BYD Shark 6 vs GWM Tank 300

What's the difference?

The BYD Shark 6 is not just a huge step for BYD, it’s possibly one of the most important products launched in Australia in recent years.

Make no mistake, it’s not the toughest ute out there with the best hauling specs, and of course it’s also yet to prove its longevity. But it’s also not doing things in the way we’ve come to expect from utes like the HiLux and Ranger.

Instead, BYD has built a ute its own way, offering enviable levels of technology and an innovative powertrain. I’ve never driven a ute as mould-breaking as this. BYD is offering revolution rather than evolution.

The diesel is now the pick of the Tank 300 range. It’s the best fit for this vehicle and offers greater driver engagement than the petrol or hybrid.

It also has genuine off-road chops while still managing to suit family life.

While it could benefit from further refinements to on-road behaviour, cabin noise and the ADAS systems, none of these are deal breakers. 

The fact that it is priced so keenly against some excellent competitors and is stacked with standard gear adds to the Tank 300’s appeal.

Note: CarsGuide attended this event as a guest of the manufacturer, with meals provided.

You have to behold the Shark 6 in the metal to appreciate it, in no small part because of its sheer size. It’s wider and taller than you expect, lending its boxy visage an imposing stance and a commanding presence on the road.

The exterior design is a little bold. There’s more than a hint of Ford F-150 in the Shark’s face, and the overt BYD badgework is a statement. The Chinese brand is clearly happy to stake its growing reputation on what the Shark offers.

Inside is next-level for the light commercial vehicle segment with the screen-centric design theme and lashings of soft-touch finishes and leather trims. Even the seats are plush and comfortable in both rows with convincing synthetic upholstery.

There is one argument which says a cabin as well appointed as this is a hindrance for work purposes. Chucking tools and equipment around will scuff things up, or at worst, potentially damage all the delicate equipment strewn throughout the cabin.

There’s definitely stock in this argument. I can hardly see the Shark 6 being used as a replacement for a work-spec ute destined to live a hard life.

On the other hand, it’s worth remembering the dual-cab is now the default family car choice for many buyers whose primary concern is how well equipped it is for life with kids and a dog, with its secondary purpose being as a work vehicle (with the ‘work’ largely confined to the tray) or as a weekend recreational off-roader.

I think the Shark 6 primarily appeals to this sort of buyer. It all feels just a bit too fragile to see an impact drill thrown into the passenger seat or a toolbox covered in concrete dust tied down to the rear bench.

BYD has made some perhaps tokenistic effort to 'tough' the cabin up, with its chunky steering wheel and some cool switchgear in the centre console rounded out by a blocky design theme.

There are built-in fitted weatherproof mats for the floor which is a nice touch, but it’s maybe the opposite design ethos from something like the Ineos Grenadier which reverts to a hose-out interior. Maybe don’t get too much moisture near the screen.

Just quietly, I'm a bit disappointed there aren't more Shark references in the cabin as there are Dolphin or Seal references in BYD’s namesake models.

Still, the plush cabin design is impossible to beat in this segment, so if you’re a family buyer first and a work or play buyer second, it’s impossible to do better in the light commercial vehicle space.

The only visible difference between the diesel and the petrol or hybrid 300s is a 2.4T badge. So you get the same boxy exterior as before.

It’s somewhat derivative and gives more than a nod to Jeep, but the design has intent - it looks capable off-road and for most people that’s enough. Luckily it is capable off-road. More on that later.

Inside the upright, shelf-like dash is appealing. I like that everything is nicely integrated, like the dual 12.3-inch screens which flow nicely into one another. 

The big T-shaped three-spoke steering wheel looks cool and the aeronautical air vents are clearly inspired by Mercedes-Benz. 

The chunky metal-look plastic glove box cover adds extra visual flair and the stitching throughout elevates the cabin further.

However, the futuristic looking gear shifter is chunky, takes up too much space and is unnecessary.

The cabin is massive, with the Shark making the most of its boxy dimensions, and it also offers impressive adjustability for the driver and front passenger seats.

The high seating position provides a commanding view of the road with great overall visibility thanks to large mirrors and expansive window real-estate.

Entry and egress is bolstered by large side-steps and a multitude of grab-handles in the A-pillar and centre console and for long trips the seats are some of the most comfortable in the class.

