It’s a bit hard to know what’s left to say about the Ford Ranger. As the vehicle that has played leap-frog with the mighty Toyota HiLux for the number-one overall spot in the new-car sales race for the last couple of years, it’s proven itself the only dual-cab capable of giving the Toyota some showroom grief. Others have tried, but the Ranger has actually done it.

So there must be something to it, right? True, and from the very moment you jump into the Ranger in V6 form, hit the start button and set sail, there’s a feeling of solidity and – yes, dammit – refinement that is not just unexpected but actually, even in isolation, better than average for a dual-cab ute.

That starts with the engine, of course, and while the three-litre V6 served as the auxiliary engine on The Ark, the years haven’t wearied it. It trumps the diesel competition for bald numbers with 184kW and a meaningful 600Nm of torque, but on the road, the difference feels even more than that.

3

That’s probably partly because the V6 never seems to raise a sweat. It just motors out into the traffic, you dial up your cruising speed and that’s that. All taken care of. And all the while, it’s so much smoother than the four-cylinder competition that you’d almost swear the Ranger’s powerplant was drinking petrol, not diesel. Sounds like an exaggeration? It’s really not.

The 10-speed auto is your friend, too, skipping multiple gears when it can afford to and slotting the precise cog when it needs to. Even so, you get the feeling that the depth of ability of the V6 means the Ranger would survive with a six- or even five-speed transmission.

Mind you, less than the full 10 gears would probably mean the Ford’s fuel economy would take a hit, and that’s not something it can really afford. On paper, it’s about half a litre per 100km thirstier than the main rivals, but in reality, the disparity is probably closer to a couple of litres, and making use of those 600Nm will soon make a mark on the contents of the 80-litre tank.

The Ranger’s four-wheel-drive system also wins it plenty of friends, particularly those who spend time with something heavy hitched up to their dual-cabs. The Ranger, you see, sports something that all serious tow-cars should have, and that’s a drive mode that allows for four-wheel-drive in high-range, even on dry bitumen. The magic is all in the centre differential, but on a damp road (or even that bone dry one) where lesser vehicles are forced by mechanical politics into two-wheel-drive, the Ranger can steam along with all four tyres driving and, crucially, gripping.

2

This is not just an added safety margin for those in the Ranger, but for everybody else sharing the road with it. And even when you’re not towing, the opportunity to use four-wheel-drive on the road in, say, light drizzle or a rainstorm is not to be underestimated. It works like a fresh piece of sandpaper on gravel, too.

And while we’ve deliberately downplayed towing in our judging criteria, it’s worth mentioning that the Ranger also boasts the excellent towing package that gives guidance to the driver for hitching up (via the cameras) the chance to check all brake lights and indicators without leaving the driver’s seat (via technology) and even a trailer-sway-avoidance function (via sheer genius).

The Ranger also addresses probably the biggest single bitch regarding dual-cab utes; ride quality or, more specifically, the lack of it. Both primary and secondary ride quality is better than average and the Ranger seems to glide over stuff that has many of the others bucking and lurching along at the same pace.

The ride is very well damped and there’s little intrusion into the cabin of nasties like suspension or even tyre noise. And across our test track’s offset-undulation section, which had some of the utes here either waddling or even twerking at 25km/h, the Ranger was far more controlled. No, it wasn’t as good as the all-independently sprung BYD, nor the Cannon Alpha with its enormous wheelbase, but definitely way better than average. A metaphor for the whole Ranger V6 experience, perhaps?

1

Inside, the cabin shows real evidence of some clever thinking in the layout (those door handles, for instance, are brilliant) and there’s tech aplenty. You can count on Ford’s Sync connectivity system with a 12-inch screen, wireless phone charging, lots of charge points, a power-socket in the tray (why don’t they all have this?), heated front seats and dual-zone climate control.

But the big, burly Ford lost marks when we put it through our equivalent of the dreaded moose-test; a swerve-and-recover exercise that tests agility and stability in equal measures. Frankly, the Ranger did pretty poorly here, both in terms of long stopping distances and gratuitous understeer both on tip-in and the crucial change of direction. The reason probably has a fair bit to do with the All Terrain tyres fitted to our test car, and while other utes here had more road-oriented rubber, the Ranger’s off-road emphasis (and Ford’s marketing department, presumably) demands the more compromised A/Ts.

Beyond that, however, the safety story is a pretty strong one with a five-star ANCAP rating, predicated upon driver assistance gear including blind-spot monitoring, rear cross-traffic assistance, autonomous emergency braking, tyre-pressure monitoring and active cruise-control. Even better news is that things like the lane-keeping assistance and distracted-driver monitoring stuff is calibrated properly so that it works without constituting its own distraction.

4

Trent Nikolic summed it up neatly: “Ford’s Ranger has set the standard in this segment for close to a decade,” he said. “Ford’s determination to update, fettle, improve and offer new sub-segment models is the way forward for any manufacturer wanting to compete. Of our top three, if you want to head off-road or do long distances, the Ranger is the pick.”

At $71,590, the Ranger V6 is far from cheap and towards the top of the pricing tree of this bunch. But it surely makes the dearer ($73,000) Isuzu D-Max X-Terrain (among others) look pretty lame by comparison.

Specs

In the Big Book of Marketing (find it in the Adult Fiction section), the current way to make a splash and attract the interest of the previously non-committal, is to be a disruptor. And while that sounds like the sort of online, pseudo-knowledge that will eventually see social media disappear up its own orifice (can’t happen fast enough, I say) in the case of the GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV, maybe there’s slightly more to it than that.

Of course, in some ways, the Cannon plug-in hybrid is straight out of Dual-Cab Compton with its ladder-frame, body-on-top construction, 3500kg towing and leaf-sprung live rear axle. But there’s a bit of sugar on top with front and rear diff locks standard on the Ultra model as tested here.

The disruption begins with the vehicle’s packaging. Fact is, it’s huge and points the way for future dual-cabs which have, inevitably, become bigger and bigger over the years. How big? Plenty. Try 35mm longer than the standard GWM Cannon Ute, 57mm wider, 38mm taller and a full 120mm longer in the wheelbase.

