150,000 for the very best available. That’s almost double what you’d expect to pay for manual E46 M3s, which are, objectively at least, superior cars.

That’s the magic of the M Coupe. Because it looks so odd, is so rare, and its development backstory is so interesting, it has generated a cult following. These cars don’t happen very often, and they’re increasingly difficult to justify in this day and age. If you hanker for a throwback, the Z3 M Coupe is a very singular choice. It’s cramped, noisy, angry and unapologetically of its era, but it’s hard not to love. And if you do choose one, look after it and drive it. You at least owe us that.

This article originally appeared in the Modern Classic section of the May 2025 issue of Wheels – subscribe here.

When Damien Meredith first told his South Korean masters he could sell an extra 20,000 Kia cars in Australia, they did not believe him.

But the CEO of Kia Australia persisted with a plan that was hoped to push the company past 100,000 annual deliveries and make it the number two seller in Australia behind Toyota.

Now Kia is less than a month from playing the trump card for its $1 billion gamble on Australia’s love affair with one-tonne utes.

It’s the Tasman and, despite initial doubts – if that’s the right word – about the styling, the momentum is building.

Kia Australia has used a classic trickle-feed approach to the launch of the Tasman, from a high-profile unveiling in Tasmania to an advertising program which first teased and revealed the name, then provided celebrity support from some of Australia’s most successful athletes.

Now Wheels is being given its first opportunity to drive the Tasman.

But don’t expect anything definitive after less than 15 kilometres at the wheel, on a single carefully-chosen off-road climb and over a series of specially-made obstacles, at the gorgeous Glenworth Valley retreat just north of Sydney.

The look of the Tasman is way better with body-coloured flares, the cabin looks and feels good, and the Kia crew is saying all the right things.

But the small group of Tasman utes are all pre-production vehicles and only one – with tan-beige bodywork and trim – is claimed to be in full showroom specification – although even that changes when Wheels helps to highlight a small problem in the transmission program during the climb.

The reaction to the glitch is typical of the whole Tasman program. Engineers swoop, the problem is identified and a counter-measure is fast-tracked to Kia’s technical centre at Namyang in Korea.

On this basis alone, Kia is clearly listening. But we won’t get into the subjective subject of design . . .

The Tasman program has been running for more than a decade, although no-one can remember the exact time and place of the first pitch.

But Meredith is certain about one thing.

“If it wasn’t for the Australian market we wouldn’t have the car. Period,” he tells Wheels.

“The story has been going for 13 or 14 years, with regards to us making sure the products for Australia are suitable for Australia. The development of Tasman has had a dramatic amount of input from the Australian team.”

Right now, the focus is on the Tasman 4×4 and its 3.5-tonne towing capacity – with 350-kilo downball weight, 3250-kilo gross vehicle and gross combination mass of 6200 kilos  – with trailer-sway control and off-road ability. The 4×4 package covers everything from 265×17 Hankook Dynapro AT2 Xtreme All-Terrain tyres to the locking differential system.

But, at its heart, the Tasman has a basic ladder-frame steel chassis that was created for it, and it alone. The 2.2-litre turbodiesel engine comes from somewhere else in the Kia world, but unique and bespoke stuff is everywhere from the heavyweight cooling package to the shape and size of the steering wheel.

There is lots of talk at the preview about the Tasman’s electronics, with various modes for both towing and off-road work, as the giant display across the dashboard which lets you know what’s happening and why.

The total package seems equal or better than anything else in the class, up with the Ford Ranger and – in some ways – reminiscent of the Land Rover Defender, thanks to the frontal ground-view camera on the upscale X-Pro model and the choice of terrain modes.

You don’t have to look far to find the Aussie influence in the Tasman. And, no, it’s not the name.

The original Korean pick-up package has a single rear leaf spring with a heavy load rating, where the local suspension has been morphed to a four-spring package with a rising rate.

Why? So the Tasman can ride smoothly as a family car while staying composed while towing or with a heavy load in the track.

There are the sunvisors, too. They are deeper than you would expect in a ute, to block low afternoon glare, with a slide-out panel to give full coverage for sun from the side.

