Hyundai iLoad VS Mitsubishi Triton
Hyundai iLoad
Likes
Dislikes
Mitsubishi Triton
Likes
Dislikes
Summary
Hyundai iLoad
The current generation iLoad was launched in 2008. With only minor upgrades during its first decade on sale, it was recently given its first facelift with a new grille design plus new comfort and convenience features.
These updates don't change the fact that the iLoad is now stretching beyond the usual 10-year generational lifespan for LCV models, yet it continues to generate strong sales in a softening market.
It currently commands more than 23 per cent of the mid-size (2.5 to 3.5 tonne) commercial van segment, topped only by Toyota's dominant HiAce with a 33 per cent market share. The closest competitor behind the iLoad is Ford's Transit Custom with only 11 per cent.
We recently spent a week with the iLoad, to find out why this venerable Korean workhorse maintains its popularity in a mid-size van market packed with hungry competitors.
| Safety rating | |
|---|---|
| Engine Type | 2.5L turbo |
| Fuel Type | Diesel |
| Fuel Efficiency | 8.8L/100km |
| Seating | 3 seats |
Mitsubishi Triton
So, you’re looking for a dual-cab ute. You want something that can do it all. Tough, family friendly, and right in the sweet spot when it comes to price.
You’re also looking for something a little different to Australia’s two favourites, the Ford Ranger and Toyota HiLux. Maybe you find them too expensive, maybe you find them too popular, or maybe you find the HiLux too old and the Ranger too digital.
For this test, we’ve grabbed the next two down in terms of popularity. Both are built by Japanese automakers in Thailand, and both have a reputation for being as tough as they come.
Read more about
- Beefed-up ute approved for Australia: Isuzu D-Max Blade gets Walkinshaw treatment to take on the Toyota HiLux GR Sport, Nissan Navara Warrior and maybe even Ford Ranger Raptor
- Iconic badges to return? Mitsubishi Lancer and Montero nameplates trademarked in the US suggest Nissan Patrol twinned Pajero and Nissan Leaf relation are coming
- Will the new 2025 Kia Tasman ute be a hit? We examine whether newcomers such as the BYD Shark plug-in hybrid ute can match the might of the Ford Ranger and Toyota HiLux | Analysis
On the one hand, we’ve got the new-generation Mitsubishi Triton in GLS form, and on the other, we’ve got the facelifted Isuzu D-Max in LS-U+ form. Both are well-equipped dual-cabs in 4x4 form which sit second from the top of their respective ranges.
Will we be able to crown one a winner for work, play, and family duties? Read on to find out.
| Safety rating | |
|---|---|
| Engine Type | 3.0L turbo |
| Fuel Type | Diesel |
| Fuel Efficiency | 8L/100km |
| Seating | 5 seats |
Verdict
Hyundai iLoad8/10
The iLoad remains one of the most competent all-rounders in the business. This highlights the excellence of its original design, as it hasn't changed much since it launched here more than a decade ago.
However, it's starting to show its age a bit, particularly in terms of safety compared to HiAce and Transit Custom rivals which have aggressively raised the mid-size van benchmark to a five-star standard that rivals most sedans and SUVs.
We hope Hyundai will soon do the same with the iLoad, because apart from increasingly outdated safety it's pretty hard to fault. We're sure its army of loyal customers would agree.
Mitsubishi Triton/10
It’s a tough test for two tough utes, which are more evenly matched than we first expected. It’s clear both also make great alternatives to the HiLux or Ranger.
The Triton’s asking price is more affordable. It has solid ownership terms as well as a sleek, modern, and spacious cabin. It also has a higher payload and a handful of additional safety kit. On value (and our scoring system) alone, it’s hard not to award it the win.
