BYD has unveiled official images of its forthcoming Seal 07 EV, confirming key details of the all-electric sedan ahead of its expected overseas market launch in March.
Built on the brand’s latest e-Platform 3.0 Evo architecture, the Seal 07 EV promises a claimed driving range of up to 705 kilometres (CLTC), positioning it as a strong contender in China’s increasingly competitive large EV segment.
Visually, the Seal 07 EV closely mirrors the recently revealed 2026 Seal 07 DM-i plug-in hybrid. It features a smooth, closed-off front fascia typical of electric vehicles, framed by slim headlights and a trapezoidal lower air intake. Around the rear, a full-width taillight signature is accented by a chrome strip, while flush door handles and a sweeping roofline that tapers from the B-pillar enhance aerodynamic efficiency. A sunroof is also fitted as standard.
A roof-mounted lidar unit is clearly visible in released images, signalling the availability of advanced driver assistance systems. While the Seal 07 DM-i uses BYD’s ‘God’s Eye’ DiPilot 300 system, the EV variant is expected to debut an upgraded ‘God’s Eye’ 5.0 suite, potentially to be detailed at BYD’s March 5 showcase.
Dimensionally, the Seal 07 EV measures 4995mm long, 1910mm wide and 1495mm tall, riding on a 2900mm wheelbase. It is marginally wider than its hybrid sibling and has a kerb weight of 1940kg.
Power comes from a rear-mounted electric motor producing 240kW (322hp). Energy is supplied by a 69.07kWh BYD Blade battery pack weighing just under 491kg. Official filings indicate a top speed of 200km/h and energy consumption rated at 10.8kWh per 100km.
Inside, the cabin layout carries over from the DM-i, headlined by a 15.6-inch floating central touchscreen, digital instrument cluster and two-spoke multifunction steering wheel. The centre console incorporates wireless phone charging, cupholders, physical shortcut buttons and a rotary control dial.
Full specifications and pricing are expected to be confirmed at launch, with no indication as yet on whether Australia will feature in the vehicle’s international roll-out.
Buying your first new car can be daunting. With so much choice on offer in Australia today, the decision as to which car or SUV best serves your needs is a difficult one.
Almost daily, it seems, new car brands are arriving in Australia and setting up shop, their dealerships brimming with new models crammed with the types of features that seemed like the domain of the super-wealthy only a few short years ago – big infotainment screens, ‘leather’ seat trim, multi-zone air-conditioning, and a swag of advanced driver assist systems that, in theory at least, help keep you on the straight and narrow.
Disruptor brands from China are becoming increasingly popular (witness BYD’s climb up the sales charts, or Chery’s 176 per cent growth year-on-year), their value-for-money quotient off the Richter Scale. It’s hard not to be tempted by a car or SUV priced under $30k and filled with features and equipment usually only found in vehicles costing twice as much.
But with such a bewildering array of choice, cutting through the noise is a difficult task, especially if you’re a first-time new car buyer. That SUV loaded to the gills might look tempting, especially if you’re coming out of a succession of 10-plus-year-old second-hand cars. But does it really represent value for money? And is there substance behind the blingy features and interior?
To help you on your first new car buying journey, we’re looking at one of the most popular segments in Australia, small (or compact) SUVs which have, in effect, replaced the humble hatchback as the go-to for first-time buyers.
Here then, is our pick of a very crowded bunch.
Under $30,000
It wasn’t that long ago that anyone looking to buy a new car for the first time, needed to budget around $20,000-$25,000. But times have changed and new cars, just like everything else we buy – from groceries, to petrol, to consumer goods, housing and clothing – prices have risen to the point where $30k is the new $20k. To be fair to carmakers, the price increases over the last decade or so have come with plenty of extra goodies, some mandatory (such as safety technologies) and some to meet the increasing demands of buyers’ expectations (infotainment, smartphone connectivity, sat-nav, et al).
That’s not to say you can’t find a brand-new SUV under that psychological $30k barrier. By our count, there are currently 22 Light and Small SUVs in today’s new car market priced from under 30 grand, although some come with sharp drive-away pricing (no more to pay) while others will creep over that 30 grand ceiling once on-road costs are factored in.
To cut through the bargain hunting noise, here are three of the best.
Chery Tiggo 4 Urban
Price: From $23,990 drive-away
Boot space: 380 litres (rear seats up); 1225 litres (rear seats folded)
Drivetrain: 1.5-litre turbo-petrol
Servicing costs: $1449 total for first five years or 75,000km
It was Australia’s second-most popular small SUV in 2025, trailing only the Hyundai Kona on the sales charts. And it’s easy to see why.
With a starting price of just $23,990 drive-away (the most affordable Kona starts from $32,950), the Tiggo 4 offers an astounding list of standard equipment, especially on the technology front where first-time buyers will go gaga over features like a 10.25-inch infotainment screen with wireless and wired smartphone mirroring capability.
Other standard features include 17-inch alloy wheels, rain-sensing windscreen wipers, keyless entry and push-button start, heated side mirrors, dual-zone climate control with, crucially, rear seat air vents, as well as digital (DAB+) radio and three USB ports.
The Tiggo four also wears a five-star ANCAP safety rating on the back of some impressive crash testing results and a long list of advanced driver assist systems.
The on-road experience is best described as inoffensive. Softly-sprung, the Tiggo 4 will comfortably absorb everyday road rash with ease, a perfectly amiable companion on the road from A to B. Performance is best described as merely adequate, but for a large cohort of new car buyers, that’s perfectly acceptable. Not everyone is looking to win the daily traffic light grand prix.
If you can accept that the Tiggo 4 isn’t looking to break any land speed records, and instead prefer your daily commute in comfortable surroundings with enough tech to keep you entertained during those oh-so-boring traffic snarls, then it’s hard to look past Chery’s baby SUV.
Kia Stonic S
Price: From $28,180 plus on-road costs
Boot space: 352 litres (rear seats up); 1155 litres (rear seats folded)
Drivetrain: 1.0-litre three-cylinder turbo-petrol
Servicing costs: $2464 for first five years or 50,000km
The Korean brand’s entrant in the Light SUV class has recently benefited from a major mid-life update that brings sharp new looks and a new mild-hybrid drivetrain. Priced from $28,180 before on-road costs, the entry-level Stonic S feels like an all-new car, especially inside where new design flourishes and interior styling give the impression of an SUV costing much, much more.
Kia has backed the style with some substance with a decent list of standard equipment, even if it’s not as comprehensive as the features list of some of its rivals from China.
But the Stonic claws back ground thanks to its on-road manners where the little Kia’s ride and handling balance translate to a charming drive experience. The 1.0-litre three-cylinder petrol engine remains as characterful as ever, now helped along by a 48-volt mild-hybrid system said to deliver fuel efficiency gains as well as a slight performance boost.
Kia doesn’t over do it on the technology front, with an 8.0-inch infotainment screen looking small compared to some of its rivals. But it’s intuitive to use, and capable of hosting your favourite brand of smartphone.
This current generation of Kia Stonic has yet to be tested by ANCAP so remains unrated by the safety authority for now. Kia’s suite of advanced driver assist and safety technologies is middling, with some key features (such as rear cross-traffic alert) only available in higher model grades.
The Stonic is also more expensive to service than some of its key rivals, the extra expense compounded by its relatively narrow 10,000km service intervals where 15,000km is par for the course in today’s new car landscape. That’s countered, however, by Kia’s seven-year, unlimited kilometre warranty bringing peace of mind to first-time new car buyers.
Mahindra XUV 3XO
Price: From $23,990 drive-away
Boot space: 364 litres (rear seats up); not quoted (rear seats folded)
Drivetrain: 1.2-litre three-cylinder turbo-petrol
Servicing costs: $1595 for first five years or 75,000km
The Mahindra XUV 3XO surprised the judges at Wheels Car of the Year testing late last year, its blend of affordability, practicality and decent driving chops belying its low cost of entry.