3

This translates to more front and rear seat room, although any real size advantage in the tub is gobbled up by the EV battery. That’s largely because the spare tyre, which would normally live under the tray floor (where the battery now resides) has been moved to an upright position in the tray, sitting up in the breeze like an inquisitive kelpie, and wilfully shedding its afterthought vinyl cover on a regular basis (most owners simply remove the cover and stash it in the shed for trade-in time).

However, the disruption amps up to 11 in terms of the Cannon’s driveline. Where the four-cylinder turbo-diesel has reigned supreme in the segment for at least a couple of decades now, the Cannon Alpha has switched back to petrol technology in the name of a refined, powerful plug-in hybrid arrangement.

The two-litre four-cylinder is turbocharged and teams with an electric motor that is sandwiched between the engine and the nine-speed automatic transmission. Together, the combo can produce a peak of 300kW of power and 750Nm of torque; big numbers in anyone’s book and comfortably ahead of the 150kW and 500Nm (or less) that most conventional dual-cabs manage. There’s also an on-demand four-wheel-drive set-up with low-range ratios, but no on-bitumen four-wheel-drive setting. The layout also means the GWM features ‘mechanical’ all-wheel-drive rather than the petrol engine driving one axle and the electric motor the other; both powerplants drive through the transmission and transfer-case.

1

What this means, of course, is that the Cannon can really keep pace with anything modern traffic and conditions can throw at it, as well as offering those who commute in it the chance to charge-up at home overnight, and run on electricity-only for the weekday grind. Fancy a trip interstate? No problem, and once you’ve depleted the battery (GWM claims 115km worth of electrons, but it’s probably closer to 90km) the Cannon will keep going while ever you continue to put petrol in it.

The big guy can really shift, too, and when all those 300kW show up, there’s a surge of performance that easily offsets the 2800-plus kilo heft. Even when you’re not giving it the full welly, the driveline is smooth,
torquey and relaxed, and the nine-speed automatic ensures there are no gaps in the thrust curve. You might need a little time to acclimatise to the regenerative braking which makes it feel like you’ve brushed the brakes when all you’ve done is take your foot off the throttle, but most people get used to it pretty quickly and soon learn to enjoy the one-pedal experience.

What’s also pretty impressive is the ride quality. There’s enough bump absorption to make the Cannon one of the better riding dual-cabs, although like anything heavy, designed to cart a load and suspended by leaf springs at the rear, the wrong combination of bumps at the wrong speed can see it get a bit tangled up in itself.

Ah yes, carting a load. Here’s where the whole plug-in hybrid ute thing starts to reveal its compromises. The listed payload for the GWM is just 685kg; a lot less than the tonne-or-more boasted by many of its competitors. Clearly, the mass of the battery contributes to this, but it remains a fact that once you have a full load of bodies on board, their luggage and a full fuel tank, you might be getting pretty close to the limit. Throw a trailer on the back with its down-ball mass measured as part of the payload, and some owners will be jettisoning their loved ones (or worse, their esky) to stay legal.

2

At $66,990 (MSRP), the Cannon Alpha is not exactly cheap, but you do get a lot for your money over and above the hybrid system and huge package. Inside, you get plenty of tech including full wireless connectivity, a big touch-screen in the centre, cooled, heated and massage-function front seats, and even an electric adjustment for the rake of the rear bench’s backrest.

Fellow UOTY judge Trent Nikolic noted, “There’s a lot to like about the GWM Cannon PHEV. More capable than the BYD off-road, and a better option for towing, it’s the choice for light duty weekend off-road work but with the benefit of electric power.”

One thing you won’t appreciate, however, is the GWM’s driver-distraction monitor’s habit of confusing your normal facial expression with that of somebody asleep at the wheel. It needs recalibrating, even if it does help the vehicle achieve five safety stars.

2

And that tricky tailgate that either drops down conventionally or can be swung open like saloon doors in a dodgy western movie? The jury is still out, but it seems like an awful lot of moving parts for something that is most commonly used as a picnic bench.

The factory warranty is good, with seven years/unlimited kilometres (and eight years on the EV battery) and seven years of roadside assistance thrown in, too.

In truth, the Cannon Alpha was a close thing in this year’s contest and for many, its extra off-road ability would probably swing the argument GWM’s way.

1

Specs

The February 2026 issue of Wheels magazine is now on sale, and it marks a major moment in the publication’s long history with the debut of our inaugural Wheels Ute of the Year award.

For the first time, Wheels has applied the same rigorous testing process used to determine its long-running Car of the Year to Australia’s most hotly contested segment: dual-cab utes. Nine of the country’s top-selling utes were brought together at Lang Lang Proving Ground for comprehensive dynamic testing, objective analysis and real-world evaluation, reflecting how Australians actually use these vehicles.

The cover story follows the contenders from arrival through to final judgement, examining performance, ride and handling, cabin comfort, technology, efficiency, safety and value. With dual-cabs now serving as family transport as much as workhorses, the judging criteria were adapted to reflect modern buyer expectations without losing sight of each vehicle’s utility roots. Only the new-gen Toyota HiLux was missing from the field, the testing window occurring a little too early for its arrival.

1

After days of testing, debate and data analysis, the field was narrowed to a final three. The resulting podium features one long-established name alongside two newer challengers, with one emerging as the first-ever Wheels Ute of the Year for 2025–26. The outcome underscores how rapidly the segment is evolving, with electrification, refinement and on-road behaviour now carrying far more weight than in years past.

Beyond the headline award, the February issue delivers a wide range of reading. Paul Gover chats with Ford executive Jim Baumbick for the Wheels Interview, exploring Australia’s influence on the Blue Oval’s global product strategy, while a family-focused SUV comparison pits the Tesla Model Y Performance against the Nissan X-Trail e-Power and MG HS Hybrid.

1

There’s also a deep dive into the origins of the BMW M3, a modern classic feature on the Porsche 928, and first drives of the Kia Stonic GT-Line, Ferrari Amalfi and MG HS Super Hybrid. Regular columns, our 22-page buyer’s guide and a look back at a classic Wheels scoop from 1991 round out the issue.