However, this doesn’t make the D-Max a loser by any stretch. It impressed in areas I didn’t expect. Its cabin is more comfortable even though it doesn’t feel as big. It boasts a better ride quality and faster, smoother power delivery when compared to the Triton. After our rigorous testing, it was the ute I subjectively preferred driving home in at the end of the day.
 | Triton GLS 4x4 | D-Max LS-U+ 4x4 |
Price and specs | 8 | 7 |
Practicality | 8 | 7 |
Design | 8 | 7 |
Engine and transmission | 7 | 8 |
Fuel consumption | 7 | 7 |
Driving | 7 | 8 |
Safety | 9 | 8 |
Ownership | 9 | 8 |
Final score | 7.9 | 7.5 |
Design
Hyundai iLoad
The iLoad is 5150mm long, 1920mm wide and 1935mm high with a 3200mm wheelbase. That height means it can access underground and multi-storey carparks, in which it's also easy to manoeuvre with a relatively compact 11.22-metre turning circle.
No doubt a big factor in the rear-wheel drive iLoad's enduring appeal is its simplicity and ruggedness, combining MacPherson strut front suspension with rack and pinion steering, leaf-spring live rear axle and four-wheel disc brakes. A sliding door on each side of the cargo hold come standard. The large tailgate window, equipped with a wiper/washer and demister, provides the rear-view mirror with a relatively clear picture of what's behind even with the cargo barrier and clear plastic covering on it.
The cabin environment is bright and airy with a tasteful mix of light and dark grey surfaces. The light grey cloth seats with their colourful striped inserts look sharp but we reckon they would also show some grime pretty quickly in a working role.
Our only criticisms are that, like the new HiAce, there's no fold-down inboard armrest for the driver. We don't know why Australia's top two mid-size vans do not have this simple feature, because it's standard issue in numerous rivals and creates a more relaxed driving position.
Our other gripe is the centre passenger seat, which shares the outer passenger's base cushion but has a separate backrest which can be rotated forward through 90 degrees to reveal a handy storage tray and dual drink holder on the back of it.
However, passenger comfort and safety are compromised as the seat is too narrow for an adult, the backrest has no head restraint, there's very limited leg room and only a lap seat-belt. And to make matters worse, the belt's buckle digs firmly into your right butt cheek when it's clicked in. This ‘seat' should be for emergency use only and, if you must, only for short distances.
Mitsubishi Triton
Both versions of these utes arrived this year, one a new-generation, the other a facelift.
We’re straying into subjective territory as always with design, but to me the Triton gets an advantage. Clearly its latest generation has been cause for a blank canvas redesign, and the result is a much more contemporary looking vehicle from the outside.
Its light profile, imposing width and wheel stance, as well as its tidy body panels make it stand out from the crowd, particularly at its price point. Sure, it doesn’t have the brash American appeal of the Ranger, but it looks more modern than the facelifted D-Max on this test at any rate.
On the inside it continues its modern look and feel, and also features plenty of clever little design touches to push Mitsubishi’s diamond theme. This is reflected in surprising places, like the knurling on the volume dial or reflected in the headrests of the seats. The cabin feels spacious and wide, and is brightened up a bit with a tasteful smatter of silver in the cool bar-style vents. It also features bright and sharp screens with decent if uninspired software.
Meanwhile the D-Max stays the course for this update with a slightly more aggressive treatment in its grille and rear light clusters. Its overall visage is one of a conservative ute which plays it quite safe in terms of design queues. It does keep with the tough reputation of the D-Max badge, but in my opinion runs the risk of feeling a little dated with so many newer-looking options on the market, ranging from its Triton rival here to the Ranger and VW Amarok.
This tough but rugged theme continues on the inside, with a few redeeming features that may surprise you. On the whole it’s a bit of a greyscale space with plenty of hard plastics, but there are soft-touch surfaces in all the right places which offer a bit more sponge than those in the Triton. It also manages to maintain Isuzu’s current hexagonal design motif, which is reflected in the wheel, buttons, dash cluster and even the seats.Â
For this update the D-Max also has an improved software suite, although it’s still a bit clumsy in terms of its layout compared to the simple menus in the Triton.
