Which brand has the best hybrid ute? We found out

We now have a trio of plug-in hybrid utes to choose from in Australia, after the recent introduction of the Ford Ranger PHEV. The other two amigos – the BYD Shark 6 and GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV – have been busy carving out a new segment-within-a-segment of Australia’s ever-popular ute landscape.

While some are skeptical about electrified and new powertrain options, the BYD in particular shows there is the possibility of great sales to be had here if the buying public sees value in the proposition. It’s the only one of these three that is PHEV only, and it’s the cheapest by some margin.

The other two utes in this three-way comparison not only have to compete with the broader range of utes in the segment (of which there are many), but also with their own more conventionally powered brethren. While the Ford Ranger comes with four-cylinder and V6 diesel power, the GWM Cannon Alpha can also be had with a closed-loop petrol hybrid or four-cylinder diesel powertrain options.

So while we want to explore the strengths and weaknesses of each of these utes in comparison to each other, we also want to look at how this burgeoning technology compares to the current status quo of diesel power in four-wheel-drive utes and ask the simple question: should your next ute be a plug-in hybrid?

Despite being the most expensive option of the three utes in this comparison, the Ford Ranger PHEV XLT packs the smallest punch in terms of standard equipment and niceties.

Of course, you can opt for a trim level higher up the ladder in the Ranger PHEV, with options including Sport, Wildtrak and Stormtrak, but that price differential will only blow out to be even bigger.

As it stands, the $71,990 plus on-road costs means the Ranger hybrid has a circa-$5000 premium over the GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV Ultra, and a huge $14,090 disparity over the BYD Shark.

The XLT certainly feels more like a basic work ute, where cloth seats with manual adjustment grates against the faux leather, partial leather and electric adjustment of the other two.

Another interesting point here is that the Ranger is the smallest ute of the three, in terms of length and width, which is something you notice in the cabin. Against the regular range of utes, a Ranger is typically amongst the largest. But the tables have been turned here.

Otherwise, it’s typical Ford Ranger fare. There’s a good portrait-style infotainment display (with the larger 12-inch unit here) with a storage nook below, twin cupholders and decent-sized centre console. The storage shelf in front of the passenger is handy, but this trim level misses out on the additional pop-out cupholders of higher trim levels.

There’s a pleasing and easy-to-use blend of physical control and actual buttons, along with a blend of mostly scratchy and hard plastics through the central area. Compared to the other two utes in terms of materials and presentation, the Ranger feels the most basic and ute-like. But, it does work well from a practicality point of view.

Getting halogen headlights in this trim level – compared to LED units in a diesel XLT Ranger – deserves a callout as being below muster at this price point, and being significantly outgunned by the projector-style LEDs in the other two utes. It also has only a reversing camera compared to a 360-degree camera in the other utes.

We’ve got the GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV with the up-specced Ultra trim level, which does make it the most comprehensively equipped ute out of these three. On top of things like a 360-degree camera system, LED headlights and tail-lights, a dual-zone climate-control system and faux leather-trimmed seats, the price jump from the $59,990 Lux up to $66,990 plus on-road costs does bring a fair chunk of extra equipment.

Currently, the Cannon Alpha PHEV Ultra costs $64,490 drive-away, and this price is expected to last until October 2025.

Its kit includes a locking front differential, dual-purpose ‘barn-door’ style tailgate on the outside and upsized 14.6-inch infotainment system on the inside. Seats get heating, ventilation, memory and massaging on top of the faux leather and electric adjustment, and there’s also a 10-speaker sound system and head-up display.

It keeps going, though, with electric adjustment, heating and ventilation for the second row, as well as an electric rear window. There are wireless charging pads front and rear, interior ambient lighting and a heated steering wheel.

Having the longest wheelbase of the three utes does permit lots of interior space in the Cannon Alpha PHEV, with a second row that feels particularly commodious and comfortable (aside from all of the bells and whistles). And while the incredibly fake-looking timber-esque trims on the dashboard look a bit chintzy, there is an upmarket and quality feel to the interior of the Cannon Alpha. It feels well made also, with little in the way of squeaks, rattles or looseness.