With its first Ute of the Year crowned, the February 2026 edition signals a significant expansion of Wheels’ authoritative testing in the heart of Australia’s new-car market.

1

Subscribe to Wheels here.

Let’s make this point from the outset – one more time it must be said – before we dive into why you would buy the BYD Shark 6. There are two reasons you wouldn’t buy it – neither of which are
relevant to Wheels Ute of the Year testing. The first is towing, and the second is genuine, long distance off-roading. If you intend to do either, in large doses, this isn’t the dual-cab for you. In fact, you’d probably side-step our second place-getter as well, and opt for a traditional diesel-powered workhorse if that’s what you intend to do with your new dual-cab.

With that out of the way, here are the reasons you would buy the BYD Shark 6 and indeed, the reasons it wins Wheels’ inaugural Ute of the Year award. Not the least of which, is the way the Shark 6 behaves on the road, around town. More on that in a minute.

If, like most of us, you live within spitting distance of a large city, or within the greater urban sprawl, and if like most high-end dual-cab owners, you never intend to thrash your expensive new purchase in the vast emptiness of the Aussie off-road wilderness, the BYD Shark 6 is exactly the kind of dual-cab you could be driving because of the way it does what most buyers would want it to do. It’s probably why BYD sold so many of them in the city as soon as it launched locally.

3

Morley’s thoughts on the BYD fit nicely with the mantra of reaching the same point, but by taking a
different road – something the dual cab segment is finally starting to do.

“I really admire BYD’s decision to do something different with this vehicle,” Morley said. “The driveline is phenomenal and clearly points the way forward. The BYD could almost have been developed with our criteria as the blueprint. No wonder it was unbeatable.”

It’s quiet, refined, laden with technology that works, will complete more than the average Aussie commute on pure electricity alone, has a spacious cabin, and drives in a way that makes it enjoyable to use day-to-day in traffic. Importantly, these are all factors we prioritised for this assessment – along with value for money of course – as per the Wheels Car of the Year judging criteria.

Shark 6’s cabin is excellent. It’s big, comfortable and ergonomically well laid out. There’s a cohort of dual cabs now that almost feel half a size bigger than the traditional combatants, and the Shark 6 is one of them. As such, cabin space is better than almost anything else in the segment. It’s comfortable in any of the five seating positions, and family buyers – who don’t really need a truck – will love it.

2

Let’s also give the Shark 6 one hell of a big tick for the way it behaves when you’re behind the wheel. This, along with the execution of the cabin technology, is of course the most obvious element of a new vehicle purchase. Technology is the touchpoint, the experience behind the wheel is the reward. As with our regular COTY award, dynamic testing and data analysis was conducted by the pre-eminent Karl Reindler, who was impressed with the Shark 6 from the outset, even before we asked him to sample it on open roads after the fact.

“It’s the fastest to 100km/h,” Reindler said. “It feels to me to be the closest to a car to drive, has more
refined stability control than the others, is generally more car-like and stops really well, too.”

Reindler’s assessment, beyond the numbers, is spot on. There’s a refinement and premium feel to the Shark 6’s driving behaviour that no diesel dual-cab can match. The cabin is quiet, the ride is excellent, even unladen, the steering and braking feel more like a large SUV than they do a truck, and there’s an effortless nature to the way in which it settles into a relaxed cruise. Around town, in the cut and thrust of city traffic, it betters any traditional dual-cab in the segment.

The reason the Wheels team wouldn’t advocate for the Shark 6 as the long-haul towing or off-road touring option is, in part, the same drivetrain that makes it so competent around town. The 1.5-litre four-cylinder turbocharged petrol engine seems underdone on paper, but that’s only if you’re dragging heavy weight behind it. That aside, the dual electric motors and 29.1kWh battery pack combine to deliver a formidable 321kW and 650Nm combined.

4

The single-speed multi-mode hybrid transmission works beautifully around town, too, and the Shark 6 feels fast if you nail the accelerator pedal with intent. Reindler’s 0-100km time backs up that seat of the
pants measurement. For the record, BYD claims 5.7 seconds for the run to 100km/h, which isn’t far off a run-of-the-mill sportscar.

Forget the fanciful 2.0L/100km fuel use claim and pay attention to the 100km NEDC electric-only range. In testing, we got into the low 90km range without trying to be efficient, meaning you can easily tackle the average commute, Monday to Friday, on electric power alone. Factor in 85km range, and you’ll get there without any hassles. All you need to do is plug the Shark 6 into a regular powerpoint at home overnight, to once again have a full charge in the morning – no expensive infrastructure needed. Then, when you need to travel further afield, the petrol engine takes over. If you’re tempted, then, by the seductive glance of electric vehicles, but not yet ready to make the plunge, a PHEV is the way to go, of that there is no doubt.

The value part of Wheels’ judging, is as pertinent here as anywhere, such is the soaring cost of what is an
otherwise rudimentary platform. If a time machine could transport you back to 2000 and you tried to tell someone you’d be paying six figures for more than one dual-cab…

3

Ringing the till at $57,900 before on-road costs are added, the Shark 6 is significantly cheaper than the
established competition. Back that up with the five-star ANCAP safety rating, a six-year/150,000km warranty and service cost clarity out to 11 years/220,00km, and you’re onto a winner. For the first five years, you’ll pay $2489, a full 11 years will cost $6077 – the certainty of it is a smart way to attract buyers.

Morley’s likening of a good dual-cab to a Swiss Army knife tale got me thinking about this segment a little deeper than I otherwise might. Indeed, it got me thinking about my own Swiss Army knife (not quite as vintage as his) and the Leatherman multitool I added to my roadside recovery kit approximately five years ago. I’ve used that poor thing – should it be tortured – in ways the maker never intended. It doesn’t have a hammer, but it’s been used as one. It doesn’t have a proper pry bar, but it’s been used as one, to great effect, I might add. And it probably wasn’t intended to be used to ark across terminals to try to remote start a recalcitrant engine. But you can rest assured I’ve used it for all those things.