Which seats are better for spending time in? Despite its more rugged appeal, I was surprised to find the D-Max had the better of the two seats simply because you sink into them more. Even the leather trim on its steering wheel is softer and nicer to hold.
Do we have a winner? Despite the D-Max proving to be quite comfortable, in terms of aesthetics and providing a modern, spacious cabin, it’s the Triton.
Practicality
Hyundai iLoad
The iLoad's 2062kg kerb weight and 3160kg GVM results in a genuine one tonne-plus payload rating of 1098kg and up to 125kg of that can be carried on roof racks. It's also rated to tow up to 1500kg of braked trailer and with a GCM rating of 4660kg (or how much you can legally carry and tow at the same time), that means you can do it at maximum GVM.
In other words, it can legally carry more than a tonne while towing 1.5 tonnes. Those numbers make the iLoad a very practical and versatile workhorse, well suited to a variety of trades and other working roles beyond the usual delivery chores.
The cargo hold, with its 2375mm length, 1620mm width and 1340mm height, offers a total load volume exceeding 4.4 cubic metres and is accessed through sliding doors on each side or via the single-lift tailgate. The load floor with its protective vinyl mat has a total of 10 load anchorage points.
There's no full-length roof lining like the new HiAce but the cargo hold walls and doors are lined to hip height and there's one internal light at the rear. The load floor length and 1272mm between the rear wheel housings means the iLoad can theoretically take two 1165mm-square Aussie pallets (without the cargo barrier installed).
However, loading these could be an issue if fitted with the single-lift tailgate, as it blocks forklift access when opened. And the 870mm side door opening (even less with the cargo barrier fitted) is not wide enough to allow a pallet to pass through it, so do your homework on the iLoad's suitability for your loading requirements.
The cabin has storage bins and bottle holders in each door, plus a shallow tray in the centre dash-pad, two different-sized gloveboxes, a cubby near the gearshift for small items like chewy etc and a pop-out dual cup/bottle holder in the centre console. The centre seat backrest also folds forward to reveal a large open storage tray and two small bottle/cup holders.
Mitsubishi Triton
Dimensionally, the Triton is longer and taller but slightly narrower than the D-Max (although, it does not feel it), while the D-Max actually gets a longer but much narrower tray. See the full dimensions in our table below.
In terms of storage and adjustability in the cab these two are quite evenly matched. Both offer eight-way power adjust seats in the spec tested, and both offer telescopic adjust for the steering column. Both get large bottle holders in the doors and in the centre console, although without adjustable ridges, neither are perfect when it comes to holding different sized bottles.
Only the Triton scores a wireless charging bay below its climate controls, while it also offers a larger centre console box.
Both have easily adjustable screens with the new-generation Triton committing nicely to dials for tuning and volume, and the D-Max notably re-introducing them for this update. Again, the Triton’s software is more simply laid out, and its screens are brighter and sharper than the units in the D-Max.
Both cars score an array of easy-access toggles on a dedicated climate panel, saving you the need to negotiate with touchscreen menus, so they’re evenly matched on that front.
The rear seat is differentiated mainly by the additional width seemingly on offer in the Triton, which feels as though it could seat an adult in the middle position in relative comfort. It scores bottle holders in the doors and drop-down armrest, as well as two USB-A ports on the back of the centre console and adjustable air vents in the roof. Additionally, the Triton gets a clever set of pockets on the back of the passenger seat suited to various device sizes. I fit quite comfortably behind my own 182cm tall driving position in the Triton, although I did feel as though I was seated very far off the ground.
Meanwhile the D-Max’s rear seat offers the same spongy seat trim as in the front seats, although overall it feels narrower than the Triton. It, too, scores bottle holders in the doors and two additional small ones in the drop-down armrest, although it only offers a single USB-C outlet on the back of the centre console. There are also two adjustable air vents down there. And an odd little storage tray. Unlike the Triton, the D-Max comes with a bonus coat hook on the back of the front seat. It feels as though I have slightly less room in the D-Max, but it is still sufficient and just as comfortable.