While the entry-level model is priced from a very competitive $23,990 drive-away, making it one of the most affordable new SUVs your money can buy in Australia, our pick would be to find the extra three grand for the $26,990 drive-away AX7L range-topper.
The extra spend brings a lot of goodies usually reserved for cars costing two or three times as much. Highlights include 17-inch alloy wheels, synthetic ‘leather’ seat trim, two-zone climate control, a 10.25-inch infotainment touchscreen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, a 10.25-inch digital instrument display, sunroof, a premium Harman-Kardon audio system and even a cooled glove box.
But loading it to the gills with standard equipment is one thing. The real measure comes in how the Mahindra drives. And here the news is good.
Performance is in line with what buyers at this end of the market would expect, with brisk acceleration whether from standstill or while on the move. The ride is commendable too, compliant without being too soft, and perfectly capable of dealing with Australia’s scrappy surfaced road network.
The Mahindra misses out on some key safety technologies, such as blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert, and it remains untested by ANCAP.
Mahindra warrants the XUV 3XO for seven years or 15,000km, whichever comes first while servicing remains affordable at $1595 for the first five years or 75,000km.
Certainly, the Indian brand remains largely unknown in Australia, but as we recently wrote after the XUV 3XO won our budget SUV three-way comparison, the Mahindra surprises with its well-built quality cabin – big on space despite its diminutive stature and filled with the tech and creature comfort modern buyers expect – along with a willing powertrain and a well-sorted suspension tune that brings comfort and compliance to a segment not always known for it.
Under $35,000
The field opens up if your budget can stretch to over $30,000, with options from the more established legacy brands increasingly entering the equation. By our reckoning there are currently 30 Light and Small SUVs priced between $30,000 and $35,000 available today and it’s in this bracket where we start to see some more familiar brands, such as Toyota, Volkswagen and Hyundai.
But which models stand out in what is an increasingly crowded new car segment? Let’s find out.
Hyundai Kona
Price: From $33,700 plus on-road costs
Boot space: 407 litres (rear seats up); 1241 litres (rear seats folded)
Drivetrain: 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol
Servicing costs: $2053 for first five years or 75,000km
The Kona is a striking-looking small SUV from the Korean brand that blends practicality and comfort with modern design and technology.
At this entry-level grade, power comes from a two-litre naturally-spirated four-cylinder which offers enough poke for most urban driving situations while remaining perfectly acceptable at highway cruising speeds.
Its suspension package is well-sorted and suited to Australian roads, Hyundai investing heavily in ensuring locally-delivered cars are tailored for our roads.
A four-star safety rating – largely because of some missing safety tech (it scored well in crash testing) – is a minor blot on its copybook and something that clearly hasn’t hurt sales, the Kona the number one-selling small SUV in Australia.
Hyundai’s recently expanded seven-year warranty brings extra peace of mind while servicing costs of just over $400 a year are a little on the high side, but not unmanageable.
Certainly, buyers looking for a modern take on the small SUV formula could do well to take a closer look at the Hyundai Kona.
Toyota Yaris Cross GX
Price: From $31,790 plus on-road costs
Boot space: 390 litres (rear seats up); not quoted (rear seats folded)
Drivetrain: 1.5-litre four-cylinder petrol-hybrid
Servicing costs: $1375 for first five years or 75,000km
As Australia’s leading car brand for the last two decades or so, it’s little wonder that Toyota remains the go-to choice for buyers after a reliable and affordable car to own.
The Toyota Yaris Cross continues that philosophy, its tried-and-trusted hybrid powertrain providing the kind of fuel economy that keeps owners – and bank balances – happy.
Around since late 2020, the Yaris Cross is arguably in need of a refresh. But it’s hard to argue with an SUV that claims a fuel consumption figure of 3.8 litres per 100km, even if that is a smidge fanciful. You can expect to use around 4.5L/100km in the real world, if our ongoing testing is anything to go by.
The interior blends practicality and comfort in typical Toyota fashion – not too flashy, but neither is it low-rent.
And with servicing costing just $275 a year for the first five years, it’s easy to see why the Yaris Cross remains one of the more popular options for those after a sensible, efficient and affordable compact SUV.
Volkswagen T-Cross Life
Price: From $34,990 plus on-road costs
Boot space: 385 litres (rear seats up); 1281 litres (rear seats folded)
Drivetrain: 1.0-litre three-cylinder turbo-petrol
Servicing costs: $2799 for first five years or 75,000km
The Volkswagen T-Cross remains a popular option for buyers after a touch of European style. Basically, a VW Polo on stilts, the T-Cross brings Volkswagen’s typically understated but refined cabin quality along with generous equipment levels.
The 1.0-litre three-cylinder turbo does a good job of moving the T-Cross in a brisk fashion, never feeling under-powered for the task at hand. It’s equally as good on the highway as it is in urban enclaves. The only downside on the driving front is the seven-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission which can, at times, prove a little hesitant when taking off from standstill.
Fuel consumption is rated at 5.4L/100km, which isn’t bad for the segment although trails the hybrid Toyota Yaris Cross by some margin, something that may sway some buyers towards its Japanese competitor.
And the cost of maintenance could also be a deciding factor, its $2799 over five years rounding out to just under $560 annually.
But, there’s no question the T-Cross’s European design and engineering holds appeal for plenty of buyers looking for their first new car who are after something a cut above the mainstream.
First published in the July 1978 issue of Wheels magazine, Australia’s best car mag since 1953. Subscribe here and gain access to 12 issues for $109 plus online access to every Wheels issue since 1953.
Chrysler started it in 1962, quite unwittingly of course, with the first Valiant but except for one glorious period in the early Seventies it never really understood what they were all about or how they could be used to sell the bread-and-butter cars.
Henry and The General were late arrivals but they went in boots and V8 muscle and are still fighting the good fight on race tracks around Australia. However today’s race cars are very different to the road cars and in a way that was unimaginable 10 years ago.
If the Golden Age of Supercars is over, GMH doesn’t believe it and has built the A9X Torana as undeniable proof. And it won’t end there for there are other hot cars in the pipeline from both Ford and GMH and maybe even Chrysler. No, the Supercar isn’t dead.
When Chrysler decided to compete with the Holden and Falcon it simply started importing its American compact Valiant, the 225 cubic-inch slant six engine came as part of the package. At the time Holden’s six was only 138cid and the Falcon’s 144, so the Valiant’s ton-up performance set a startling new standard for family cars.
Ford replied with the 170 and then 200cid engines and late in 1963 GMH introduced the 149 and 179 engines and if, initially the 179 was only available in automatic form, it was soon followed by the competition oriented S4. Thus the first in a long line of limited production specials created to win the Bathurst 500/1000 came into being.
Ford countered with the Cortina GT and GT 500 while GMH, after putting its toe in the water and finding it hot, withdrew and licked its corporate wounds. Then came the XR Falcon GT and the beginning of an era. Studebaker had Lark V8s and Chrysler the Valiant V8 but these were up-market semi-luxury automatics and didn’t have any pretensions of real performance.
The GT was different. Here was a 200km/h touring car with handling and acceleration that had only ever been seen before on the very quickest European sedans or some of the better American muscle cars. But the GT was different, the damn thing even had half way decent brakes.
The rest is history. The GT won at Bathurst in 1967 and the next year GMH replied with the monster 327 Monaro while Ford tried the 302 GT. A year later they were running 350 and 351 engines and the HO was born.
In 1970 GMH switched to the smaller, lighter XU-1 Torana and ultimately it did win the big race but it was never the long distance touring car that the GT, or even the Monaro, was. The HQ Monaro pretended to compete but didn’t, not on the race track or the road.
Then dear old Chrysler got into the act with the Charger E38, a favourite of ours, even with its three-speed gearbox and brakes which lacked power assistance. Raw in everything except the tripled Weber carburetted engine, it made all the right noises. But it was not enough and the great Phase III GT HO blasted GMH and Chrysler’s hopes into its slipstream down Conrod at Bathurst in 1971.
The Phase Ill was the ultimate Australian four-door sedan and just maybe the world’s. Then came the stillborn Torana V8, the Phase IV and the racing Charger 340 but they all died at the politicians’ knife. The rules for Bathurst were changed and an epoch finished.