Such is the way of the modern dual-cab in 2025. And that’s why the BYD Shark 6 is so popular with city buyers. It’s fascinating to watch a segment shift and transform before our very eyes, but the emergence of the Shark 6 is quite possibly the best example of it. If the motto of giving them what they want still stands, BYD has hit the nail on the head.

2

Specs

Stellantis has announced one of the largest electric vehicle–related writedowns in automotive history, taking a €22 billion (around A$26 billion) charge as it scales back its ambitions for battery-powered cars. The move underscores a broader industry rethink, as several global manufacturers adjust plans that once assumed a rapid shift to full electrification.

The global carmaker, which owns brands including Jeep, Dodge, Ram and Chrysler, said the writedown reflects a sweeping reassessment of its EV strategy after consumer demand failed to materialise at the pace previously forecast. The charge, booked in the second half of 2025, brings total EV-related impairments across the global auto industry to an estimated $55 billion.

Stellantis joins a growing list of manufacturers retreating from earlier EV investments. Volkswagen booked a $3.5 billion writedown linked to its electric division in September, Ford followed with a $19.5 billion charge in December after abandoning plans for large electric vehicles, and General Motors announced a $6 billion hit last month tied to reduced EV output.

1

Chief executive Antonio Filosa, who took over the role in May 2025, said the company had misjudged the speed of the energy transition. In a statement, he said the reset was intended to refocus the business on customer preferences rather than ambitious volume targets that proved unrealistic. Filosa also pointed to “poor operational execution” under the previous leadership, which left Stellantis with expensive EV factories, platforms and technology that struggled to find buyers.

Under former CEO Carlos Tavares, who departed in late 2024, Stellantis spent heavily to position itself for an electric future. Following its 2021 formation through the merger of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and PSA Group, the company invested billions in battery partnerships with LG Energy Solution and Samsung SDI, while planning a wide range of electric models across its brands. However, profits fell sharply during Tavares’ final year as EV sales lagged behind expectations.

The strategic shift has immediate consequences for consumers. Stellantis has cancelled or delayed several high-profile EV projects, including the Chrysler Airflow, an all-electric Ram 1500 and a low-cost electric Jeep Renegade. It has also ended production of multiple plug-in hybrids, such as the Jeep Wrangler 4xe and Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid.

1

Looking ahead, Stellantis’ remaining EV plans are more conservative. Confirmed launches for 2026 include the Jeep Recon and a range-extended Ram 1500 REV, which uses a petrol generator alongside its battery system. At the same time, the company is reintroducing combustion engines, including V8-powered Ram pickups and a petrol Dodge Charger.

Investors reacted sharply to the announcement, with Stellantis shares plunging more than 25 per cent in early trading. The reaction highlights the financial risks facing automakers as they recalibrate their electric ambitions in an increasingly uncertain market.

Chery sold 22,419 units of its Tiggo 4 small SUV in 2025 which, considering that it only launched locally in October 2024, is quite an achievement for the brand’s smallest offering. In 2026, its 2234 sales to date are already up 119.4 per cent on 2025 and it’s leading the small SUV segment. Keen value is key to the Tiggo 4’s appeal, but there is plenty more to like.

Prices for the Tiggo 4 start at $23,990 driveaway and two models are on offer: entry-level Urban and top-spec Ultimate (from $26,990 driveaway). Both are very well equipped for the money, including LED lighting, dual-zone climate control, 10.25-inch displays and a full suite of active safety kit. Find a full list of standard equipment at the end of this article.

2026 Chery Tiggo 4 pricing (driveaway):

Two drivetrains are available in the Tiggo 4 range: a 108kW 1.5-litre turbo-petrol or a 150kW 1.5-litre hybrid, with both using a CVT transmission and sending power to the front wheels.

4

The petrol engine is no powerhouse, but provides more than enough thrust for everyday life. Peak torque hits at just 1750rpm and the CVT transmission features stepped ratios for a more natural acceleration feel. Unlike most CVTs, the Tiggo 4 feels surprisingly like a regular geared transmission, and combined with the turbocharged engine, feels peppier than its main rivals. The hybrid gives more thrust, thanks to its 150kW/310Nm electric motor. It’s also more refined and quieter than the petrol model, and subtly changes between petrol and electric power.

The claimed combined fuel consumption for the petrol Tiggo 4 is 7.4L/100km with claimed CO2 emissions of 166g/km, which is higher than expected. Thankfully, the hybrid is more fuel efficient at a claimed 5.4L/100km and cleaner at 123g/km, though it does have a surprisingly steep premium over the petrol Tiggo 4. Whereas the premium for hybrid Toyotas used to be $3000, Chery charges an extra $6000 and while the hybrid is more efficient, that extra money will buy a lot of petrol.

Elsewhere on the road, the Tiggo 4 is a really comfortable and surprisingly refined small SUV with suspension that’s quite soft and excellent noise suppression. In fact, the Tiggo 4’s suspension is a bit too soft, as it comes at the expense of body control, which is too loose. Larger bumps sometimes see the Tiggo 4 taking two or three rebounds to settle.

We’d like to see the suspension made firmer so it’s not as keen to roll in corners, and would be more adept at quick lane change manoeuvres. The Tiggo 4’s steering is also quite light, so it can take a bit to adjust to how much input is needed to turn the wheels.

5

Every Tiggo 4 offers a long list of standard active safety features like lane keeping assistance, adaptive cruise control, blind-spot monitoring and driver attention monitoring. Chery has refined these systems a lot since the Tiggo 4 was first launched here and they’re now far less sensitive as a result.

The cabin of the Chery Tiggo 4 is modern, good quality and filled with useable tech that we think will appeal to small SUV shoppers. Unlike the scratchy plastics of rivals such as the Hyundai Venue, the Tiggo 4’s cabin is loaded with soft touch materials, including on the dashboard and door tops, though the liberal use of piano black trim will need effort to keep unscratched.

A 10.25-inch touchscreen handles infotainment duties in all Tiggo 4 models with wireless and wired Apple CarPlay and Android Auto smartphone mirroring and DAB+ digital radio, though no satellite navigation or live services. It’s a really easy system to use and thankfully, Chery hasn’t tried to fit every function of the car into it. The climate control is controlled with separate buttons below the screen, and there is also a line of physical buttons underneath it to aid usability.