Buttons feel quality and provide some level of easy control for your basic functions (including seat heating and ventilation), but a volume dial is clearing missing from the mix. Cupholders are buried within the centre console, obscured by a sliding tray and are a little awkward to access. Further forward, a nicely damped piano black lid reveals only room for a wireless charging pad.

And if you can’t find charging points from the driver’s seat, look down near your inside shin.

Even though the BYD Shark 6 is far and away the cheapest of these three options in its single trim level at $57,900, it’s still quite good for standard equipment. Do note, BYD is offering $4000 cashback until August 31, 2025, to take it to around $57,000 drive-away, inclusive of the deal.

The 15.6-inch infotainment display is huge, can rotate between portrait and landscape, and is backed up by a 10.25-inch digital instrument cluster and head-up display. There’s a 12-speaker sound system, dual-zone climate control and wireless charging pad.

Front seats here get electric adjustment, heating and ventilation, and feel a little broad and wide in this company. They are quite comfortable, and the cabin overall feels well made and smartly laid out. Although, a lot of basic functionality does run through the big infotainment display, which can be frustrating as you get your bearings.

There are some controls available through the range of buttons and dials around the gear shifter – along with a volume dial – but it could be better in our opinion.

The centre console – where you find your power outlets – will swallow up a lot of gear, and the deep shelf in front of the passenger is also useful.

Save for a few splashes of an orangey copper colour, the interior of the Shark is mostly flat black. However, materials and build quality feel good overall.

The size of the Shark 6 benefits the second row, where you’ll find more space than what’s available in a Ford Ranger. It’s more similar to the GWM Cannon Alpha in this regard, and something that would no doubt benefit family buyers. There is good space here, along with the requisite air vents, top-tether points and power outlets (including a 240-volt household-style plug).

For those wanting to get some one-on-one time, then do some research on your nearest dealer at the respective websites: Ford, BYD and GWM all have dealership finding tools online.

And if you’re chasing the latest news on utes in the Australian market, follow this link.

None of these four-wheel-drive utes have what I would call a small screen, with all of them packing double-digits’ worth of overall inches. They’re all well stacked in terms of equipment as well, with Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, native navigation and digital radio. They all have a companion app available, which opens up the ability to do remote connectivity and controls around location, climate controls and monitoring your vitals.

It’s the BYD Shark 6 that goes the biggest at 15.6 inches, dominating a large portion of the dashboard with its size. It can rotate between portrait and landscape orientations, which is a cool trick that I only used a couple of times before forgetting about.

The operating system is good, once you understand where some of the nooks and crannies your favourite functions may be hiding in. The common malaise of not having many buttons is clear here, so doing things like seat heating and ventilation – as well as controlling your air direction and temperature – is more fiddly than it could otherwise be.

The BYD gets bonus points for having an on-board microphone system, however, even though it is currently missing the required microphone. But, minus points for randomly turning off once during driving – leaving me with a blank screen – and taking a while to reboot.

The GWM Cannon Alpha gets a slightly smaller screen at 14.6 inches, which does have good brightness and clarity. It is also working overtime to cover the shortage of physical buttons available, and some of the translations from the native tongue into English is clunky and tricky to decipher.

This system does have a lot of functionality that needs to be discovered, which takes time to learn. But once you’ve figured things out, it’s pretty good. There’s a lot of battery-related functionality here, as well as adjustments to the driving experience.

Having a swipe-down menu from the top of the screen is a handy shortcut for some common requirements (including turning off lane-keep assistance).

The Ford Ranger – with the smallest screen at 12.0 inches – still provides plenty of acreage by modern standards, and provides an operating system that is simpler and more straightforward to use overall. We’ve had historical issues with Apple CarPlay connections in the Ranger, but my time on Android Auto worked well.

This system here only has six speakers – the BYD has double that – but it does have an impressively integrated ‘Pro Power on Board’ page that has an easy-to-use interface and clean look that can monitor outputs better than the other two utes.