“We had to fight Korea for that one,” says Roland Rivero, product planning manager at Kia Australia.

Kia says the plan is to position the Tasman as a “trusted workhorse”, thanks to everything from the 32.2/26.2 degrees of front and rear departure angle, double-wishbone front suspension with Sachs dampers, rear bump-stop rubbers that vary by model grade – one for S, SX, SX+ and X-Line, another for the flagship and family-focussed X-Pro – and a multi-mode 4×4 system which allows set-and-forget driving until the terrain really gets tough.

After the lengthy Powerpoint preview across the six model grades from 4×2 S to 4×4 X-Pro, and executive chats, the actual driving time is short and focussed. There is really just the one Tasman, with the X-Pro grade to present the best package.

But it’s easy to pick the smoother and more-compliant ride in the Tasman with full Aussie suspension, compared to the more-jittery Korean set-up, to sample the easy crossing of a muddy creek, and the ability to walk over typical small-ish four-wheel drive obstacles.

The cabin is impressive – with adjustable rear seats in the X-Pro which feel like ‘premium economy’ with sliding and tilt settings – and smart design work everywhere. The steering wheel is trendily ovoid, not round or square, and the switches and controls are well located with a substantial feel.

Time after time, the Tasman program is highlighted by a single sentence from Rivero.

“This is an area where Kia Australia had some influence. Our pestering has paid off,” he says.

KIA Tasman – Preliminary details

• Price as tested: $191,900 plus on-road costs
• Distance travelled: 375km
• Power usage: 23.7kWh/100km

Having lived in Sydney and Melbourne my whole life I now call Tasmania home – at least that’s where I try to spend most of my time. It’s worth noting that Tassie is a relativity small place. Hobart to Devonport (where the Spirt of Tasmania docks) is a 285km drive and takes a little over three hours to complete. Much the same as Sydney to Canberra.

Why do I mention that? I believe EVs make a lot of sense, but only if you also have a non-EV in the garage for longer trips. Nothing in Tasmania can really be considered a long trip. Tasmania is different. No exact science to this, but the place is only 270km long and 320km wide. If you leave home with a full tank, or in an EV’s case, a full charge, there’s not many places you can even go that will require a scheduled charge along the way.

So it’s feasible to drive around the island in an EV. Perhaps Mercedes-Benz were keen to find out by using me as a guinea pig, so enter the Mercedes-AMG EQE 53 4MATIC+ SUV. If you want to go eco warrior on the matter of transport (I don’t), it kind of makes sense too, because down here – while it can get a little cold – the sun is always biting and solar is a big thing. With at-home charging fed directly by a roof that’s more solar panels than tiles, the EQE won’t ever see a public charging station and to me that’s the whole point of an EV.

With a 90.6kWh battery and dual-motor all-wheel drive powertrain, the EQE 53 produces healthy power figures of 460kW and 950Nm, more than enough grunt as standard. Deciding those figures simply aren’t good enough, my EQE 53 has the optional AMG Dynamic Plus Package, which increases those outputs to 505kW and 1000Nm. That’s 153kW and 423Nm more than a Ferrari F40…

The EQE 53 has a claimed range of 485km but range isn’t something that bothers me here – I’m not a big believer in travelling great distances that require a stop at a charging station. I’m lucky to do close to 250kms of travel in a week so that’s close to two full weeks between the need for charging anyway.

Interior wise I’m sure it’s a pretty standard AMG SUV, but I haven’t noticed any of that because my EQE is fitted with the Hyperscreen, a dash display significantly larger than any TV I grew up with as a kid. Given it’s the full width of the interior, it’s the first thing that passengers notice and it’s the last thing they remember. I’ll go into that more next month because it really is something quite extraordinary.

The thing I find amazing about driving any EV is how quickly you adapt to what is a rather different driving experience. Not acceleration, but braking. You simple adapt to not using brakes at all unless you turn the regenerative braking off all together. There are four regen modes to select from here: None, Moderate, Strong (as in, so strong that it’s like hitting the brakes quite hard as soon as you take your foot off the accelerator) and Intelligent.