The Torana V8 appeared in the LH and the L34 formed the basis for the racing cars, while Ford dropped the GT and Chrysler decided one Bathurst was quite enough and retreated to the quiet of Adelaide. The L34 produced the A9X and the HO’s most serious challenger to the title of ultimate Supercar. But that’s what our story is all about.
Even now, at the distance of eight-and-a-bit years on, it is difficult to recall for those of you who for some reason or another were not aware at the time, the fascination the super cars exerted on Australian enthusiasts in the late ’60s. Certainly, we were bound up in the October pilgrimage to The Mount; it was also the spectacle of the two giants of the motor industry diverting as much technology and money as they could afford into designing and building what were then the fastest production sedans in the world.
There are some enthusiasts who recall with a bitterness normally reserved for Labor supporters remembering Sir John Kerr’s sacking of Gough Whitlam’s government, the spark that started the fire that led to the premature end of super cars in Australia. That spark was Evan Green’s article in the Sydney Sun-Herald that outlined the alleged 150mph new Toranas being secretly built for that year’s Bathurst. It was what is best gently described in journalistic terms as a legitimate Sunday newspaper beat-up; I am sure Evan never intended it to have the effect it did. But it came smack in the era of Naderism and on the threshold of the energy scare, and it took only a few questions in Parliament and a few panic statements by ministers to stop the Phase Four GTHO and postpone the planned V8 Torana and end the days of Bathurst as a genuine test of production sedans.
It was the end of some marvellous cars, until the A9X Torana – rare as it is – came onto the market with not a bang but a whisper. Could it be that GMH still remembered the scandal about those suicidally-dangerous monster cars being sold to the public? Of course it did; The General has a long memory about its public image.
But in 1969 the Bathurst frenzy came to its peak, because Ford had won in 1967 with the rudimentary first Falcon GT, then GM with the lumbering, clanking HK 327 Monaro in 1968; so 1969 was the first real confrontation. It was the first year of the Holden Dealer Team, The General sheltering behind the fiction of non-involvement by the factory while tipping bulk money into the end of the chute leading to Harry Firth’s wizard’s lair. It was also the first year of the GTHO. I cannot remember a Bathurst since that has had as much public interest.
The HDT ran three cars and won with Colin Bond and Tony Roberts. I drove a 350 for Boyded, a Sydney Holden dealer, and we were lying fifth when in the third hour the engine blew down Conrod. But the race started even more sensationally when in the first lap poor Bill Brown got shoved up the bank over Skyline and rolled his Falcon, starting a multiple car pileup that brought the race to a temporary halt, outed four other cars immediately and crippled another half-dozen. I remember well coming over Skyline in the pack of Monaros and GTHOs and seeing Brown about three metres off the ground; I somehow decided to flick to the right and got through, while the other cars slithered into the debris with wheels locked.
So it was difficult to resist the suggestion that we compare a dead-original 350 Monaro, the last of the late ’60s super cars, and the A9X, arguably the best-value mass-production performance sedan in the world. It needed to be a road and track comparison, because one still remembers clearly the impact the HT350 Monaro had as a road car. The GTHO was always quicker – the Monaro would run a genuine 201km/h (125 mph) – but the Phase III, last of the HOs, would see 232km/h (144 mph). But the 350 was more nimble, more chuckable, rawer, more nakedly aggressive than the second and third GTHOs, which tended to be quieter; “softer” and a little more civilised.
Wheels found what is probably the best 350 HT Monaro in Australia. Owned by GMH’s NSW metropolitan sales manager, Tony Connolly, it’s the first car ever nailed together for the Holden Dealer Team – the one Spencer Martin rammed through the Armco at the end of the Sandown straight in a horrifying crash one-third through the 1969 Sandown 250. That was the first race appearance of the car, and somehow the wrong disc pads were fitted. When a pad wore down prematurely it popped a brake cylinder piston and poor Spencer got the fright of his generally accident-free career. He escaped through the windscreen as the car went up in flames.
Rebuilt by GM, the car was then offered for purchase by tender. Connolly bought it, with 100 miles on the clock, at a price which now would make strong men weep and is about one-third its current market value with under 20,000 miles up. He sends it· up the odd hill-climb and drives it around when he’s not driving his company Holden or riding his Z-1 Kawasaki 900 or 360 Yamaha MX or working out how he can afford to buy an A9X as well.
I did a lot of race miles in the Boyded 350, as well as running it in and tyre and brake testing. We tested at Amaroo Park and Oran Park and raced it at Bathurst and Warwick Farm and in the Surfers. 12-hour where I had the world’s longest spin under the Dunlop Bridge at around 195km/h and later had a front wheel collapse under brakes rushing up to Lucas; the car slithered to a halt centimetres from the Armco and the long grass underneath it immediately caught fire from the red-hot discs. I had a full fuel load on, so vacated the premises fairly smartly; the fire marshals put out the fire. Then I found we didn’t have a spare or a jack, so I ran about a kilometre back to the pits in 40-degree heat to collapse.
My co-driver went out carrying a spare and a jack and got the Monaro mobile again so we could get back into the race last instead of fourth. Then they hung out the black flag and disqualified us for not having a spare. In those days the Surfers officials would have looked appropriate in jackboots …
After Spencer Martin went through the fence and announced his retirement (he had been married not long before) all the Monaro drivers started to worry a little about the brakes on the car. Harry was good enough to tell me the secret code of the pads he was getting from Hardie-Ferodo, but somehow the privateer cars never did stop as well as the works cars, although we had as much grunt in a straight line. Harry also was very close-mouthed about his front-end settings; we found out later it was because to make the cars handle properly and get decent tyre wear you had to use just about double the handbook castor and camber figures – very illegal in those days.
Be that as it may, everyone at Bathurst gave the brake pedal a little jab between McPhillamy and Skyline, just to reassure yourself, but it always got quite exciting around the 300-metre braking marker at the end of Conrod when you were doing around 215km/h.
I remember that coming down in to Creek Corner at the Farm, when the big cars were really hauling and had to come down to – oh – around 80km/h on entry, the Monaro front end under brakes got up a real shudder, what the bikers call a “tank-slapper”.
You were never quite sure whether the car would stop in the distance you had allocated for it. This feeling lasted right up to the last 20 or 30 metres into the corner, before you actually committed the car. You were never ever bored under brakes in a 350 Monaro.
So as I came down the 500 metre main straight at Oran Park for the first time and went for the brakes I had a flash of deja vu followed by the hot flush of recognition of the old uncertainty of Will We-Stop In Time? It was like coming home to your old school and seeing your old maths master Pussy Williams (the name of my old maths master) and finding that he hadn’t changed a scrap in 10 years except that he seemed to have shrunk.
You see, the fashion in GMH engineering in those days was for The Low Brake Pedal. All their cars had the pedal positioned close to the floor. The Wheels road test on November, 1969, explained this doubtful practice thus: “The go-pedal setup is evidently governed at present by the throttle linkage system GM employs on all its cars. Their policy is to provide a full throttle with a flat pedal for safety reasons (strain on linkages etc). This also prevents linkage reversal and means when the throttle is flat on the floor, the throttles are as wide as they’ll ever get … At present the car is fitted with a ‘low-pedal’ setup providing for a minimum ‘safe’ height from the floor of 4¾in on an adjustable arm.”
What all that meant was that GM liked a low throttle pedal and had to pull down the brake pedal height to ease the task of lifting the right foot from one pedal to the other. What it did on the race cars was to add to your awareness that you were trying to stop 1500 kilograms (3316 lbs, or around 29 cwt) of car from 210km/h with a pedal that went to within a hand’s thickness of the floor. At the bottom of Conrod the little Datsun 1000 you bombed past over the first hump would whistle past you at the 200 metre marker, laughing its head off at the purple veins standing out in your forehead.