The Triton has a noticeably larger tray than the D-Max. See the full figures in the table below, but the core part of the story is the Triton’s tray is much wider and offers more useful space between the arches, while the D-Max’ tray turns out to be slightly longer. Both come from the factory in this spec fitted with a plastic tub-liner, but neither come with a roller cover unless you delve into the options list.
Payload is nearly 100kg higher in the Triton compared to the D-Max, although both utes share the same rated towing capacity at 750kg unbraked and 3500kg braked. The Triton gets an alloy spare while the D-Max gets a steel spare.
Off-road prowess was not the focus of this Tradie Guide review, but if you’re curious to see the technical figures, they’re in the spec table below.
Do we have a practicality winner? Seems like the Triton gets ahead here slightly with its higher payload, wider tray, and more spacious-feeling cabin.
 | Triton GLS 4x4 | MU-X LS-U+ 4x4 |
L x W x H | 5320mm x 1865mm x 1795mm | 5285mm x 1870mm x 1790mm |
Kerb weight | 2125kg | 2110kg |
Payload | 1075kg | 990kg |
Towing capacity b/ub | 750kg/3500kg | 750kg/3500kg |
Tub capacity L x W x H | 1555mm x 1545mm x 525mm | 1570mm x 1530mm x 490mm |
Tub Width between arches | 1135mm | 1122mm |
Spare | Full-size alloy | Full-size steel |
Tub liner | Y | Y |
Tonneau cover | N | N (ours fitted with a manual roller $3521.76) |
Off-Road
 | Triton GLS 4x4 | D-Max LS-U+ 4x4 |
Clearance | 228mm | 240mm |
Approach | 30.4 degrees | 30.5 degrees |
Departure | 22.8 degrees | 19 degrees |
Breakover | 23.4 degrees | 23.8 degrees |
Price and features
Hyundai iLoad
Our iLoad test vehicle, with single-lift tailgate, 2.5 litre turbo-diesel engine and optional five-speed automatic transmission has a list price of $41,790, which compares favourably with Toyota HiAce ($44,140) and Ford Transit Custom ($43,790) equivalents.
The recent upgrades brought not only the new grille design but also automatic dusk-sensing headlights, tilt-and-reach adjustable steering wheel and a new design instrument cluster with trip computer. There's also an updated infotainment system (first featured in Kona) featuring a 7.0-inch touchscreen and multiple connectivity including Bluetooth, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.
Other useful features are a rear-view camera (tailgate models only), power windows with one-touch auto down, height adjustable driver's seat and cruise control (auto variants only). The iLoad rolls on 16-inch steel wheels with 215/70R16C tyres and a full-size spare.
It's also available with a six-speed manual transmission, plus there's a choice of three-seat single cab or six-seat crew cab. Both cabin variants offer a choice of single-lift tailgate or forklift-friendly twin barn-doors with 180-degree opening, plus there's numerous genuine accessories available including the steel-mesh cargo barrier fitted to our test vehicle.
Mitsubishi Triton
First up, let’s talk price-tags. Usually, if you want all the luxuries without spending too much, this second-from-the-top variant is where it’s at, and our two competitors here are very closely matched.
Straight away, the Mitsubishi Triton GLS appears to get a clear advantage. At $59,090 before on-roads, it’s nearly $6000 more affordable than than its D-Max LS-U+ rival here, although to make it match spec-for-spec, you need to add $1580 to its price-tag for the Deluxe Pack which adds things like leather seat trim, heating, and power adjust for the driver.
Meanwhile, the D-Max LS-U+ needs no extras added, but is significantly more expensive, starting at $65,500. Our test example also had a manual roller cover fitted, which adds a further $3521.76 to the price, but doesn’t affect the outcome here as the Triton doesn’t get one as standard anyway.