4

Practicality is excellent for the segment in the Tiggo 4 thanks to its large door bins, huge under-console tray that can hold handbags and large box underneath the central armrest. Seat comfort is generally good as well, though lumbar adjustment on any Tiggo 4 is missing.

Move to the rear seat and the space on offer for the segment is excellent, with a lot of headroom, generous legroom and features such as a USB charging port, an air vent, map pockets, door pockets and a central armrest. Two ISOFIX and three top-tether points handle child seat duties, and the doors open wide and even feature a light to warn of incoming traffic.

The Tiggo 4’s boot measures 380 litres with the rear seats up and 1225 litres with the rear seats folded, which is large for the small SUV segment. There aren’t many features in the boot, however, just a space-saver spare and an annoying lip between the boot floor and rear seats when they’re folded.

Chery’s Australian warranty is long with a seven-year/unlimited km coverage and 12 months of roadside assistance that’s extended a further 12 months with every dealer service (up to seven years in total). The capped price servicing program lasts for the warranty length, and the first five years/75,000km of servicing costs just $1445 ($289 per service).

1

Overall, it’s easy to see why so many people have been drawn to the Chery Tiggo 4. Not only is it one of Australia’s cheapest cars, but it’s also very well equipped, good quality, practical, cheap to service, covered by a long and easy warranty program, and very easy to drive. Plus, the availability of a hybrid model also gives it consideration for those wanting better fuel economy.

Could it be small SUV sales champion in 2026? Watch this space.

Chery Tiggo 4 specifications:

Chery Tiggo 4 Urban standard features:

• 17-inch alloy wheels with a temporary spare wheel
• Dusk-sensing automatic LED headlights
• Rain-sensing automatic wipers
• Heated exterior mirrors
• Roof rails
• Keyless entry with push button start
• Cloth seat upholstery
• Synthetic leather steering wheel
• Dual-zone automatic climate control with rear vent
• Dual 10.25-inch displays
• AM/FM/DAB+ digital radio
• Wired and wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto
• Six-speaker sound system
• 3x USB charging ports
• 7x airbags
• Autonomous emergency braking
• Lane keeping assistance with lane departure warning
• Adaptive cruise control with adaptive lane guidance
• Blind-spot monitoring
• Rear cross-traffic alert (with automatic braking)
• Driver attention monitoring
• Traffic jam assist
• Traffic sign recognition with speed limit information
• Door open warning
• Auto high beam
• Front and rear parking sensors
• Reversing camera
• Anti-theft alarm
• Tyre pressure monitoring

Ultimate model adds:

• 18-inch alloy wheels
• Sunroof
• Synthetic leather upholstery
• 6-way electric driver’s seat
• Heated front seats
• Auto-folding exterior mirrors
• 15W wireless phone charger
• Colour-selectable ambient lighting
• 4x auto up/down windows

Mercedes-AMG is preparing for a major expansion of its electric line-up, confirming plans for three bespoke EVs that will sit apart from the brand’s existing AMG-tuned EQ models. The strategy marks a decisive shift for the performance arm of Mercedes-Benz, with SUVs playing a central role in its electric future.

The first of the new-generation AMG EVs will arrive later this year, effectively replacing the petrol-powered AMG GT 4-Door Coupe. Previewed by the striking GT XX concept (below), the four-door electric sedan will be the brand’s first model built from the ground up as an AMG-exclusive EV, rather than a modified Mercedes-Benz platform.

That sedan will be followed by a large electric SUV in early 2027, aimed squarely at high-performance luxury rivals such as the Porsche Cayenne. Completing the trio will be a more style-led SUV coupé, confirmed by outgoing Mercedes-AMG chief executive Michael Schiebe, with its debut pencilled in for the second half of 2027.

11

Schiebe said the decision to add an SUV coupé reflects market reality, with SUVs now accounting for more than half of AMG’s global sales. The approach mirrors AMG’s existing combustion range, where traditional SUVs and sleeker coupe-style variants are offered side by side.

All three vehicles will sit on AMG’s new AMG.EA electric architecture, developed specifically for high-performance applications. The platform features an 800-volt electrical system and a unique round-cell battery design, enabling ultra-fast charging and sustained high-output performance.

Power will come from a tri-motor configuration, with one electric motor driving the front axle and two motors at the rear. In concept form, this setup delivered outputs well beyond 750kW, signalling that AMG’s electric models will comfortably match – and potentially exceed – the performance of their V8 predecessors.

The GT XX concept also previewed some of AMG’s more extreme ideas, including advanced active aerodynamics. A recently released teaser shows a deployable rear diffuser that extends from the bumper to improve stability at high speeds, hinting at the technology that will reach production.

1

In concept guise, the electric sedan was claimed to reach speeds above 350km/h and add close to 400km of driving range in just five minutes when connected to ultra-high-speed charging infrastructure. While production figures are expected to be lower, they underline AMG’s intent to lead rather than follow in the electric performance space.

The confirmation of AMG’s electric SUV coupé comes alongside a leadership transition. Schiebe will move to head Mercedes-Benz’s Top End Vehicle Group, overseeing Maybach and G-Class, with Stefan Weckbach taking over as AMG boss from July.

First published in the September 1990 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.

Pit Straight, Mount Panorama: Four heads swivel in unison as the Holden cruises past the start/finish line at Australian motor racing’s holy of holies. The muted rumble of a hot V8 disturbs the morning calm as four pairs of eyes take in the deep red paint, the hunkered down stance, the spoilers and side skirts which give the jelly-mould VN Commodore shape a sinister, purposeful edge.

Minutes later four young blokes are huddled around the Group A, silently inspecting every angle, every curve, every detail of Holden’s latest street racer, privately wondering what it must be like to drive a car this good. Finally someone speaks: “Jeez, why did they put such bloody awful mags on it?”

1

The four stare some more, then drift back down pit lane, straight past the BMW M5 without so much as a second glance. The new Group A – this’ll be something to brag about at the pub. What they don’t know is that this is the last one Holden will ever build…

Pit Straight, Eastern Creek: KB is serious this time. He pop-pop-pops onto the rev limiter – 7400 rpm – in third over the slight crest and accelerates hard in fourth down the gentle hill, spray from the rain-slicked track eddying in his wake.