The first few minutes in Tony’s Monaro were enough to bring back all the old familiars. It was even the same colour – white with black-and-white houndstooth trim. The only non-standard bits on the car are 7in chrome wheels instead of 6in and two hefty and raunchy exhaust pipes out the sides. It still has the standard shockers and front-end trickery of the HDT cars – three degrees castor, 1.5 degrees camber – and you can’t bounce the front end down at all. It has the very tricky limited-slip diff that clunks and grunts, and the 3.36 final drive we all used, but somehow it got the wide-ratio M22 Saginaw gearbox instead of the M21 that came as standard, so first and second are a little taller. Apart from that it’s the same car – still with the evidence of fire charring on some of the window rubbers and the odd metal cut where the body was shortened and bent by the Sandown Armco.
All Tony has done to the (original) American 350 engine is to clean up the heads – nothing else. Blue-printed, it is as crisp and sharp as I remember it; there was a suspicion of moisture in the eyes as I first blipped the pedal. The best analogy is that of wrapping over the twist grip on a one-litre big bike; you twist, and it spins, up the scale. All engines these days – all engines – are soggy in response by comparison. Blipping the 350 Monaro is blipping a well-balanced, well-carburetted, clean-breathing engine; you can feel the unheard song of power in your inner ear. The 308 engine in the A9X is, by comparison, an uncooked crumpet against a slice of crisp brown toast.
And then you re-discover the gearshift, set back a little too far in the fake wood-grain console, and you remember that it runs through a system of very indirect reaction levers from the bottom end of the gearlever to the gearbox. It is very clunky and tends to bind up on all the pivot joints. The relative advances of technology are amply demonstrated when you try the A9X gearshift, which is also indirect; apart from a slight rubbery feeling, it is the old hot-knife-through-butter by comparison. Out on the track in the Monaro you take a long time to remember the trick of going back from third to second, because it needs an exact touch; even then the diff makes the rear tyres squawk and twitch sideways when you declutch. You forget how much you allowed for these things that long time ago.
But it only takes a few corners to renew acquaintances with the thin steering wheel rim and the sharp spokes, still with the black marks where Tony wrapped insulating tape around the spots where your thumbs rest. In the A9X the wheel is thicker, the spokes are thicker, with slightly bevelled edges and the wheel is smaller; technology has interposed and written off eight years. It is time to go.
Both cars are on Goodyear Steels (do the sales chiefs thus obviously agree with the engineers that these are today’s best tyre?) and pressures on both are set up for oversteer, which is how you like it. But, you remind yourself, there is one very important difference. The Monaro is still in virtually the same blue-printed, special-treatment form that the Fingers Of Father Firth so masterfully applied; the A9X is a stock-as-a-rock road test car that has had at least three hard interstate trips (although you ran it in to Melbourne and back, you say, comfortingly) and is off the end of the production line as a road car, destined never to receive the homologated special bits that the race cars got at the hands of Bill Patterson Motors in Melbourne.
Put simply, I did six laps of the short Oran Park circuit with each car. I drove both at what for me would be eight-10ths (for Bond or Brock it would arguably be six-10ths) and kept to rev limits of 5500 in the Monaro and 5500 in the Torana, in deference to their respective custodians cringing at track edge, peering through crossed fingers. The Monaro ran 1:3.2, 1:1.2, 1:1.2 and 1:00.9; the Torana 59.9, 59.7, 59.9, and 1:1.4 (that last when I was experimenting with using first gear out of two corners).
Two things were significant: One, that the Monaro did around the same times we were doing in 1969 testing Klebers and XAS Michelins for Bathurst; and second that the Torana was running its extraordinarily high 2.66 final drive that was totally unsuited to track work. But the Monaro could have gone quicker, the Torana not much.
The Torana did it all more easily, with all the advantages of eight-years-on technology, like four-wheel discs with a beautifully progressive pedal, and more steering “feel” and a quicker gearshift. But as a road car it had more roll movement, much more understeer, and was nowhere near as “nervous” as the Monaro. That was the real surprise; the Monaro was lighter in the front end and walked around the front a lot more, but gave back a lot more information and could be positively steered on the accelerator, whereas the Torana simply ploughed in with bags of roll and tyre squeal and understeered away, to the point where – as happens with road cars – the understeer stopped and the oversteer came in with a bang. The road car simply ran out of handling, even though it had better roadholding.
On the road, the technology gap is much more noticeable. Wheels has had its say about the A9X Torana. It is a superb road car, long-legged, quiet (if you bend in the window frames), marvellously quick, with very high adhesion levels. Which just shows you how much difference there is between track and road. The Monaro, on the other hand, rides a little harsher on the road, and the antiquity of gearshift design and brake pedal pressures show up much more sharply. But it’s still a lovely touring car; it’s just that you have to work at it a little harder than the Torana, which is beyond doubt the easiest touring car to drive very quickly that I have ever handled, including BMWs and Jaguars and Mercedes-Benzes.
At 41 years old Tony owns one of the classic cars of our times – two if he is able to add that A9X to his garage. He has had a few cars since he started at 17 as an apprentice with Hollands in Melbourne, who prepared the late Lex Davison’s race cars … a blown P-Type, a 3¼-bore FJ (he would that he had it now) and a few others, including a superb red 327 HK Monaro from the Melbourne Motor Show I remember very well. He will not sell the HT Monaro 350 for any money.
I know it will hurt you to remember that in October, 1969, this car cost $3995 new. It hurts me.
But I said goodbye to the Monaro and drove the A9X back into Sydney in a peculiarly disembodied state of mind. Eventually I traced this feeling back to having been reminded so forcefully of what cars and driving were really like only eight short years ago – when The General could build cars like the 350 Monaro and go out and race them just as they were, not with thousands of dollars of weird gear on them, equipment that the ordinary motorist would never even see, let alone understand … and I then felt terribly sorry for the generation of drivers who instead of a car like the 350 Monaro or the GT Falcon or the A9X (if you can get one) are buying Celica hatchbacks or Lancer coupes or six-cylinder Ghia Cortinas or Datsun SSS 200Bs or similar and don’t know any better or that there was in fact something better, not long ago.
But it isn’t the end. The A9X is not the Last Of The Supercars, no matter what you hear. Both GMH and Ford will be producing more good quick road cars like it, and like the 350 Monaro and the GTHO.
But inevitably, they will be depilated, androgynous, cloned, brave new world versions of what these cars were in the ’60s.
Which is why, every now and then, it is good for Wheels to take its three generations of readers (for such it has) back in the time machine to remind them that there was a day when you could build a car and race it just like it was and everyone in Australia watched in breathless wonder.
So anyone who saw me trundling back into Sydney along the Hume Highway laughing my head off at the wheel of an A9X Torana will now know that I was recalling the words of ARDC secretary Ivan Stibbard. He said to me, not two years ago, that they couldn’t run stock production cars at Bathurst any more because today’s cars were much faster and thus there would be a safety problem.
Ivan, I have news for you. We dragged the HT 350 Monaro and the A9X Torana side-by-side over a quarter. The Monaro won by two lengths both times. Sure, the diff ratios were different. But I tell you this right now: Around Bathurst tomorrow morning, the Phase III GTHO and the 350 Monaro will be just as quick as a stock A9X. Where did those eight years go, baby? Who’s wrong?
You’d assume boot space comes free when you purchase a new car, but a recent report by Car And Driver in the United States has uncovered Ford USA adding the front trunk – or frunk – as a $495 option for 2026 Mustang Mach-E buyers.
According to Car And Driver, the ‘Exterior Option’ as it is called, costs $495USD and is an option that needs to be ticked when buyers first order the Mach-E. This extra cost option is new for the 2026 model year, with any existing stock featuring the frunk as standard equipment.
The frunk now sits alongside other exterior options like splash guards, bumper protectors, a tyre inflation kit, a wheel-lock kit, and a front registration plate bracket. Ford isn’t the first manufacture to try this, let’s call it interesting, approach to options, with BMW previously copping heavy criticism for charging a monthly fee to use the heated seats that were already fitted to the vehicle.