Both of our utes here score 18-inch alloy wheels clad in highway terrain tyres (on the spec sheet, our test Triton had all-terrains for some reason), LED headlights, 9.0-inch multimedia touchscreens, 7.0-inch digital instrument elements, keyless entry with push-start, dual-zone climate, and side-steps.
Both get wireless Apple CarPlay connectivity, but only the D-Max gets wireless Android Auto (it’s wired in the Triton), however, the Triton hits back with its wireless phone charger which is missing from the D-Max. The D-Max also gets auto walk-away locking, but misses out on the auto folding mirrors the Triton gets. Technically, the D-Max has more speakers, but the Triton’s audio system sounded better.
Check out the table below for the full specs laid out neat and tidy.
In terms of which one is a winner here? They’re such a close match it’s too close to call on features alone, but the Triton’s price advantage, even with the Deluxe Pack, is hard to ignore.
 | Triton GLS 4x4 (Deluxe Pack) | D-Max LS-U+ 4x4 |
Price (MSRP) | $59,090 (+1580) | $65,500 |
Wheel size | 18-inch alloy | 18-inch alloy |
Tyre | Maxxis A/T | Bridgestone H/T |
LED headlights | Y | Y |
Multimedia screen | 9.0 inches | 9.0-inches |
Apple CarPlay/Android Auto | Wireless CarPlay, wired Android Auto | Wireless CarPlay and Android auto |
Wireless phone charger | Y | Â N |
Digital dash | No (7.0-inch info display) | Partial (7.0-inch centre) |
Seat trim | Leather (Deluxe Pack) | Leather |
Speakers | 6 | 8 |
Climate | Dual-zone | Dual-zone |
Power adjust | Driver (8-way - Deluxe Pack) | Driver (8-way) |
Heated seats | Front (Deluxe Pack) | Front |
Connectivity 1st row | USB-C, USB-A, 12v | 2x USB-C, 1x USB-A (Dashcam), 12v |
Connectivity 2nd row | 2x USB-A | 1 x USB-C |
Rear air vents | Y (roof) | Y (console) |
Keyless entry and push-start | Y | Y |
Sidesteps | Y | Y |
Auto walk-away lock | N | Y |
Auto-folding wing mirrors | Y | N |
Built | Thailand | Thailand |
Under the bonnet
Hyundai iLoad
The iLoad's 2.5 litre four-cylinder DOHC 16-valve turbo-diesel is a refined and proven performer with Euro 5-emissions compliance (so no AdBlue needed), common rail direct injection (CRDi) and variable vane turbocharging with impressive flexibility. It produces a class competitive 125kW at 3600rpm and peak torque of 441Nm between 2000-2250rpm, but there's ample throttle response and pulling power on tap either side of those figures.
The five-speed torque converter automatic is an equally robust and proven transmission, although most rivals have updated to closer ratio six-speed units. Even so, the iLoad delivers crisp and smooth shifts in auto mode, with the option of sequential manual shifting if required. The transmission's gearing and 2.92:1 final drive ratio provide a good compromise between stop-start city delivery work and economical highway driving.
Mitsubishi Triton
Our utes again seem quite evenly matched. Both have diesel engines, both have a six-speed automatic transmission, both have 4x4 capability with low-range transfer cases, and both have locking rear differentials. One, however, comes out on top when it comes to pure numbers.Â
The Triton uses an upgraded version of the engine used in the previous-generation truck. It still measures 2.4-litres of capacity across four cylinders, but is now twin-turbocharged. Total power comes to 150kW/470Nm and peak torque arrives from 1500rpm.
Meanwhile, the D-Max continues to employ its renowned 3.0-litre four-cylinder single-turbo engine from the brand’s light-duty commercial range, producing a sturdy 140kW/450Nm. Peak torque arrives from 1600rpm.