Otherwise, there is an ease and simplicity to the Ranger’s set-up, which is helped by the run of physical controls lower down for your basic controls of volume and air conditioning.

Both the BYD Shark and GWM Cannon Alpha have a five-star ANCAP safety rating from recent testing, and in the case of the GWM it is agnostic of which powertrain is under the bonnet.

However, the Ford Ranger’s five-star ANCAP safety rating – which dates back to 2022 – doesn’t include the 2.3-litre turbocharged petrol hybrid model (nor the Raptor). This is interesting when considering the Volkswagen Amarok (which has the same 2.3-litre engine without the hybrid stuff in one trim level) does get a five-star rating across all models.

The BYD Shark 6 gets an 85 per cent crash rating for adult occupants and 87 per cent for child occupants, which compares to 84 per cent and 93 per cent respectively for the GWM.

The Shark 6 also gets an 86 per cent score for the on-board safety systems and 74 per cent for vulnerable road users (pedestrians), compared to 81 and 82 per cent respectively for the GWM.

It’s not entirely surprising to see that the BYD Shark is the cheapest of these three utes to service, owing to its smallest engine and less complicated powertrain that lacks differentials, transmissions or transfer cases.

Three years of servicing at $1215 averages out at $405 per year, which is cheap for a vehicle of this size and nature. Five years bumps that average up to $497.80 per year on average, which is normal. This car also has longer intervals, giving you 20,000km of range between services compared to 15,000km for the other two utes.

At the other end of the scale is the GWM Cannon Alpha, which is the most expensive in terms of costs. Three years at $1610 averages out at $536 per year, bumping up to $614 per year after five years. The Ford Ranger is close, with $1425 averaging at $475 per year (over three years). It works out cheaper over the longer term, however, with a lower $462 average over five years.

What’s important to point out here is that outright fuel efficiency – putting the spurious claims put forward by the manufacturers aside – depends mostly upon the state of charge and driving characteristics of the driver.

They’re all capable of doing zero litres per 100 kilometres. Provided that you don’t bury the foot too hard or go too far, of course. The GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV can do this the longest thanks to the largest fuel tank and biggest battery.

On the other end of the scale, you’re looking at three utes that use similar amounts of fuel at a lower state of charge. The BYD Shark 6 seems to be the most efficient of these three, using around 8.5L/100km when unladen and at the lowest state of battery charge (25 per cent).

The Ford Ranger is next in line, using around 9.5L/100km when the battery range is indicating zero. The GWM Cannon Alpha appears to be the least efficient – perhaps due to being the heaviest of the three – by using around 10.5L/100km.

Let’s start with the BYD Shark, because there are clear benefits to a plug-in hybrid ute that side-steps the traditional driveline components. In comparison to the other two utes, the Shark is responsive and smooth, with plenty of punch and performance available through a prod of the pedal.

It’s electric-first, don’t forget. When the petrol engine chimes in below highway speeds, it’s only to act as a generator to pump amps back into the battery pack. It can rev high and hard, especially when working hard at a lower state of battery charge. It’s certainly unrefined and disconcerting, as the 1.5-litre engine revs to the moon at times.

Matching the potent performance is a suspension set-up (with independent suspension all-round) that is tied down and controls the body well; it feels quite car-like overall. Albeit, a big and heavy car.

The Shark 6 feels confident through the corners and drives well no doubt, but all of that stiffness does yield a relatively jiggly and stiff ride quality.

The GWM Cannon Alpha has the benefit of a smoother, more supple ride quality using a coil-sprung live axle at the rear. This is different to the leaf suspension you get in a non-PHEV Cannon Alpha, and it’s got to do with packaging up all of that battery into the tail end of the ute.

The relatively long wheelbase helps here, but the ride quality does feel good. It’s matched to a slower and more sedate steering feel than the other utes, and the Cannon Alpha PHEV is perhaps slightly less confident through the corners. But there isn’t a lot in it, and the long wheelbase and most weight mean this Cannon Alpha feels the least nimble.