I’ve simply been selecting ‘Intelligent’ mode wherever I go, not from any form of research, just blind
belief that German engineers wouldn’t have called it that if it weren’t the best mode to be in. And it seems to work.

One of my first drives in the EQE 53 was to the top of Mt Wellington/Kunanyi. A short 30-minute drive and exactly 21km from my front door. It’s a steep incline the whole way – and even with all that torque on tap you can feel the weight.

The battery loses significant range on the incline… but in reverse, regains around one-fifth of that back on the way back down due to regenerative braking.

Sadly I never flew Concorde, but thanks to the EQE’s rapid acceleration (0-100/km/h in an absurd 3.4 seconds) I think I have an idea of what it felt like when the afterburners kicked in. That acceleration is made more impressive by the EQE’s rather significant 2678 kg curb weight.

Let’s keep talking about that acceleration for now, as I want to get it out of the way then never talk about it again. Most EVs are quick, stupid quick in fact, however once you’ve experienced that 0-100/km/h and beyond sensation a couple of times – and readjusted your stomach to suit – that thrill is over. It becomes a non-event, because there really isn’t any skill involved. Sadly I suspect it’s also an age thing – thrashing a car left my system quite a few years ago, now only reserved for cars that were designed for it. Whatever the answer, I can count on one hand the amount of times I’ve actually ‘taken off’ in the EQE 53 in launch mode. All you need to know is its plenty quick enough and I haven’t lost a single drag race at the lights yet.

For travelling in comfort, nothing really compares to the EQE 53 in the EV market. It doesn’t float on the road – at 2,678 kg that’s simply not possible – it somehow just absorbs whatever it hits. In fact, the ride is great, given the enormous 22-inch wheels and minimal rubber fitted.

By and large the roads in Tasmania are great – but they are rough on tyres creating significant road noise inside the cabin of pretty much every car I’ve driven down here. Not the EQE 53. Would be a lie to say its whisper quiet but it’s still the quietest car I’ve even driven.

Over the next few months I’ll make sure the EQE 53 is put to the test in and around my island home – so let me know if there is anything you want me to find out. Just don’t ask me to go to a charging station.

This article originally appeared in the Garage section of the May 2025 issue of Wheels – subscribe here.

Buttons in cars. Some people love them, some hate them.

BMW led the original push to eject buttons from its cars with the first version of the iDrive system, in its 7 Series flagship way back in 2001. It promised to cut the button count by around half at a time when the luxury carmaker had more than 100 switches of various sorts sprayed around the cabin and back-seat lounging space.

I remember asking if the German carmaker thought we were iDiots, as its screen-based system and central controller was slow, confusing and ineffectual.

BMW even proved itself wrong by leaving a single unmarked button to turn the sound system on and off, as well as adjusting the volume, for iDrive deniers.

Since then, the rise and rise of in-car screens has put buttons on the automotive endangered list. Or has it?

Volkswagen has just reversed a decision to pull all the physical buttons out of its new models, reinstating some simple switches and admitting it had been wrong.

“We will never, ever make this mistake any more,” said design boss, Andreas Mindt.

Hyundai, too, has brought back some buttons after admitting a wholesale switch to haptic controls in touchscreens does not work for all owners.

When VW first made its move, adding haptic controls with sliders and no illumination, there were questions about how and why the move had been made. Volkswagen defended its button plan – vigorously – when I put questions to the Australian PR boss.

“The only people complaining are journalists,” he said.

Today he admits he was just toeing the corporate line. And owners were unhappy.

Still, the rise and rise of giant display screens does raise some questions. Are buyers really demanding screens which mean you can toy with farting pranks and play with driving games in the carpark but then bury the aircon adjustment and controls for the mirrors?

It’s obvious that people are tantalised by all the ‘bells and whistles’ in showrooms, but is everyone a fan of a car that’s like a giant smartphone on wheels?

I’ve done a little digging about the average age for a new-car buyer in Australia and the results might surprise you.

At Toyota, according to sales chief Sean Hanley, the average is “49 years young”. Less surprisingly, 55-year-olds are average for Mercedes-Benz while Rolls-Royce – whose owners had been in the Monty Burns brigade for decades – is down to a cashed-up 47.