A winner? The Triton’s additional power is backed by a higher payload, so we’re inclined to hand the win to it, although there’s more to the story in the driving and load test section of this review.
 | Triton GLS 4x4 | D-Max LS-U+ 4x4 |
Capacity | 2442cc | 2999cc |
Cylinders | 4 | 4 |
Turbo | Twin | Single |
Power | 150kW | 140kW |
Torque | 470Nm | 450Nm |
Transmission | Six-speed | Six-speed |
Diff locks | Rear | Rear |
Efficiency
Hyundai iLoad
Hyundai's official combined figure of 8.8L/100km seemed realistic at the beginning of our road test which included a variety of roads and payloads, from near empty to three-quarters of a tonne. So we were impressed to see near-identical numbers after crunching trip meter and fuel bowser readings. Needless to say, that's great economy for a one-tonne van and no doubt another reason for its enduring popularity. Based on our figures, you could expect a realistic driving range of around 870km from its 75-litre tank.
Mitsubishi Triton
We ran a distance-controlled fuel test on both vehicles in the kinds of conditions we reckon tradies will drive them in. This included about 65km straight through the middle of Sydney on expressways and high-traffic urban roads, then about 55km as part of a return journey on the freeway.
The results were interesting because both vehicles were very close but used less fuel than the official claim, check the table below for details.
Both can claim nearly 1000km on the official consumption numbers, and neither is a hero when it comes to carbon emissions - check the figures out in the table below. Only the Triton requires AdBlue which will occasionally need to be topped up.
 | Triton GLS 4x4 | D-Max LS-U+ 4x4 |
Diesel consumption (official/combined) | 7.7L/100km | 8.0L/100km |
Diesel consumption (on-test) | 7.9L/100km | 7.8L/100km |
Fuel tank | 75L | 76L |
Est. driving range | 974km | 950km |
C02 | 203g/km | 207g/km |
AdBlue | Y | N |
Driving
Hyundai iLoad
The iLoad has big grab handles on the windscreen pillars to assist entry and once aboard it's not hard for drivers of most shapes and sizes to find a comfortable position, thanks to the height-adjustable seat, height-and-reach adjustable steering wheel and decent-sized left footrest.
The instrumentation is easy to read and dashboard controls are clearly marked and intuitive to use. There's a clear eye-line to the left door mirror but given that there's no blind-spot monitoring, this mirror would benefit from the addition of at least a dedicated wide-angle lens.
In city and suburban driving the iLoad is surprisingly quiet for a van without a sealed bulkhead between cabin and cargo hold. However, tyre roar emanating from the rear wheel housings does become quite intrusive at highway speeds, particularly on coarse bitumen surfaces.
The over-driven fifth gear ensures the engine isn't working hard though, with only 1800rpm at 100km/h and 2200rpm at 110km/h, which contributes to good fuel economy on long hauls. The cruise control also works well and is a big improvement on the last iLoad we tested in 2017.
The 2.5 litre turbo-diesel and five-speed auto are well-honed for this working role. They provide ample performance in city and suburban driving, even though the gaps between five gears are more noticeable now given the increasing use of six gears in rival automatic vans.
Mitsubishi Triton
Both utes on this test provide a very competent and nearly SUV-like experience, and while you can do even better in this segment with the likes of the Ford Ranger or Volkswagen Amarok, these two are very evenly matched. Still, there are some subtleties that may affect your choice.
Triton unladen driving
Starting with the Triton, and straight away you notice its excellent visibility and commanding driving position. The modern feel for the cabin is reflected in the driving experience thanks to a tidy layout, easy operation of screens and dials, and relatively straightforward software.
The steering is notably heavier in the Triton and it takes more effort to drive over longer periods of time, as a result it can be more fatiguing. It does lend itself to plenty of feel in the corners and on uneven terrain, however.
The ride is also firmer in the Triton. It can deal with undulations and larger bumps quite well, but smaller, sharper road imperfections were communicated to the cabin. On the other hand, the cabin feels overall more refined, with not as much road and engine noise making its way inside. The wider track on this new-generation version offered plenty of stability and confidence in the corners.
