Isuzu MU-X VS Honda ZR-V

These two are evenly matched in terms of drivability and off-road capability.

We spent the lion’s share of our test time off-road but these two vehicles are fine on sealed surfaces; easy to drive (albeit a bit sluggish) and suitably refined (albeit a bit noisy).

Both can feel a tad agricultural to steer about at times but, as I said before, that’s okay and part of the Isuzu charm.

But beyond satisfying any daily-driving requirements these vehicles are impressive 4WDs.

From the engine-and-auto pairing, through to driver-assist tech, physical dimensions and simply general all-round suitability, these two are naturals in most off-road environments.

The D-Max and MU-X have plenty of low- and mid-range torque but both also have quite firm suspension over gravel and dirt tracks at speed, and are rather noisy. Although, if you’ve spent any time in a diesel 4WD the tractable engine’s subdued clatter won’t bother you at all.

But there are some differences between the two in terms of their overall performance off-road.

The D-Max has had, through recent development phases, a recalibrated off-road traction control system that's been improved to be more precise and effective through challenging terrain.

But the D-Max now benefits from the introduction of what Isuzu calls Rough Terrain mode, which operates like a boosted off-road traction control, claimed to kick into action at a point of less wheel-spin than a standard off-road traction control system, transferring torque to the wheels that have the most traction, sooner rather than later. Rough Terrain mode debuted in the MU-X in 2021.

This is not a magic pill by itself, but it’s another handy addition to the D-Max’s already-substantial off-road toolbox that also includes a rear diff-lock.

The D-Max has a greater listed ground clearance (240mm) than the MU-X (235mm) but both vehicles have the same wading depth (800mm). 

The D-Max is somewhat hamstrung by its longer wheelbase (3125mm compared to the MU-X’s 2855mm wheelbase) and it has shallower approach and departure angles (27.3 and 19.0, respectively) than the MU-X (29.2 and 26.4), but its ramp-over angle is greater (not by much) at 23.8 degrees vs 23.1.

The MU-X is more nimble than the D-Max on technically challenging 4WD tracks, with its shorter wheelbase and shorter overall body length (4850mm vs the D-Max’s 5310mm). Its turning circle is 11.4m compared to the D-Max’s 12.5m.

Those factors don’t take anything away from the D-Max’s efficacy off-road, it simply means this ute needs to be driven with more careful consideration than the wagon.

Often, the size and type of standard tyres on a top-shelf 4WD straight out of a showroom are not ideal for 4WDing and should be replaced if off-roading is on the new owner’s agenda anytime soon.

However, the tyres on this D-Max and MU-X – 265/60R18 Bridgestone Dueler 684II HT (Highway-Terrain) tyres on the D-Max and 265/50R20 Bridgestone Dueler HTs on the MU-X – are okay, but not really up to scratch if tough 4WDing is what you’ll be doing.

The D-Max’s 18-inch wheel-and-tyre package is at least a more 4WDing-friendly sizing than the MU-X’s 20-inch combo.

Replace the HT tyres with a decent set of all-terrain tyres and maybe consider getting rid of the standard suspension while you’re at it and switch in an aftermarket lift kit, just for the hell of it.

Both vehicles have full-sized spares and in terms of packability, the D-Max has a listed payload of 930kg, while payload in the MU-X is 620kg.

Both vehicles can legally tow 750kg (unbraked trailer) and 3500kg (braked).

If you were taking either of these mid-sized hybrid SUVs on a short test-drive around urban streets, you might be forgiven for thinking the way they go and feel is almost indistinguishable.

Light, ultra-smooth and responsive all the way.

At lower speeds, both are easy to park, with sufficiently tight turning circles and aided by the surround-view cameras that shouldn’t be an issue for anybody to accurately place. Plus, there’s a decent degree of ride comfort to enjoy as well.

Understandably, for most folk behind the wheel, they’d struggle to them apart, truthfully.

Thankfully, we pride ourselves for going beyond the test drive, and after hundreds of kilometres testing both vigorously, interchanging between the two regularly, their distinct personalities and traits become crystal clear.

Nissan first.

The X-Trail e-Power e-4orce is a formidable machine. It’s also truly an EV in the way it delivers its electric power from the motor only to the wheels. When that small battery is all juiced up, you’d never know this was anything else but.