The big difference compared to the Shark 6, and feeling more in line with the Ford Ranger, is the operation of the powertrain and combination of petrol and electric power. Electric-only driving can be done here, and there’s ample performance available through the single electric motor for regular driving.

The Ford Ranger, on the other hand, is faster to see petrol power kick in under heavier loads (like going up a hill) or faster acceleration.

Both utes don’t have a perfectly seamless blend of electric and petrol power, occasionally shunting through the transmission as power is mixed together. It’s mostly smooth, however, and you’ll notice that the Ranger will still run through the gears in full electric mode.

Once you’re under throttle, performance is smooth and predictable, and the petrol engine in both utes is able to chime in and out smoothly.

In terms of outright performance, you can feel the additional level of punch available in the Cannon Alpha PHEV overall. However, it does seem to take a little longer to come online. The performance of the Ranger – which feels close to what you get in a diesel-powered Ranger overall – is a little more responsive.

The Ranger steers and drives mostly in a similar way to a regular Ranger, which is good news. Albeit, with a bit less noise to contend with. It feels good through the ride quality and steering, and is enjoyable through corners (for a ute).

It’s strange to talk about the Ranger feeling the smallest of the three in this comparison, but it is exactly that, and it feels like it from behind the wheel. There is a sense of nimbleness here, which is also strange to say.

Off-road, there is a two-speed economy happening in this three-way comparison. The GWM Cannon Alpha and Ford Ranger – unsurprising considering their mechanical similarities – are close to each other.

However, they still have their clear differences.

In our testing, the GWM Cannon Alpha had the ascendancy thanks to a few reasons. A longer wheelbase can often be beneficial in a test like this, giving more stability and less of a flip-flopping feeling as it climbs up and through the ruts.

The fact it has twin locking differentials is a far-and-away advantage between the other two utes here, and the coil-sprung rear suspension (pinched from the Tank 500, by the way) seems to work well.

And while locking differentials are always wonderful things to have in an off-road vehicle, the off-road traction-control system in the Cannon Alpha (when you are in low-range) is fast to react and smart in its control of wheelspin and maintaining traction. 

Por que no los dos? While four-wheel drivers often talk about whether locking differentials or an effective off-road traction-control system is better, having both at your disposal in this case is – literally – the best of both worlds.

The Ford Ranger seemed to have a little more wheel slip and a higher-revving attitude to this hill climb in comparison to the GWM. The wheelbase here is slightly shorter, and the leaf-sprung rear end feels perhaps a little less supple when unladen.

There’s only one locking differential here, and while the off-road traction-control system doesn’t seem to be as slick as what you get in the Cannon Alpha, it’s still a helpful addition here (which works in concert with the locking rear differential). 

It’s also worth pointing out there would be other scenarios where the Ranger would feel better, owing mostly to being a little smaller and lighter, with a tighter turning circle and greater sense of nimbleness.

The third amigo here is the BYD Shark, which also seems to be the most contentious. It’s mechanically different in terms of its layout of electric, petrol and combined hybrid power, and has some problems because of that. 

Firstly, there is no available gear reduction here, beyond the single-speed reduction that all electric cars have with an electric motor. It’s unclear what that ratio is, but it’s nowhere near what you can get through the combined reduction of a transmission, transfer case and differential. 

Secondly – and on that point – no transfer case means you’re missing out on low-speed control as well as torque multiplication. 

Many pundits were wondering whether the advent of electric drive would spell the end of old-fashioned low-range, but that certainly is not the case yet. 

Armed with a few different off-road driving modes (we found Mountain to be the best), the Shark 6 clearly struggled in its attempt up the same steep, rutted climb we often use. While available power is not the problem, it appears to be more with torque at the wheels.

And specifically, controlled torque at the wheels with an adept traction-control system seems to be what is missing.

The BYD gets off on the wrong foot in this company with a lower braked towing capacity in comparison to the other two utes. And to follow on with that figure, the gross combination mass (GCM) is lower as well.

But it has to be said that none of these utes really reset any overall benchmark for towing performance. Performance is good when batteries are full, but it’s noticeably blunted when the battery drops down.