When it comes to deploying power the Triton certainly feels as strong as a dual-cab should, although a slight moment of additional lag required to actually get the power to the wheels was notable, even though technically peak torque arrives at lower rpm in the Triton. It leaves a feeling of the Triton needing to work harder than its rival despite its higher outputs on paper.
While the six-speed auto was also mostly as smooth as it should be, it can get caught off guard and take a moment to change up or down.
The safety systems in the Triton are reasonably well tuned. The example we tested scored a software update Mitsubishi deployed to address issues it had from the launch with an over-active driver monitoring suite. The result is good, with the system being mostly hands off. The tech was a bit confused by the use of sunglasses, however.
Its lane keep software was also more aggressive than the system in the D-Max on the rare occasion it intervened. These kinds of issues are quite common on modern SUVs and passenger vehicles, and as a symptom of being one of the first utes to fully deploy them, the Triton’s systems are a little imperfect.
On the whole we like the Triton. It’s a very modern drive experience, although it was interesting to find some parts aren't as smooth or seamless as its rival in this test.
D-Max unladen driving
The D-Max feels a bit more closed in than its Triton rival here in the cabin, with loads of dark trim and slightly more limited visibility out the rear compared to the Triton. It does have massive wing mirrors which offer a wide view of neighbouring lanes.
Somewhat frustratingly, the screens (both in the dash and multimedia screen) appear more dull than the ones in the Triton and more susceptible to glare. The software is better than the pre-facelift model and it’s faster, but still a bit clumsily laid out.
The D-Max starts to impress as soon as you set off, however. Its steering is much lighter than the Triton, but manages to maintain enough feel in the corners to imbue the driver with confidence.
The ride is also excellent. It’s comfortable and compliant over most bumps and imperfections, while maintains control without being bouncy. It has an element of the ladder chassis jiggle common among ladder frame vehicles, but hides it well.
The D-Max’ 4JJ3 3.0-litre engine is renowned for being simple and powerful, and this is especially clear when compared to its technically more powerful rival.
It feels as though the power is delivered more quickly and more smoothly than the Triton. The six-speed unit in the D-Max is slick and straightforward and seemingly never caught off-guard. Perhaps the only area where the D-Max trails the Triton in this respect is the amount of noise the physically larger engine generates. Cabin ambiance isn’t quite as nice in the D-Max generally.
Safety systems are also seemingly better tuned. Not a single safety system interfered with the drive experience in our entire time with the D-Max, which speaks well to those who like to be in full control.
To sum the D-Max up, it does almost everything when it comes to driving slightly better than the Triton. On top of this, its light steering and softer seats will leave you less fatigued at the end of the day.
Load test
While we didn’t take our utes off-road for this review, we did load their trays up to see how they would handle work duties. Our new friends at BC Sands in Sydney’s Taren Point helped us out by lending us 500kg of firewood and some of their expert forklift operators to make this test possible, check them out here.
In total we had 500kg of firewood in the tray and two occupants in the cab for about 660kg on board of both vehicles. From there we took them on the same 13km loop which involved roundabouts, T-junctions, speed bumps, downhill and uphill stints as well as a brief jaunt on a multi-lane expressway.
First we loaded up the D-Max. Its narrower tray made it harder for the forklift operator to drop the bag of wood in, and once loaded its suspension compressed a significant amount.
The edges of its tray proved useful for mounting ratchet straps, although it is notable how limiting the smaller distance between the wheel arches is and the amount of space the manual roller cover takes up. Our total 660kg load is about two-thirds of the D-Max’ total permissible 990kg.
With the weight in the tray, the D-Max was initially unsettling, but confidence grew. This is because its big engine barely feels the additional weight and the suspension is capable enough to handle the mass despite the initial compression. While the softness feels like it requires caution in the corners, it handles additional compression from speed bumps, road imperfections and hills in its stride, with no secondary bouncing and a good amount of remaining ride comfort. The steering feels only slightly heavier with the additional weight.
After our short stint, the D-Max consumed 11.9L/100km according to its computer, which is reasonable.