Given the ease with which car companies can apply this methodology to electric vehicles, it’s a legitimate concern for new car buyers, worried that they might in fact have other pay to unlock a whole host of features, previously taken for granted as being standard equipment. Or that a manufacturer could turn them off and make them unavailable.
WhichCar by Wheels can report some good news for Australian Mach-E fans after speaking to Ford Australia, however.
“Australian MY26 Mustang Mach-E vehicles are not affected by this US specification change,” Product Communications Manager Ben Nightingale told WhichCar by Wheels. “All Australian cars come standard with the frunk.”
“Herr Rosche, wir brauchen einen sportlichen Motor für die 3er-Reihe.”
The words belonged to then BMW CEO Eberhard von Kuenheim and according to BMW folklore, he uttered them as he was leaving BMW’s motorsport headquarters in Munich’s Preussenstrasse some time in the early 1980s.
Translated: “Mr Rosche, we need a sporty engine for the 3 Series.”
Von Keunheim couldn’t have picked a better target for his parting aside. Paul Rosche, BMW’s renowned engine-building svengali, had built his reputation on engineering some of the finest motors to have ever come out of the Bayerische Motoren Werke. His roll call of engineering success stretched all the way to winning the 1983 Formula One world championship with Nelson Piquet and his Brabham-BMW BT52.
And it was motorsport that once again provided the impetus for Rosche and his team, transforming BMW’s regular 3 Series into what has become one of the most revered nameplates in modern automotive history – the BMW M3.
M3 turns 40 this year, and while there have been significant changes to the formula over the intervening decades and six generations, the spirit of von Keumheim’s vision of a ‘sporty’ 3 Series remains a cornerstone of BMW’s philosophy.
1986-1991: Gen 1 E30
The OG M3 was born out of BMW’s desire to go motor racing in what was, in the mid-80s, the freshly-minted set of Group A touring car rules. The backbone of those regulations stipulated that any competing car must be available as a road-going version with a minimum requirement of 5000 road cars sold in a 12-month period.
BMW’s Motorsport Division (as M was known in those nascent days) went to work. As BMW later explained, having the ability to “develop the production and race versions of the car alongside one another presented the development team with a tremendous opportunity”.
That resulted in a road car that gave not just a passing nod to its race-bred sibling, but fully embraced it in a bear-like hug from a long-lost friend.
A lightweight body incorporated traditional sheet metal – on the body itself and those tantalisingly pumped-up wheel arches – with plastic panels draped on the bootlid, side skirts, front and rear bumpers, as well as the rear spoiler. Attention to detail ran high too, with BMW’s aerodynamic boffins reprofiling the regular 3 Series’ C-pillar to provide a shallower angle and broader base, the result improving airflow around the side of the car and onto the rear deck.
Under the skin, everything from the M3’s axle kinematics, uprated suspension components and larger and thicker brake discs with beefier calipers were engineered with both eyes firmly on the race track. So too the dog-leg shift pattern of the manual gearbox.
But the real magic was found under the bonnet where a 2.3-litre inline four-cylinder borrowed liberally from the Motorsport department’s back catalogue. Starting life as a 2.0-litre unit found in a slew of BMW road cars, Rosche and his team transplanted the cut down cylinder head from his legendary M88 inline-six from the BMW M1, which gave the benefit of four-valves per cylinder breathing room, added a stiffer crank designed to cope with 10,000rpm, and with a longer stroke that increased displacement to 2.3 litres.
In race trim, the newly-minted S14 pumped out 224kW at 8200rpm. In road car spec, the 2.3-litre
offered 147kW at 6750rpm and while those numbers seem meagre measured against today’s standards, in a car that weighed just 1198kg, it was perfectly monstrous.
As Wheels described in its October 1986 issue following a rare test drive, the M3 “is total fun on any track… you could thrash an M3 for uncounted laps with no engine heating, no brake fade and virtually no handling drama. [It’s] a sports sedan which will make every owner feel like a racing star. BMW Motorsport didn’t miss when they set up this one.”
A long, long list of racing success soon followed, the M3 racking up titles with monotonous abandon. World, European, Australian, Italian, German and Japanese touring car championship trophies kept the cleaning staff busy at BMW Motorsport HQ in 1987.
Special road-going editions were inevitable, with Evolution versions released in limited numbers. The apex predator E30 M3 came in 1990 with the Sport Evolution which now featured a bored and stroked 2.5-litre four putting out a respectable 175kW.
Despite BMW churning out a shade under 18,000 E30 M3s by the end of its life-cycle in 1991, none made their way to Australia. The reason? They were only produced in left-hand drive.
1992-1999: Gen 2 E36
The original E30 M3 made no bones about its racing genealogy. But that all changed with the second-gen M3 which – no longer destined for race tracks around the world – was designed and engineered as a road car.
That meant engine restrictions were out, signalling the end of the heroic 2.3-litre four-cylinder from the E30. In its place, a free-revving 3.0-litre inline six with 210kW at 7000rpm and a claimed 0-100km/h time of six seconds.
Not only was it quicker than the E30, by around half-a-second to the benchmark sprint, but its road manners were vastly improved, the E36 an altogether more compliant and comfortable daily driver.
As the then managing director of BMW Motorsport, Karl-Heinz Kalbfell, told Wheels at the car’s global launch in 1992, “while the old car was an uncompromising driving machine, the new model is a civilised all-rounder which has a better drivetrain, a better chassis and a more modern, understated body.
“Because of the significant differences between the two cars, we even contemplated rebadging the new M3.”
Heavier than its predecessor (it weighed a comparatively portly 1457kg), the E36 was nevertheless a weapon, as quick as its M5 and 850CSi stablemates.
But its reserved styling didn’t exactly endear itself to BMW fanbois with only subtle differences between it and a regular 325i coupe. A deeper front splitter and longer rear diffuser combined with subtle side sills exclusive to M3 were about the sum of the cosmetic changes. There were no bulging wheel arches, no rear spoiler; the only visual cue that this E36 was something out of the ordinary, the M3 badging and tri-colour on the bootlid.
Australia received its first taste of the E36 (and the first locally-available M3) in 1994, Wheels’ reviewers immediately smitten by what was an extraordinary driver’s car, even if the M3 didn’t go about its performance in a flashy and shouty manner.
“One of the world’s great engines (powerful, flexible and not too thirsty) married to a great driveline with brakes and roadholding that are little short of sensational.”
A convertible and sedan M3 followed in 1994, along with a limited-run of M3 GT variants, built to homologate the M3 for motor racing in various GT and IMSA championships.
But the best was to come when in 1995, BMW gave the E36 a mechanical overhaul. The incumbent inline-six grew to 3.2 litres thanks to increased bore and stroke and higher compression. Power jumped to 236kW at a peak of 7400rpm while a new six-speed manual helped propel the E36 from 0-100km/h in 5.9 seconds.
More updates came in 1997, with the introduction of a sequential gearbox (SMG) alongside the manual, the first BMW to feature the motorsport-bred tech. It wasn’t a hit with reviewers, derided for its clunky nature at slow speeds, but that mattered not one iota. Cashed-up buyers simply couldn’t get enough of ’em.
The E36 M3 can be considered nothing short of a success, with BMW producing around 71,000 cars over its life from 1992-99. Counted amongst that number, 15 of the most powerful road-going E36 M3 ever produced, made right here in Australia.
The M3-R came as a result of BMW Australia wanting to contest the Australian GT Production Car Championship. Built by racing legend Frank Gardner, the 15 road cars needed for homologation featured an uprated version of the 3.0-litre inline six, good for 242kW. Upping its power-to-weight ratio, the M3 went on a severe weight loss program, Gardner’s workshop stripping out niceties like rear seats and air conditioning.
The price tag of $189,450 represented a significant hike over the regular M3’s circa $130,000 when new in 1995. And if that wasn’t a big enough roadblock, BMW would only sell the M3-R to CAMS licence holders.
2000-2006: Gen 3 E46
While the headline data might have suggested BMW had rolled the arm over with its new M3 in 2000, the truth was very different. Sure, the inline-six looked familiar on paper, but under that bulging power-domed bonnet, an – almost – entirely new 3.2-litre was providing the E46’s mojo.