For the Shark 6, the petrol engine revs mercilessly and with an apparent disregard for its own health. Once you hitch up a caravan, the petrol engine stays on 100 per cent of the time and aims to get the battery up to at least a 70 per cent level.

But if you’ve used up a lot of your battery overnight while camping, for example, and start towing with a heavy trailer up a long, steep hill – I’m not confident in the ability of the Shark 6 to maintain a 100 per cent duty cycle.

This is less of a problem for the Cannon Alpha PHEV and Ranger PHEV, which can revert to being driven directly through the internal combustion powertrain. These utes also keep the petrol engine on when towing to juice up the battery, but also for direct motivation.

Towing a trailer – like the 2.4-tonne unit we had – was quick to use up battery capacity, however, and leave the petrol engine mostly fighting for itself. For the Ranger and Cannon Alpha, you’ll get better and more predictable performance overall from a diesel-powered ute.

While having the largest battery out of this three has an obvious advantage for on-board power supplies, the GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV is held back by the awkward adoption of a plug-in powerboard that goes into the charging port of the vehicle, similar to the vehicle-to-load set-up you see in other hybrids and EVs.

It’s not as neat, isn’t very weather-sealed, and cannot be plugged in on the move.

The Ford Ranger and BYD Shark in comparison have dedicated power points with weathersealing in the tub, as well as power points in the second row of the cabin.

The BYD has the advantage of three power outlets in the back, whereas the Ranger only has two. However, the Ranger has the advantage of providing higher-output 15-amp outlets (for the tray outlet) compared to 10-amp points for the Shark and Cannon Alpha.

While kilowatt-hour measurements make sense from the EV point of view, let’s put some relevance into the story about how these batteries work as a generator or stationary power source.

That 11.8kWh for the Ranger PHEV – the smallest of the three – works out to be 983 amp hours of 12V power, or almost 10 of your regular auxiliary deep-cycle batteries. Going to almost 30kWh for the Shark 6 boosts that number up to 2465 amp hours (nearly 25 batteries), while the Cannon Alpha PHEV has the equivalent of nearly 3100 amp hours (or 31 batteries).

Whereas the Ford Ranger PHEV could run a power-hungry 1800-watt mitre saw or chainsaw continuously for 6.5 hours, the Shark and Cannon Alpha will go for around 16.5 hours and 20.5 hours respectively.

Look at something more efficient, like a 110-litre upright fridge, for example, with a 70-watt draw, and the Ranger is good for about seven days. The Shark 6 can go for two weeks and three days, while the Cannon Alpha could go for three weeks and a day.

Of course, all of these figures are approximate and don’t take into account peak draw moments and cycling loads, nor does it take into account the additional power draw that comes from the rest of the ute being switched on (which, it needs to be).

This new technology is fascinating for the ute, and pulls these already stretched vehicle types in yet another direction. Already forced to be a comfortable and modern family vehicle while maintaining utility and off-road credentials, they are now being asked to be a part-time EV.

What’s clear is that – for the Cannon Alpha and Ranger, at least – diesel power is cheaper, lighter and ultimately more effective at doing the core roles. The on-board power supply is interesting and appealing, but I wonder about how much buyers would actually use these features every day in order to justify it.

Overall, the Ford Ranger feels good and, in one way, the least compromised out of the three. But that’s for the simple fact that it has the smallest battery and least amount of electrification. And it’s also got the problem of having a relatively sky-high price and basement-level standard equipment.

The cheapest is the BYD Shark 6, which is quite interesting and feels like excellent value for money. It’s the fastest and smoothest, but has serious off-road compromises that need to be considered. If you want a ute that doesn’t really do any hard work, then the Shark 6 is for you.

And that leaves the GWM Cannon Alpha PHEV, which is priced in the mid-range of these three, but also has the biggest battery, most equipment, and longest driving range for both EV and combined power sources. It feels great off-road and works well for families, but has the spare wheel in an awkward position overall. Plus, only having power available through a plug-in powerboard feels like a big oversight.

Saying it wins by default is too mean, but this ute (like the others) still has some obvious compromises that buyers need to consider.