Next up, we loaded the Triton. Its firmer springs did not compress as much as the D-Max, and the additional width in its tray made it significantly easier for the forklift operator to drop the bag of firewood in the tray.
The Triton seems more confident in its footing initially, with less compression and the additional track width making it feel as though it would be better than the D-Max. However, things changed as we drove it.
The Triton’s engine also barely feels the additional load, but does need to rev a smidge more. The transmission mostly copes well, although the odd occasion where it's caught out for a moment when changing up or down is more noticeable. The steering, which was already firm, remains unchanged.
The biggest issue the Triton faces is its suspension. With the additional load over the rear axle, large bumps cause a pogo effect with two or three secondary bounces after the initial compression. This particularly gnarly trait is what set it apart from the comparatively smoother D-Max.
The Triton claimed to use slightly less fuel than the D-Max under load on our short route, at 11.1L/100km.
Safety
Hyundai iLoad
Only a four-star ANCAP rating achieved back in 2011, plus no AEB, blind-spot monitoring, rear cross-traffic alert, lane-keeping assist etc which are the new benchmarks in this category. There's front and side (thorax) airbags for the driver and outer passenger seats, but none for the centre seat with its lousy lap-belt. The iLoad's safety menu is overdue for an upgrade.
Mitsubishi Triton
Safety equipment is impressive on both utes, which come with near-passenger car levels of active equipment.
Both score the now essential auto emergency braking, lane keep assist, and blind spot monitoring, as well as adaptive cruise control and driver monitoring, however, only the Triton comes with active driver monitoring as standard, and front cross-traffic alert as a no-cost option.
It is worth noting the lane keep software and the driver monitoring equipment in the Triton is significantly more sensitive than the equivalent technologies in the D-Max, and more annoying as a result.
Our Triton has the latest software update designed to abate the driver monitoring issues it had at launch, and while they are mostly addressed, the system still gets confused by sunglasses.
Both cars score reversing cameras and both have an impressive array of eight airbags.
The D-Max is covered by the maximum five-star ANCAP safety rating secured by the pre-facelift model in 2022, while the new-generation Triton only recently secured a maximum five-star ANCAP safety rating in 2024.
 | Triton GLS 4x4 | D-Max LS-U+ 4x4 |
AEB | Yes | Yes |
LKAS | Yes | Yes |
BSM | Yes | Yes |
RCTA | Yes | Yes |
FCTA | No-cost option | No |
Adaptive cruise | Yes | Yes |
Driver monitoring | Full monitoring | Attention alert |
TSR | Yes | Yes |
TPMS | Yes | Yes |
Reversing camera | Yes, reverse only | Yes, reverse only |
Airbags | 8 | 8 |
ANCAP | Five stars (2024) | Five stars (2022) |
Ownership
Hyundai iLoad
Five years/160,000km warranty. Scheduled servicing every 12 months/15,000km whichever occurs first. Lifetime Service Plan includes capped-price servicing for first five scheduled services ranging from $356 to $506.
Mitsubishi Triton
Ownership looks like a clear win to the Triton which is offered with a whopping 10-year and 200,000km warranty (conditional on the servicing being completed with Mitsubishi on time during this period.) It also offers a matching ten years of capped-price servicing (see details in the table below) and four years of roadside assist.
On the other hand, the D-Max shouldn’t be written off as it still offers above par ownership terms.
There’s six years and 150,000km of warranty coverage, five years of fixed-price servicing, and its roadside assist can be extended for up to seven years if you continue to service with Isuzu.
Both utes require servicing once every 12 months or 15,000km, whichever occurs first.
 | Triton GLS 4x4 | D-Max LS-U+ 4x4 |
Warranty | 10 years/200,000km | Six years/150,000km |
Fixed price servicing | Ten years | Five years |
Annual cost | $489 (5yrs) | $449 |
Service interval | 12 months/15,000km | 12 months/15,000km |
Roadside assist | Four years | Up to seven years |