The speedo needle is nudging 210 halfway between the 200 and 100 metre markers when Bartlett mashes the brakes, then aims the BMW‘s nose at the apex of the fast, fast left hander. and accelerates hard. The M5 sweeps majestically through the corner at better than 170km/h, 3.6 litres of German precision engineering howling discreetly from somewhere up front, the chassis rock steady and perfectly balanced despite the water streaming across the track. Even as he’s hard on the brakes for the tricky late apex left hander shortly beyond, Big Rev Kev is grinning from ear to ear. His summation is succinct: “Mate, this is the best road car l’ve ever driven – close to perfect!”

Perception versus reality. Holden Commodore Group A SS versus BMW M5. An unfair comparison? Not really. Both cars rate very near the top of a very short list – that of the fastest four door sedans in the world. One is the heir apparent to the great Aussie supercar legend; a legend forged by cars like the Falcon GT and the Torana A9X, a legend made golden and shining by pub chat, politics and the passage of years. The other is an exquisitely engineered advertisement for the wealthy, powerful German car industry; a car bristling with the latest Euro-tech goodies, an iron fist in a Hugo Boss suit.

1

But can we seriously compare two cars with a $100,000 price gap? Why not. That huge price differential is largely an artifice, the result of government imposed sales taxes and import duty. Leave these aside and the M5 costs about $85,000, compared with about $46,000 for a Group A without sales tax. This is more than a just a supercar showdown. This is a clash of car-making cultures: Australia vs Germany.
In Europe the BMW’s discreet M5 badge guarantees right of passage in the fast lane among the heavy metal SL Benzes and Porsche 928s. Hand-built by BMW Motorsport outside Munich – production is limited to 2500 a year, and only 60 are destined for Australia – the M5 is the ultimate in understatement.

Under the bonnet is the most powerful BMW production engine ever built. In addition, the 5-series’ already capable underpinnings have been completely reworked by BMW Motorsport. And yet to the casual observer it looks just like any other 5-series Bee-Emm. There are no spoilers, no stripes. No boy racer theatrics whatsoever. Just a slightly deeper front spoiler, chunkier side sills, and an industrial strength dual 70mm exhaust peeking discreetly out from under a wind tunnel shaped rear valance.

Oh, and a wheel/tyre combination that at first glance looks nothing special, but on closer inspection is revealed to be trick 17 inch five spoke alloys combined with supercar standard Pirelli P700Z tyres. What look to be hub caps are in fact race style cast magnesium centres with integral turbine blades which increase the air flow to the brakes by 25 per cent.

1

Unlike the sharply subtle M5, the Group A struts and swaggers on the styreet, all spoilers, skirts and bad-ass attitude, assembled for Holden by Mr Walkinshaw’s Special Vehicles team. It’s not all image – the engine, for example, is not merely a reworked version of the VL Group A 5.0 litre, but virtually a whole new powerplant, from the sump up. A thicker stronger block casting features the four bolt main bearings of the VL version, but has been further upgraded to include larger lifter bores, timing chain guide, deeper cylinder head bolt holes and Chevrolet pattern transmission bolt holes. There are new con-rods, revised crank, new cylinder heads, new camshaft, new inlet and exhaust manifolds, new timing chain drive, new flat top pistons, new sump, and a new flywheel.

Those skirts and spoilers aren’t simply for show, either. Honed in Britain’s MIRA wind tunnel by in-house Holden stylist Mike Simcoe and Tom Walkinshaw’s TWR race engineers, they reduce the Cd of the Group A from the 0.34 of the standard VN to about 0.30 while generating real downforce front and rear. This is a carefully engineered motor car, the end product of a two-year, $20 million development program designed to put the VN Commodore on the race track. It’s also the last in a long line of Bathurst-bred street racers; after this Group A there will be no more.

The cost and complexity of meeting the Group A touring car racing homologation requirements, say Holden insiders, is now beyond the resources of local car makers. Holden is ready for new regulations in 1993 which do away with the need for cars like the Group A SS.

1

The VN Group A is unquestionably the finest performance car built in this country. But that can be interpreted as damning with faint praise. We’re talking 250km/h here, on a live rear axle and without the security of anti-lock brakes.

Meanwhile the BMW M5 comes with a big reputation and an even bigger price tag. We know it’s good. But is it that good?

Pricing and Equipment

Although at around $65,000 the VN Group A is the most expensive Commodore ever built, it sounds like bargain buying beside the $ 168,900 M5.

The Group A is well equipped, with air conditioning, power windows. power steering, electrically adjustable external mirrors, sports seats, remote central locking and alarm, and the Calais instrument pack, which includes cruise control and an excellent trip computer, offered as standard. Mind you, apart from a bit of trim and the Momo steering wheel and shift knob, it’s nothing more than you get in a V8 Calais for almost $30,000 less.

Of course the extra money buys hardware, not software. Goodies like the all-new 215kW V8, the trick six-speed ZF S6-40 gearbox and AP Racing clutch, the Goodyear Eagle 235/45ZR17 tyres and those outrageous wheels, the wind tunnel tested body kit, the monstrous SV5000 brakes, a limited-slip differential, and the completely revised suspension with Bilstein gas dampers front and rear. It doesn’t, unfortunately, buy you $30,000 more quality – underneath all the bolt-on bits the Group A is just another Commodore.

1

The M5 costs a staggering $75,000 more than a standard five-speed manual 535i. Apart from the 3.6 litre 24 valve engine, the BMW Motorsport developed suspension and brakes, the eight-inch wide alloy wheels and Pirelli P700Z tyres and the limited-slip differential, your money buys you a remote control anti-theft system and central locking, electrically operated sunroof. BMW’s excellent sports seats with the computerised three-position memory function which also automatically adjusts the external mirrors, an internal rear view mirror which dips automatically, and climate control air-con.