Bore and stroke had changed, resulting in 45cc more displacement, while the rev ceiling had lifted to 8000rpm. Featuring BMW’s famed Double Vanos variable valve timing system, the new 3.2-litre unit made more power than its predecessor, now rated at 252kW, resulting in a blisteringly quick 0-100km/h claim of 5.2 seconds.
Externally – and perhaps feeling a little chastened by the E36’s lack of visual aggression – this new generation M3 wore its battle armour with muscular swagger.
Wheel arches were once again pronounced to accommodate the M3’s wider wheeltrack, while an
aggressive power dome on the bonnet left no doubts as to where the E46 M3 sat in the 3 Series pecking order. The front apron, jutting out from under the kidney grille, lent the E46 a snarling mien complemented by M-badged air intakes just behind those beefed-up wheel guards.
The E46’s dress suit looked the business, but what made this M3 a true great of the genre is that heroic inline-six under the bonnet, arguably the greatest atmo straight-six ever made.
Docile when it needed to be, the E46 exploded into life when pushed, eagerly climbing to its howling rev ceiling and offering, according to Wheels’ First Drive in 2000, “a level of performance that, in everyday terms, is probably unnecessary on the public highway… [it is] there in any gear, and at any phase in the rev range beyond 2000rpm.
“Below that the engine is merely strong. Above it performance is either blistering or verging on the
insane, depending on how close you’re prepared to go to the 8000rpm cut-out.”
A six-speed manual was once again offered as standard although most buyers, it’s said, opted for the second iteration of BMW’s SMG sequential gearbox. Still clunky, it was considered an improvement over the unit found in the E36.
The inevitable special editions beckoned and in 2003, the M3 CSL made its public debut. Sure, there were more kilowatts (13 of them) lurking under the bonnet, but the real gains came courtesy of BMW’s strict weight-saving regimen that saw composite materials liberally sprinkled throughout including the rear diffuser, front apron, and a smattering of internal features. The pressed steel bonnet gave way to an aluminium number while even the E46’s windows did not escape BMW’s razor gang, replaced by thinner glass panels in the CSL.
And, for the first time, a visible carbon-fibre roof sat atop the CSL, a feature that has gone on to become a signature of the M3 breed. All up, BMW’s Motorsport department shaved some 110kg off a regular M3 to land at a kerb weight of just 1385kg and a claimed 0-100km/h sprint time of just 4.9 seconds.
BMW produced around 85,000 E46 M3s in both coupe and convertible body styles (there was no sedan for this third-gen M3) including a very special unicorn that presaged the future, the V8-powered M3 GTR Strassenversion, a homologation special built to allow BMW to go racing in America.
2007-2013: Gen 4 E92
It seemed only natural that BMW’s M3 street-brawler would mature into a V8 monster. After all, the engineering boffins at Motorsport HQ had already crammed a V10 into its glorious E60 M5, a snarling beast of a thing which, when in full song, made the hairs on the back of your neck do a dance of delight.
The cylinder-count growth spurt of both the M3 and M5 was as a result of M Division’s then vice-president Gerhard Richter’s assertion that “to stay in the game we simply needed a bigger engine”.
In the M3, that bigger engine took the shape of a 4.0-litre naturally-aspirated V8 pumping out 309kW at a delicious 8300rpm and 400Nm at 3900rpm. Essentially a cut-down version of the M5’s V10, the new bent-eight stayed true to the M3 high-revving philosophy.
As Wheels’ Peter Robinson noted after his first drive in September 2007, “It hits race-car stride at 5800rpm … but best of all is the ferocious way it then pulls to 8400rpm.”
The fierce responsiveness helped propel the now 1580kg M3 from zero to 100km/h in a claimed 4.8
seconds, quicker than its immediate 3.2-litre six predecessor despite gaining 85kg.
BMW worked hard to keep weight gains to a minimum. The new engine itself was lighter than the E46’s six while a carbon-fibre roof, first seen on the E46 CSL, was now standard fit. Aluminium panels replaced pressed steel in a muscular body that, while it resembled a regular 3 Series, was almost entirely new. Only the doors and bootlid carried over from the regular car.
But perhaps the biggest changes to this generation M3 remained unseen. The headline act was the option of a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission, a first for the M3. It replaced the cantankerous SMG found in E46 and E36 and proved a more amiable companion. As Wheels’ John Carey noted, the dual-clutch was “the transmission that finally made the two-pedal version of the M3 the one you wanted to drive”.
Other electronic wizardry offered drivers plenty of scope for adjustment with various engine, steering, and suspension settings as well as the responsiveness of the new dual-clutch, all available at one’s fingertips in a staggering 54 individual combinations, which Wheels described as just “plain silly”.
And yet, while the various settings in their most aggressive modes left drivers nursing kidneys and wondering what happened to steering feel on centre, when it came to race track, the M3 was brilliant. As Robinson wrote, “the near perfection of its refinement, performance and handling is overwhelming”.
As with the E46, the fourth-gen M3 range also featured convertible and sedan variants alongside the coupe while a seemingly endless array of special editions milked the M3’s haloed badge for all its worth. The most notable of these was 2010’s M3 GTS, a road-legal track-day weapon available only as a coupe. The changes across the board – bigger, more powerful V8, reduced weight, revised suspension, beefier brakes and adjustable aero – improved performance dramatically with a 0-100km/h claim of 4.4 seconds.
It was a fitting swansong for the M3 coupe which, despite accounting for around 60 per cent of total fourth-generation M3 sales, was consigned to the history books. By the time the fifth-gen M3 rolled around in 2014, the emblematic M3 coupe was no more.
2014-2018: GEN 5 F80
In September 2010, Wheels teased this about the then current E92 M3: “The E92 was almost not an M3. BMW considered changing the designation for the coupe (E92) and convertible (E93) to 4 Series, presumably to align with the 5 and 6 Series. The M version would have had to follow, but the plan was (sensibly) scrapped.”
Four years after those prophetic words – which amounted to a stay of execution rather than a full pardon – the fifth-generation M3 made its debut as a sedan only, the M3 coupe having metamorphosed into – as Wheels had hinted four years earlier – the M4.
On the surface, the change made sense. After all, BMW had recently realigned the nomenclature of its stable of cars. Odd-numbered ranges (1, 3, 5, and 7 Series) were the domain of four doors while even numbers (2, 4, 6, and 8 Series) applied to coupes, convertibles and, shudder, gran coupes.
But emotion defies sensibility and while the M4 coupe was every bit the heroic sports brawler the M3 had always been over the previous 30 years, it wasn’t an M3 anymore.
That left the 3 Series sedan as the flag-bearer for the new F80 M3 and while the door count may not have been to everyone’s liking, it lost nothing for having said bye-bye to its two-door sibling.
In keeping with the emissions-chastened and turbo-charged times, the V8 of the previous-gen M3 was gone and in its place a twin-turbo 3.0-litre inline-six that brought more of everything, despite dropping two cylinders and one litre of displacement. Modest power gains (317kW against the V8’s 309kW) didn’t tell the whole performance story. To find that, we needed to look at the torque figures and here, the twin-turbo six laughed in the face of the atmo V8 it replaced – 550Nm versus 400Nm. The end result? Try 0-100km/h in just 4.1 seconds, some 0.7s quicker than the V8’s benchmark dash.
The star of the F80 M3 show was undoubtedly M division’s new twin-turbo six (internal code S55) which not only retained the characteristics that forged the legend of M, but enhanced it – effortlessly powerful, eagerly high-revving and exactingly responsive. Throwing turbochargers into the mix only added to the M3 story, with more torque and crucially in those chastened times, a 25 per cent improvement in fuel consumption.
“From below 2000rpm to beyond 7000rpm is one lusciously long surge that never wavers in intensity,” wrote Wheels’ John Carey following his first taste of the new M3 in 2014. “And the noise it can make is remarkable for a turbo – a soulful mechanical wail that rises, approaching the 7600rpm cut-out, to a pitch suggesting mild hysteria.”