Off-the-line acceleration is instantaneous, and grin-inducingly strong if you’re not expecting the immediate surge forward that follows, accompanied by that electric whirr as the Nissan punches through the air.

That big motor generates a formidable amount of torque that’s always on tap for effortless momentum and oomph as required. It feels like a much-more expensive machine, and is just as refined to boot.

So, it comes as a surprise at first when that 1.5-litre turbo triple does chime in, breaking the relative mechanical silence with a constant drone. Briefly if not so quietly working in the background at first, it keeps the battery charged up from a certain point, and then just as quickly extinguishes, a bit like the refrigerator in your kitchen does.

And, so, the cycle continues of EV whoosh then white good hum. When you need more muscle – say, when overtaking – the engine kicks in again, but this time at a higher-set rev as it charges the battery with more urge, because it never drives the wheels, remember.

You don’t really feel the 2.0-tonne weight of the Ti e-Power in normal turning or cornering situations, because the steering is eager yet beautifully weighted, making this a sharp handler.

Likewise, with two electric motors shuffling torque to whichever axle needs it, there’s an exceptional level of road holding control, even across the often waterlogged roads that the late-spring weather showered upon. The Nissan is a perfectly safe and controllable long-distance grand tourer.

Muted tyre and road noise (wearing Dunlop Grand Trek 235/55R19 rubber), an effective ‘e-Pedal’ regenerative braking system that helps recharge the battery whilst bringing the car to a near stop, as well as nuanced traction and stability control intervention, are further bonuses that add to the enjoyment of riding and travelling in the Nissan.

However, while the around-town suspension comfort is impressive, larger bumps make themselves felt, as if the X-Trail’s springs have reached the limit of their absorption. Is that all that extra weight talking?

More annoyingly, when cruising along at speed in crosswinds, the steering can become a bit too sensitive, as the driver needs to make constant corrections to remain on the straight and narrow.

As a result, the car feels a little unsettled and nervous due to the slight but noticeable left-right pitching that ensues. One passenger described it as fidgety.

And, like many hybrid vehicles, including most of Toyota’s, the very effective brakes suffer from a wooden and artificial feel, meaning they can be a bit hard to moderate smoothly when applying.

Otherwise, the X-Trail is a pleasant and accomplished vehicle dynamically, and so a good all-around drive.

The ZR-V, however, is in another league.

The driver’s notes tell the story succinctly: “Lovely, smooth, linear and involving steering.” The Honda glides through corners with precision and ease, even at much higher speeds than most would attempt, backed up by plenty of grip and control.

And while there isn’t the AWD surety when conditions are wet, it still always felt planted and secure over our largely-wet test route.

Such dynamic athleticism suggests that ride comfort would be compromised, but on the smaller Bridgestone Alenza Enliten 225/55R18 tyres, the initial suspension firmness is tempered by an underlying suppleness and comfort that highlights a high degree of sophisticated suspension tuning.

The Honda truly is the driver’s hybrid SUV. More so than any other anywhere near its price point that springs to mind.

Because it’s largely a petrol-driven hybrid, rather than an EV with petrol-engine assistance like the Nissan, the ZR-V does not quite have that effortless all-electric torque to rely on, instead feeling more conventional in the way it delivers drive to the front wheels.

The 2.0L four's engagement after a brief all-EV driving period is seamless, by the way, and also typically-Honda in the way that it revs freely, sounding urgent as it delivers its torque consistently, even at low speeds.

Put your foot down more, and the electric assistance comes into play again, providing a decent whack of speed – more so than you might initially expect. And all of this is provided with a refinement and civility you’d expect in a much more premium machine.

Other plus points include yet another subtle traction/ESC tune over gravel tracks, but one with a degree of looseness for a bit of fun if the driver is up for it, paddles that provide some EV regen-braking e-Pedal-style to slow you down, and a nifty drive-mode toggle that can be easily prodded by the driver without distraction. A sign of the enthusiasts who engineered this sporty SUV.

The only fly in the Honda’s driving ointment is noise. Too much road roar over coarse chip surfaces, and excessive wind rush from the large exterior mirrors.

Otherwise, the ZR-V is exceptionally accomplished dynamically for any modern family vehicle, and not just a medium-sized hybrid SUV. Not perfect, but massively impressive and delightful.