According to an analyst at Deloitte, the overall average is 29.

That’s about right for the smart-screen push, with millennials driving the change.

But putting buttons on the automotive endangered list has another effect, as it makes it harder to judge the inherent quality of a car.

Solid switches with smart design work have been the hallmark of upscale brands since the earliest days of motoring. You only need to compare a Volkswagen with an Audi, which use the same basic recipe with different toppings, to see and feel the difference.

When Lexus was developing its original LS, it introduced all sorts of top-end electronic gadgets and measured the switches – right down to the microns of movement – as the chief engineer wore special ‘female’ gloves, with long artificial fingernails to see how the controls felt from a woman’s perspective.

Inside a Rolls-Royce – not that many people know – any switch or knob that looks like solid metal will be solid metal. And it will feel indestructible because it’s all about perceived quality.

Haptic buttons in giant screens – let’s talk about distraction another time – reduce every brand to the same common denominator, not always in a good way.

This article originally appeared in the May 2025 issue of Wheels – subscribe here.

Here’s an odd thing. There are cars that review really well that nevertheless don’t tug on our heartstrings in any particular way. Take the Volkswagen T-Roc as an example. It has won every Wheels comparison test it’s ever been entered into. Then there are cars that achieve quite the opposite. Case in point?

The Suzuki Swift Sport. It’s been discontinued here due to the demands of Australian Design Rule 98/00, requiring the fitment of autonomous emergency braking to all vehicles imported to Australia as of March 1. It’ll be missed.

The Swift Sport is much loved but never won a Wheels comparison test. The Sport version of Swift IV came second last (in an 18-car field) in the July 2007 ‘Handling Olympics’ test and last in a December 2007 four car stoush. The Swift V Sport achieved a best of third out of four in November 2013, while the Swift VI Sport came second of four in December 2018 and then plum last in three-way dust up against the Ford Fiesta ST and the Volkswagen Polo GTI in July 2020.

So why do we hold it in such high esteem? Probably for the reason why it could never quite get up versus its rivals – its simplicity. There was always something cheap, cheerful and pure in spirit about the Swift Sport. It was frequently outgunned by its rivals in the engine department, but clawed back some of that power disadvantage when it came to weight. Even the last Swift Sport we pitched into a comparo weighed just 970kg versus 1208kg for the Fiesta ST and 1285kg for the Polo GTI.

That purity meant that Swift buyers did without certain items of equipment that made its rivals easier to live with. The cabin plastics were thinner and scratchier, the doors clanged rather than thunked shut and an open differential meant that as one tester memorably put it “the Suzuki’s inside front smokes up quicker than an unattended barbie”.

Yet the Swift was fun and forgiving. That’s probably what made it the most popular car for Nürburgring rental companies. It wasn’t fast enough to get you into serious trouble, visibility was great to spot quicker cars, repair costs were reasonable, and the handling was entertaining but benign in extremis. Above all, that sylph-like kerb weight meant that it didn’t chew through tyres and brake pads in a handful of hottish laps.

Sometimes you don’t need to be brilliant to be adored. Truth is, many of us warm to a plucky and endearing trier more easily than something a bit more polished. Above all, the Suzuki Swift Sport harked back to a simpler time that many of us yearn for, a time of manual gearboxes, modest power outputs and a price tag that didn’t require you to sign up for a lifetime of eternal debt.

Maybe we can be accused of missing what the Swift Sport signified rather more than what it actually comprised. At its core, it was always a somewhat limited warm hatch, with modest
aspirations. Nevertheless, our motoring landscape is a poorer place without its presence.

The ring king

One Swift Sport completed an amazing 59,000km worth of laps on the Nordschleife – the equivalent of 25 Nürburgring 24-hour endurance races – during its tenure with Rent4Ring. Some 457 drivers experienced the car, which logged 168,000 gear shifts, 180 million engine revolutions, and a peak engine speed of 8761rpm (oops). It consumed 8400 litres of fuel at an average rate of 14L/100km. It needed 14 sets of semi-slick tyres, 27 sets of front brake pads and 10 rears. The only spare parts that needed replacing were a clutch, an alternator, a battery, a set of wipers and a front left wheel bearing. It never broke down once and was never crashed.