The usual smattering of special editions made their way to dealerships including the Australian-only M3 Pure. Offering an $11k saving over regular M3, the M3 Pure pared back on the equipment list, brought some black exterior styling elements but most tellingly, featured the more powerful engine tune and uprated sports suspension from the M3 Competition, 331kW against the regular M3’s 317kW.
BMW produced just under 35,000 F80s over its short four-year production run which ended in October 2018. Somewhat hearteningly for BMW, the M4 coupe remained in production until 2020, by which time over 57,000 of the two-door had been built. Swapping the badge on the bootlid had not hurt it one little bit.
2020: Gen 6 G80
It’s perhaps fortuitous that the reveal of its new G80 M3 in Covid-19-ravaged September, 2020 happened via a global online event. That way, BMW executives were spared the collective grimaces and gasps when the M3’s new front end was revealed.
It’s hard not to talk about the G80 M3 without mentioning the grille, so stark, so obvious, like the mole on your grandpa’s chin you can’t tear your eyes from. Certainly a bold design, BMW has since said it has “no regrets” and that far from hindering sales, it has actually enhanced them, in particular in markets such as China. It’s here to stay then, for the foreseeable future.
But the G80 M3 is more than just a grille, much, much more. For starters, a new twin-turbo 3.0-litre inline-six (code S58) ups the power stakes, and significantly. In standard M3 guise, the inline-six is good for 353kW. Step up to the M3 Competition and you have 375kW available under your right foot. Channeling all that turbocharged thunder to either the rear wheels or, for the first time in an M3, all four wheels, is a choice of a six-speed manual or an eight-speed torque converter automatic. Yep, BMW has added all-wheel drive to the M3 and ditched the seven-speed dual-clutch transmission. And it’s a significantly better car for those changes. And quicker.
The G80 has also enjoyed a significant growth spurt, now stopping the tape at 130mm longer than the F80 M3, 26mm wider, 14mm taller and sitting on a 45mm longer wheelbase. Weight? Up 11 per cent over the older model, now rated at 1730kg. Ouch!
It hasn’t hurt performance though – the M3 in Competition trim, hurtling from standstill to 100km/h in just 3.9 seconds. Option BMW’s xDrive all-wheel drive system and that improves to 3.5s. Stunning.
On the road the G80 is stupendous. M’s signature lust for torque remains in place with every single one of the 650Nm on offer available from a low 2600rpm all the way through to 6000rpm, helped along by super-slick shifts from the new ZF-sourced eight-speed auto, its responsiveness banishing any fondness for the previous model’s seven-speed DCT to the rear-view mirror.
Improvements to the suspension pays dividends on the road, where the G80 feels at once more composed and settled than its recent predecessors, a win-win if ever there was one.
Saving the best for last, in 2023 BMW added a station wagon version to the M3 range, the result nothing short of sensational. As well as its imposing muscular presence, the M3 Touring takes everything the sedan has to offer and wraps it in a family-friendly package. For mine, it’s the M3 to have.
So what’s next for the M3? No doubt there will be more special editions, like 2023’s M3 CS, which brought more power and less weight to the party.
Looking further ahead, BMW has revealed plans for an electric M3, with four motors – one at each wheel – with suggestions total power output will exceed 1000bhp, or around 750kW in our money. It’s likely to be revealed in 2027 with a launch date of 2028. But fear not fans of M3, for BMW is also bringing out a new petrol M3, keeping the combustion flame very much alive. We wouldn’t want it any other way.
The unlikeliest M3
BMW has never shied away from pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. And that carefree derring-do extends to the BMW M3 which has, over the years, afforded us a glimpse into what goes on behind HQ’s closed doors.
One-offs and concepts are nothing special in the car world – side projects for designers and engineers freed from the constraints of commercialism and bean counters.
BMW’s M department was no different and given some latitude, gave the world the unlikely sight of not one, but two, M3-based utes.
But more than just a curio, the small utilities served a practical purpose, designed and built to transport components around BMW Motorsport’s sprawling Munich complex.
The first came in 1986. Starting life as an E30 cabriolet, the platform chosen, according to M Division’s Jakob Polschak, because “the convertible’s built-in bracing made it the ideal choice for a pickup conversion”.
Powered initially by an Italian-market 2.0-litre version of M’s S14 inline four making 147kW, it eventually received the full-cream 2.3-litre unit from the M3 catalogue.
The E30 M3 Ute fulfilled its role dutifully for 26 years, retired from active service in 2012 with a staggering 26,637km on the odometer.
The second M3-based ute started life as a joke but the E92-based M3 Pickup served the same transportation role at M’s production facility as its E30 predecessor.
But, a 2011 release from BMW about the pickup sent M aficionados into a tailspin.
“Following the BMW M3 Coupe, BMW M3 Convertible and BMW M3 Sedan, a fourth body variant of this globally successful high-performance sports car is about to cause a stir,” it read. “Under the strictest secrecy, the world’s first high-performance pickup has been created at the BMW M GmbH development centre.
“The sportiest example by far in this vehicle category, the BMW M3 Pickup will fire the imaginations of all motorists…
“This unique vehicle has already completed extensive test and set-up drives on the Nürburgring’s Nordschleife in advance of its global unveiling on 1 April 2011.”
Note the date.
This article first appeared in the February 2026 issue of Wheels. Subscribe here and gain access to 12 issues for $109 plus online access to every Wheels issue since 1953.
Why Connor Chose the Ranger
For Connor McNally, an event manager for Cricket Australia, life is constantly moving — early mornings, shifting venues, and quick escapes whenever time allows. When he bought his 2016 Ford Ranger toward the end of the COVID-era market chaos, he needed a ute that was powerful, affordable and ready for anything. The Ford Ranger – Australia’s top-selling 4×4 for the third year running – stood out for its real-world capability: strong towing performance, rear diff lock as standard, and the reliability he could trust day in, day out.
How the Ranger Fits His Work and Travel
Across Melbourne and beyond, Connor uses the Ranger as a mobile workspace. The metal canopy and custom rear setup let him haul equipment between offices and event sites without fuss. But once the work week wraps, the Ranger transforms into his getaway vehicle. With a dual-battery system and fridge running full-time, he can throw a swag in the back, hook up a trailer or take off for a spontaneous winter trip with almost zero prep.
Towing, Trips and Real-World Capability
What Connor values most is how consistently the Ranger delivers. From towing his 1,600kg boat to running long highway stretches, it feels surefooted and strong — a big step up from other vehicles he’s towed with, including an MU-X. Even in Tasmania’s freezing August weather or South Australia’s 38-degree heat, the Ranger never faltered. And with a lift and plenty of clearance, it’s taken him deep into the kind of tracks he lives for.
Taking the Ranger Further — From Tasmania to the Gibb River Road
Connor’s Ranger has carried him across some of the most memorable corners of the country: the wild west coast of Tasmania, the sweeping beaches of Rapid Bay, and iconic outback favourites like Cash Island, the Gibb River Road and the Dampier Peninsula. Whether he’s travelling solo or with his partner, the Ranger has even doubled as home for month-long stretches — something few vehicles can genuinely handle.
A Dependable Companion for Every Chapter of His Life
At close to 240,000km, with dents and scratches inherited from previous owners, Connor’s Ranger wears its history proudly. To him, that’s the beauty of it. It’s dependable, capable and always ready for what’s next. Whether towing, camping or simply squeezing more adventure into his weekends, the Ranger is the vehicle that keeps pace with every part of his life.
Why the Ranger Was the Clear Choice
For Stuart, owning a ute has always been about more than practicality. It’s about safety for his family, capability for his work, and the freedom to get outdoors whenever the opportunity comes up. After doing his homework, comparing models, and thinking long-term, he landed on a vehicle that ticks every box: the Ford Ranger XLT 3.2-litre diesel dual-cab.