If you want more, BMW is happy to oblige. Full leather trim is another $10,400. The two person rear seat – standard on the initial batch of Australian cars – is $2210 extra. Other options include cruise control ($1350), a boot mounted CD changer ($1690), headlight cleaning ($1160), and a rear window blind ($510). You can also order electrically heated seats ($900), electrically adjustable rear seat headrests ($495), and 17×9 rear wheels fitted with 255/40ZR17 Pirellis ($1420). With all the fruit, your M5 costs damn near as much as a 750iL…

Performance

According to the script, this is the brawn versus brains bit, where good old Aussie muscle takes on the latest in European engine technology. In truth, the M5’s twin cam, 24 valve, 3.6 litre straight six isn’t all that new. It’s the latest development of the dry sump screamer fitted to the legendary M1 mid-engine sports car of 1978.

Nevertheless this remarkable powerplant, which develops 232kW at a dizzying 6900rpm and 360Nm at 4750rpm in its latest S38 form, has one of the highest specific outputs – 64.5kW per litre – of any normally aspirated production car engine in the world. What’s more, with the help of Bosch’s latest generation Motronic EM system the S38 also far exceeds Australia’s current emissions standards, producing seven times fewer hydrocarbons, 11 times less carbon monoxide, and 17 times fewer oxides of nitrogen.

1

And while the Group A’s specific output of just 43kW per litre is evidence of a push-rod, two valves per cylinder engine design which pre-dates that of the BMW by a decade, it is within the limitations imposed by its basic architecture, a highly developed powerplant. Maximum power of 215kW is developed at 5200rpm, while the torque peak of 411 Nm occurs at a high4800 rpm. The Group A’s torque advantage over the multi-valve M5 engine seems unexpectedly slim, until you look at the actual torque curves. Then you’ll see the home grown Holden has more than 300Nm on tap from just 1150 rpm, while the howling M5 doesn’t start to generate those sorts of numbers until at least 3100rpm.

More torque and less kerb weight – 1550 kg versus a hefty 1670 kg for the M5 – work to the Group A’s advantage over the standing 400 metres, despite significantly taller gearing. The M5’s short 3.9 final drive and 3.51 first gear slingshot it out of the blocks and to 60km/h a clear two-tenths of a second quicker than the Group A, which has a 3.45 diff and a 2.68 first gear. The M5 holds that holeshot advantage through second gear (2.08 vs 1.80) to 80km/h, but is two-tenths of a second slower to 100km/h and is eight-tenths slower to 120 km/h as all that mid-range urge and a closer third gear (1.29 vs 1.35) comes into play.

1

And the 400 metre times? The only one we’re absolutely certain of is the 14.8 seconds posted by the M5 at our regular test site. The Group A also posted a 14.8 second run, but the tight, tight schedule meant this was obtained on the main straight at Sydney’s new Eastern Creek raceway, where the last hundred metres are slightly uphill. Allowing for a quick three-four gearchange just before the finish line, we estimate the Group A should go the distance in about 14.4 secs on a pancake-flat strip.

Top speeds are largely academic – both cars will exceed Australia’s open road limit in second gear. But for what it’s worth, both the BMW and the Holden are restricted, the former by a computer chip, the latter by its gearing – to 250 km/h.

1

In theory, the M5 could pull 263km/h in top; the Group A, 375 km/h. No, that’s not a misprint. But while the Group A will run to the redline in fifth, a genuine two-five-oh, not even five litres of V8 torque is enough to pull much over 3500 rpm against the moonshot (0.50) sixth gear.

Fuel Consumption

Neither car will be especially cheap to run, if for no other reason than the fact oil companies charge a premium price for 95 octane premium unleaded fuel. With a 90 litre tank in the M5 and an 86 litre tank in the Group A, you can farewell 70 bucks at refill time.

Our time in the Group A was extremely limited, and the only directly comparable fuel figures with the BMW were obtained during a hard, fast 3am blast through central-western NSW. That the M5 proved more economical came as no surprise; that the Group A was not far behind did. In the final analysis the M5 averaged 19.4 litres/100km, compared with the 19.8 L/100 km consumed by the Group A. A further 700 km of mixed highway cruising, flat out track work and city driving in the M5 saw a worst of 18.2 L/100km and a best of 10.5 L/100km.

1

On balance the BMW is the more economical but not by much. The Group A’s better low end torque means you use fewer revs around town, and that long sixth gear enables you to cruise at 100km/h on the freeway with the big V8 ticking over at a paltry 1450rpm.

On the road

Things that go bump in the night: we pop over the crest at 180 and the lights flash across the yellow advisory sign pointing to a wicked dropaway left hander – 55 km/h. It’s hard on the brakes and back two gears, the big Commodore squirming over the humps and hollows in the road surface.

The nose dives straight for the apex quickly, cleanly, precisely – the moment the leather-clad Momo is pulled off centre. We’re right on the clipping point, hard on the gas and damn! There’s a bloody great lump in the road.

1

The front wheel thumps and tugs slightly at the steering wheel. The impact is somehow softer than expected, a tribute to the 40 different Bilstein damper combinations tested by Holden engineers before deciding on the Group A’s final specification, and the greater rolling radius of the massive 17 inch tyres. Then the inside rear wheel hits and geometry takes over. The Group A bucks sideways as the back axle is pitched into the air and steers the outside wheel. It’s quickly caught with a touch of opposite lock and a bootful of throttle.

But in the M5 a couple of minutes later, on the same line through the same closed-road corner at the same speed, all that happens is a muted thump-thump from the huge Pirelli tyres.

This is the fundamental dynamic difference between the two cars. Quite simply, the Holden’s archaic live rear axle is no match for the BMW’s independent rear end. But to leave it there is to sell the M5 short.
The BMW is superbly balanced; to the point where our resident race tester Kevin Bartlett pronounced it perfect after several hot laps at a cold and wet Eastern Creek.

1

That balance complements an outstanding chassis with beautiful-formidable accurate steering, 315mm disc brakes all round which are vented, cross drilled, ABS modulated and absolutely fail-safe. Adding to this is a smooth, slick five-speed transmission, roadholding and traction, especially in the wet, set new standards for a two-wheel drive car. On top of that, the ride quality and noise suppression achieved by BMW, in a car running 45 seres tyres and sports suspension, is nothing short of remarkable. Yes, it’s firmer and noisier than a standard 5-series. But not by much.