This article originally appeared in the Driven to Extinction section of the May 2025 issue of Wheels – subscribe here.

Toyota has confirmed its upgraded Corolla Cross SUV will arrive in Australian showrooms in the second half of 2025, featuring a sharper design, increased standard equipment across the range, and the introduction of a new GR Sport performance flagship.

The all-new Corolla Cross GR Sport will join the existing GX, GXL, and Atmos variants, marking a bold step toward sportier performance and styling for the compact SUV.

Available exclusively with all-wheel drive, the GR Sport grade brings a host of dynamic upgrades and cosmetic enhancements that set it apart from the rest of the line-up.

Sporting a unique front bumper, the GR Sport also gains darkened 19-inch alloy wheels exclusive to the grade, a bespoke Sport drive mode, and enhanced handling courtesy of specially tuned and lowered coil springs, shock absorbers, and revised electric power steering.

The entire Corolla Cross range benefits from a refreshed exterior design, including a new integrated mesh grille and, from GXL upwards, a revised LED headlight signature. These updates give the popular SUV a more modern and aggressive visual appeal while complementing its improved driving dynamics.

Toyota will also broaden the Corolla Cross’s visual appeal with an updated colour palette. New hues include Massive Grey, Ink, Ash Slate, Shadow Platinum, and Feverish Red, in addition to the carry-over Glacier White and Frosted White options. Selected colours – including Shadow Platinum, Feverish Red, Frosted White, and Ash Slate – will be offered with an optional two-tone black roof on certain variants, adding further personalisation opportunities for buyers.

While full pricing and detailed specifications for the upgraded Corolla Cross are yet to be announced, Toyota has confirmed that the entire line-up will come with increased standard specification, reinforcing the model’s value proposition in the competitive small SUV segment.

The top-of-the-range Corolla Cross Atmos is currently priced at $50,030 before on-road costs. The current range features a 2.0-litre four-cylinder hybrid powertrain but Toyota have yet to say whether this will continue in the upgraded model.

More details, including pricing, engine, all- or rear-wheel drive, features, and exact release timing, will be revealed closer to its local launch in the second half of 2025.

It’s no easy feat to launch a new version of your best-selling product. You’ve got to refine, improve and add more value to it but also not change it too much so as to alienate its fanbase. Otherwise, those loyal fans could easily head elsewhere.

Originally sold as a smaller X5, the BMW X3 is now in its fourth generation and is the brand’s global best-seller. Has BMW successfully improved the X3 or should buyers look elsewhere? We tested the entry level X3 20 xDrive to find out.

Codenamed ‘G45’ – but using the same ‘CLAR’ platform as before – the new X3 has been given a thorough glow up to launch it into 2025, and is now longer, wider and taller in every direction. The controversial exterior styling is familiar but more modern, and the interior is now more minimalist in keeping with other new BMW products. For what it’s worth, it looks great in the flesh.

BMW Australia is offering three X3 models for the moment: the entry-level 20 tested here ($86,100 plus on-road costs), mid-spec 30e plug-in hybrid ($102,500 +ORC) and performance M50 at the top of the range ($128,900 +ORC). Base pricing climbed by $4000 over the former base 20i but a lot of standard equipment was added, including all-wheel drive, acoustic glass, a mild-hybrid system, heated front seats, ‘Veganza’ synthetic leather trim and sportier-looking M Sport styling.

Equipment otherwise includes 19-inch alloy wheels, tri-zone automatic climate control, a 12.3-inch driver’s display, a 14.9-inch touchscreen with an inbuilt eSIM, live services and over-the-air updates, wireless Apple CarPlay/wired Android Auto, a wireless phone charger, electric front seat adjustment, a powered tailgate and a full suite of safety tech like AEB, adaptive cruise control, adaptive lane guidance and high beam, blind-spot monitoring and a 360-degree camera.

The new X3’s value is strong against its Audi Q5 and Mercedes-Benz GLC chief rivals, which start at $88,315 and $89,000 respectively, and need options ticked to match the BMW. Meanwhile, a fully loaded Genesis GV70 2.5T Signature asks $89,700. Food for thought.