Life With the Ranger XLT
Three years in, Stuart’s confidence hasn’t wavered. His Ranger is covered by a five-year warranty, including parts, and he keeps it serviced at the Ford centre in Brookvale. He’s not the only one either, with the Ranger topping Australia’s sales for a third straight year in 2025, outpacing Toyota’s HiLux to remain the nation’s best-selling 4×4.
Most of his driving is close to home on the Northern Beaches. Living in Allambie Heights means short, frequent trips — school drop-offs, commuting to work, and errands within five kilometres of home. But that everyday ease is exactly what he loves. The Ranger feels steady, predictable and comfortable, whether he’s carrying gear, the family, or both.
When the Ranger Needs to Work Hard — It Does
Stuart has put the Ranger to the test with towing, too. One of his standout moments was hiring a 15-foot caravan in Western Sydney and heading up to the Central Coast with his wife and son.
It wasn’t just the towing ability that impressed him — it was the confidence. The 3.2-litre diesel had all the power he needed for overtaking on the highway, and he never felt unsettled or underpowered.
Taking the Ranger Off-Road — Including the Stockton Beach Sand Dunes
Stuart loves getting the Ranger off the bitumen, and he’s taken it through challenging terrain. A favourite is a track outside Goulburn, featuring steep climbs, river crossings and wombat holes. The Ranger XLT handles it all — stable, capable and fun.
A Ute That Fits Every Part of Stuart’s Life
For Stuart, the Ranger XLT isn’t just a vehicle. It’s a safe family car, a reliable workhorse, and an adventure-ready 4WD that opens the door to experiences — from local errands to off-road weekends to unexpected dune-driving detours. It’s the capability, comfort and confidence that keep him loving it every day.
Two Mazda executives have told Dutch publication AutoRAI that the new MX-5 won’t arrive for a few years yet, and that the Japanese manufacturer is still working on the powertrain details for the globally popular two-seater.
According to the report by AutoRAI, and reported by Motor1, Mazda ideally wants to retain an internal combustion powertrain of some sort, and potentially even power the engine with synthetic fuels. However, as we have reported with synthetic fuel generally, it remains costly to produce, and the production infrastructure isn’t yet ready to support its use on a large scale.
As such, Mazda may have to look to a hybrid powertrain as an alternative. Even Porsche, which started producing synthetic fuel in small quantities back in 2022, hasn’t made much of the concept in the last 12 to 24 months, such are challenges associated with making it cost effective.
Mazda told WhichCar by Wheels at the Tokyo Motor Show last year, that alternative fuels – synthetic being one example – were very much on the table as a way to offer product that isn’t just electric. MX-5 – given it’s inherent lightness and sports car tactility – would be an obvious beneficiary of a powertrain that isn’t electric.
One of the main issues associated with electric vehicles is weight, with the heavy battery pack especially creating concern among MX-5 fans around the world as it what it would do to what is currently one of the lightest new cars on the market. That low weight is key to the appeal of the Mazda MX-5.
The MX-5 currently on sale – internally coded ND – and the fourth generation of the popular sports car is already a decade old, with a platform that is starting to feel as old as it is. It would appear, though, that the fifth generation is still some time away. Motor 1 reported the Mazda executives as telling AutoRAI that given the challenges of meeting and staying compliant with tightening emissions regulations, fairly significant changes are likely to be unavoidable.
Mazda’s head of design in Europe, Jo Stenuit, told AutoRAI that, “a lot of the way is because Mazda is still trying to figure out what to do with the powertrain, but he believes it will likely include some from of electrification”.
Even hybrids though, despite being lighter than a full-EV, create a counter problem for a vehicle that is hyped because of how light and sharp it is. The battery pack, the electric infrastructure, the electric motor and the charging component all add weight – something that is crucial to minimise in a svelte sports car like the MX-5.
“The MX-5 stands above all for fun, light weight, and affordability,” Stenuit told AutoRAI. “If any of those there aspects are missing, it’s not an MX-5.” Crucially, a ‘mild-hybrid’ system, which is effectively a 48-volt electrical system and not really a ‘hybrid’ system as the market has come to expect, is at the lower end of the list for Mazda.
While synthetic fuel would appear to be the easiest way for Mazda to meet emissions regulations, while retaining the spiritual heart of the MX-5, it looks like the Japanese manufacture will have to inject some form of electrification for the next generation of its now-legendary roadster.
McLaren has confirmed a number of Australians have bought the British brand’s latest track-only hypercar, dubbed Project: Endurance.
Based on McLaren’s Le Mans and World Endurance Championship (WEC) racer, the track-only hypercar will allow customers to participate in a series of non-competitive track days over a two-year period, complete with McLaren pit crews, engineers and driving instructor.
Speaking to Whichcar by Wheels at the Asia-Pacific unveiling of its latest race car-inspired hypercar in Sydney today, Neil Underwood, Head of HyperTrack Cars confirmed that an undisclosed number of Project: Endurance have been bought by Australian buyers.
“I can’t tell you how many, but we have sold cars in Australia,” he said.
However, don’t expect to see McLaren’s WEC race-bred hypercar pounding around Australia’s race tracks any time soon, with McLaren responsible for storing and maintaining the cars for the first two years of ownership.
Buyers won’t get the full WEC experience, however. While the factory racecar conforms to the series’ hypercar rules with an elaborate hybrid twin-turbo V6 powertrain, the customer versions do away with the hybrid system altogether. Instead, power comes exclusively from a race-engineered 2.9-litre twin-turbo V6 putting out around 537kW. The proper race car, thanks to Le Mans’ strict Balance of Performance regulations, makes around 493kW.
McLaren has also ensured the customer car is more forgiving to drive than the race car, with features like traction control, power delivery and braking performance all tailored towards ‘amateur’ drivers. And without the complexity of the hybrid system’s battery and electric motors, the customer cars are also lighter than the race car.
“Obviously we’ve got some phenomenally fast road cars, but if you really want to drive these cars, you’ve got to go on the track,” Underwood explained of McLaren’s Project: Endurance customer program. “And this is just the ultimate expression of that track car.”
McLaren’s assault on the World Endurance Championship, including the Le Mans 24-Hour, will start in 2027. The British brand has one victory at Le Mans, with the McLaren F1 GTR triumphant in 1995.
A week out from the start of the hotly anticipated 2026 Formula 1 season opener, Aston Martin has reported an eye-watering loss, exceeding 490 million pounds, or more than $900 million Australian dollars.
A loss of that size, and the cost associated with the ongoing development of electric vehicles, puts
the future of Aston Martin on very shaky ground.
The Times reported that Aston Martin had confirmed a loss of 493.2 million pounds last year, a
jump of 52 per cent. With headquarters in Gaydon, Warwickshire, and a workforce of 3000 people,
job losses are expected to total around 600.
The manufacturer, which has been struggling for several years now, blamed tariffs brought down
by US President Donald Trump, and a shrinking of its market share in China as key factors behind
the huge loss. Job cuts though, will only deliver savings of 40 millions pounds, and it remains
unclear where else the iconic British manufacturer can claw back profit.
A spokesperson told The Times that ‘US traffic had been extremely disruptive’, and ‘demand in
China had been extremely subdued’, the world’s largest new-car market. Aston Martin reported it
will also delay investment in electric vehicle technology, cutting capital spending to 1.7 billion
pounds from 2 billion pounds.
A statement released by Aston Martin said, “having undertaken at the start of 2025 a process to
make organisational adjustments to ensure the business was appropriately resourced for its future
plans, we had to take the difficult decision at the end of 2025 to implement further changes”.
The enormous redirection of funds toward EV development has seen Aston Martin face the same
malaise as other sports and super car manufacturers, developing cars that the public seemingly
doesn’t want in large numbers, but at great cost. Aston Martin postponed the launch of its first
electric car, a call that came just before Lamborghini decided to cancel its EV completely, in the
face of lukewarm interest.
For now, the Grand Prix division of the company remains separate from the road car division – and
perhaps most importantly – valuable. Majority Shareholder and executive chairman Lawrence Stroll
recently moved 50 million pounds from the road car arm to the F1 team to lock down naming rights
for Aston Martin in F1.