Next to the BMW the Group A feels and sounds like a car from another age. It crashes and thumps, rattles and roars. All three pilot-build Group As we drove suffered from excessive, unacceptable gearbox noise, the common VN Commodore problem of the doors squeaking on the rubbers and, of course, the inherent coarseness induced by the live rear end. Although not in the same class as the M5, the VN Group A is a huge improvement over its VL predecessor. It’s quieter through the air, rides exceptionally well considering its 45 series tyres and firmer suspension settings, and handles better, being far more precise and better balanced. But you can’t escape its humble origins, and in the final analysis the VN body simply isn’t as structurally secure a platform as the drum-tight BMW 5-series shell.

1

In reality, there’s not much between the two in terms of point to point speed over any given stretch of road. But the M5 is a lot easier on the driver. The transient responses of the steering and brakes are smoother, more fluid; the gearshift is more precise. It’s a car you guide smoothly with a deft hand, not take by the scruff of the neck and fling at the corners – so much so that it feels deceptively slow at first.
By contrast the Commodore feels a lot more sudden in its responses and the rear axle steer means you’re constantly making corrections through the wheel.

1

You drive this car all the time, not merely steer it. The brakes – a massive 330mm front, 280mm rear, developed locally by Holden Special Vehicles in conjunction with Brake and Clutch Industries – feel every bit as strong as the M5’s, but the lack of ABS is a worry on greasy surfaces. The wide ratio six-speed gearbox offers no practical advantage beyond pottering along flat freeways in top to conserve fuel, and suffers from an annoying vagueness in the gate, the result of not enough weight bias in the three/four plane.

Interior

Neither car is startlingly different inside from its cooking cousins. If you order the standard five seat M5, the only clue to its performance potential is the superb leather-bound M-Technik steering wheel. Oh, and the slightly redesigned instrument cluster, which features a 300 km/h speedo…

1

The Group A’s dash is standard Calais fare, which gives you all the instrumentation necessary, but does little to enhance the go-faster image. Seats are very comfortable and supportive, but the M5 offers the better driver environment overall. The layout of the M5’s controls is ergonomically efficient, and enhanced by little extras like the memory in the electrically adjustable seats which also takes into account your exterior mirror settings, and the internal rear view which dips automatically at night.
The Commodore’s the roomier of the two. Rear seat legroom in the M5 is surprisingly tight, but your passengers can count themselves lucky you didn’t buy a Ferrari instead.

The Verdict

And that’s the bottom line – the M5 is the nearest thing yet to a four door Ferrari, combining exoticar performance, braking and roadholding, with the comfort and practicality of a top quality sedan. No other full four/five seater comes close, at any price.

Make no mistake – the VN Group A SS is fast. Bloody fast. And yet the legend which created this ultimate Commodore has also trapped it in a technological time warp. The VN Group A exists, live axle and all, not because it is the best Australia can do, but because Holden wants to win that one race of the year at Mt Panorama. It might be next year’s race car. But on the road it’s already yesterday’s hero…

1

What it needs is an independent rear axle, ABS brakes, the Caprice’s level of noise suppression, a decent base coat/clear coat paint finish and quality cabin furnishings. Buyers are entitled to that for $60,000. Until they get it the Group A road car will remain – on the world scene anyway-a terrific silk purse job performed on a sow’s ear.

The BYD Shark 6 line-up is set to expand in Australia with a more powerful variant likely to hit showrooms before the end of the year.

Australian Government approval documents, sighted by Whichcar by Wheels, reveal that a new, more powerful 2.0-litre turbocharged engine and increased braked towing capacity of 3500kg are the headline acts in what is likely to be the range-topping Shark 6 plug-in hybrid dual-cab ute in Australia.

1

According to the Government’s vehicle approval documents, the beefier Shark 6’s 2.0-litre engine outputs 180kW at 5000rpm, an increase over the incumbent 1.5-litre turbo which makes 135kW @ 5000rpm.

Additionally, the front electric motor has been beefed up to 200kW (up from 170kW) while the rear electric motor remains unchanged at 150kW. Total system outputs have increased by 24kW, now rated at 345kW.

The government documents detail an increased braked towing capacity, now rated at 3500kg. The current Australian Shark 6 line-up is only rated to tow 2500kg, braked.

1

However, the bigger – and almost certainly, heavier – 2.0-litre engine has come at a cost to payload, down to 762kg against the current Shark 6 Premium’s 825kg. Gross Vehicle Mass remains unchanged at 3500kg.

It’s likely the new model and its uprated power and towing capacities will be priced above the current BYD Shark 6 Premium, the only variant currently available in Australia. It’s priced from $57,900 before on-road costs.

Amazon’s Prime Video has announced that The Grand Tour, the show created by former Top Gear hosts Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May, will return in 2026 with a new set of hosts. Last on our screens in 2024 with the original trio’s last feature film trip to Africa, The Grand Tour will now be presented by Francis Bourgeois, Thomas Holland and James Engelsman.

The former is known for his train-spotting and car videos, while the latter two run Throttle House, a Canadian automotive YouTube channel currently with 3.35 million subscribers.

The latest season of The Grand Tour will feature six episodes and see the trio travel around the world to explore car culture, including Malaysia with the Nissan 350Z shown in the image released by Prime Video, the Mocamedes Desert in Africa with off-road racers and muscle cars in Southern California.

1

In addition to the announcement from Prime Video, former host Jeremy Clarkson released a video in which he goes over the resumes of people who have applied for the role on the revamped show.

Commenting on the new series, the trainspotting TikToker Bourgeois said: “The saying ‘big shoes to fill’ spring to mind. Well, in this case it’ll be like Mo Farah running in Size 14 wellies – it’ll be a little awkward at first, perhaps blister inducing, but will overall be an interesting watch.”

Engelsman pointed to that he has worked with Thomas for a decade making films about cars, and joked: “Who knew that all this time, the one ingredient that was missing was a Francis Bourgeois? Let the car adventures commence.”

The new series of The Grand Tour launches globally across more than 240 countries and territories on Prime Video later this year.