Our test car was also fitted with the $6000 Enhancement Pack (with metallic paint, an alarm, a panoramic glass roof and 15-speaker 750-watt Harman Kardon audio). A $4000 Comfort Pack (front seat ventilation, a heated steering wheel and rear seat, rear door sunblinds, rear privacy glass and a luggage net), a $3000 M Sport Pro package (additional M Sport exterior elements), $4000 leather trim, $1200 knitted textile dashboard and upper door trims, and $2000 20-inch alloy wheels are also available.

Under the X3 20’s bonnet is a mild-hybridised 2.0-litre turbocharged four-cylinder petrol engine mated to an eight-speed automatic transmission and the brand’s ‘xDrive’ all-wheel drive system. Total outputs are a reasonable 140kW (from 4400 to 6500rpm) of power and 310Nm (from 1500 to 4000rpm) of torque, while the claimed 0-100km/h time is 8.5 seconds. The claimed combined fuel consumption is 7.5L/100km and with a full 65-litre tank, expect to see a range of more than 850km at that consumption – we achieved 9.2L/100km after a week with our test car, though that was brand new and only had under 500km on the clock.

As you’d expect for a BMW, the X3 20 handles quite well – but it also rides plushly, too. Despite the stiff run-flat tyres, the ride quality on the 19-inch wheels and adaptive dampers of the base X3 is supple and despite the sporty image and keen handling, it’s really comfortable. It’s also great to drive for a mid-size SUV; the steering offers good connection to the wheels, it’s nicely balanced and it’s just fun. There’s more of a driver connection here than in rivals.

The new X3’s refinement is also excellent thanks to newly standard acoustic glass and other improvements in noise suppression: at highway speeds, the cabin is quiet and unless you’re high in the rev range, the engine is barely heard too.

What’s also excellent is BMW’s active safety equipment. It’s fully featured as standard with adaptive cruise control with adaptive lane guidance, traffic sign recognition, blind-spot monitoring and AEB but in contrast to a plethora of vehicles we’ve tested recently, it’s serene. The systems aren’t sensitive or noisy, but they just work when required. They assist the driver rather than overbear or scare them.

Inside the new X3 has seen a lot of change in line with newer BMW products: it now uses a more minimalist asymmetric design with more use of synthetic leather trim throughout. Overall quality is good, though some parts feel a bit cheap: the black plastic door handles, for example, and the air vent surrounds as well. But look beyond those and the new X3’s cabin looks and feels great.

It’s also quite practical with sectioned bins in each door, a deep bin underneath the centre console lid and a large open section at the front of the centre console with a cooled wireless charger, two USB-C ports and deep cup holders.

Centre of the cabin is a new 14.9-inch touchscreen with the brand’s new ‘Operating System 9’ software. It’s a fully-featured system but it’s not overwhelming to use thanks to effective shortcuts on the bottom of the screen that don’t disappear when using another function, like smartphone mirroring. There’s no need to hit the screen multiple times to change the temperature because it’s always displayed, which is pleasing in an age where many touchscreens require a lot of effort for simple functions.

Wireless Apple CarPlay was easy to set up and worked faultlessly in our time with it, while the 15-speaker Harman Kardon sound system offers rich – if not massively punchy – sound quality.

Because of the growth spurt, the new X3 is more than capable of taking four taller adults and their luggage. Rear seat room – particularly headroom – is impressive, plus the door bins, two USB-C ports, map pockets and separate climate zone add even more comfort. The 570-litre boot is the largest in the class and opens up to a huge 1700L space with the rear seats folded. The new X3’s boot also features a large under-floor section for extra capacity – though there’s no spare wheel, just run-flat tyres.

Overall, while some may not like the exterior styling, there’s no denying the talent of the fourth-generation BMW X3: it’s practical, well equipped, comfortable and fun to drive, as you’d expect from a BMW. The base engine could be more powerful and some interior materials have taken a step backwards, but it’s an otherwise great product that we think will keep its crown as BMW’s best-selling model for a long time to come.

Specifications

This article originally appeared in the May 2025 issue of Wheels – subscribe here.