Storage is also plentiful, with large bottle holders and pockets in the doors, a further two with adjustable ridges in the centre console, alongside a wireless phone charger and an immense armrest storage box.

The console is also home to an array of buttons for various drive-modes alongside the shift lever, but in terms of multimedia functions there’s only a physical on-off switch, a de-fog shortcut switch for the climate and a volume dial.

In what could be a bit of a deal-breaker for some, the rest of this car’s many functions are controlled exclusively by the touchscreen, which can, at times, have a confusing array of menus.

For example, the controls for fan speed, temperature, recirculate, and various other functions like the regenerative braking and steering modes are touchscreen only.

The climate screen is at least straightforward, but other features require some figuring out as the array of menus are inconsistently labelled (as with many other Chinese vehicles).

It’s not as bad as Tesla, at least offering a digital instrument cluster, and some physical control features, but it might be a bridge too far for some ute buyers.

Additionally, the software is okay but not great. It’s fast and looks reasonably good which beats out most Chinese rivals, but it’s a pretty blatant Android reskin which feels a little unfinished around the edges.

Particularly the digital dash looks pretty ordinary and only has one theme, with the information overload it offers on either side of the speedo being of questionable value.

Hopping in the second row it feels as though the Shark 6 offers unrivalled space compared to the usual crop of dual-cabs. I have leagues of kneeroom behind my own (182cm) driving position, and the cabin feels as wide as a big SUV also featuring a flat floor, making the middle position usable by an adult. Headroom is also good and the plush trims continue, too.

While the rear row also scores big grab handles and makes use of those side-steps, it also has an odd issue with the thickness of the B-pillar eating into entry space. I got my feet caught on it despite the amount of room you have once inside. Weird.

Storage for rear passengers is also good, with a large bottle holder in each door, and two more large ones in the drop-down armrest. There are also soft pockets on the backs of the front seats, adjustable air vents, a USB-C and USB-A port as well as a full-size household power outlet.

Additionally, the rear bench has some flexibility built in. You can raise the base to make for a larger storage area if you don’t need the seats, or you can fold the back forward revealing some limited space behind (good for charging cables, towbars and your V2L adapter, for example).

The tray measures 1200 litres according to BYD, with a large square space provided between the wheel arches. Keep an eye out for a future payload test for more on this, but the Shark 6 has a payload of 790kg.

Not bad considering it also has to lug around 30kWh of battery packs under the floor, but it’s also a far cry from the coveted one tonne payload rating achieved by some rivals.

However, the Shark 6 offers some other neat additions, like built-in LED lighting for the tray area and no less than three full-size power outlets which could be good for powering worksite equipment or household appliances even when you’re far from the power grid.

Towing specs are also off-the pace, as you might expect. The Shark 6 can tow 2500kg braked, which is a full tonne down on the accepted 3500kg segment standard, so it’s worth considering this if there’s the possibility you’ll need to tow significant loads.

Up front the Tank 300 offers a commanding view of the road and it’s easy to find your perfect driving position thanks to the power-adjustable seats.

Those seats have good side bolstering but could do with a little extra cushioning for the thighs. The Nappa leather-appointed seats in the Ultra look and feel lovely. 

Storage is average for the segment with room for larger bottles and additional flat items in the door pockets, and a well-sized central bin that also houses two cupholders, although they sit low in the cavity and two coffees sit awkwardly together.

The Tank has one USB-C port for charging only but another USB-A port up front for connectivity. You shouldn’t need that given Apple CarPlay and Android Auto is wireless.

Keen off-roaders will have fun with the extensive Tank Expert Mode in the multimedia screen, which allows you to individualise your 4WD experience. 

Beyond that the screen is neatly laid out, responsive and easy to use. GWM has come a long way when it comes to in-car tech. The icons on the digital instrument cluster, however, are still too small.

There’s ample leg room in the rear, with space between my knees (I am 184cm tall) and the rear of the front seat, and enough toe room. It doesn’t feel enormously spacious across the rear row but three kids should be comfy. Headroom is enhanced by a scalloped section of the roof specifically for rear-seat passengers, but it doesn’t leave a huge amount of space for taller people.

The rear seat bench is flat but the backrests have some support and overall the seats back there are comfortable.

You’ll find lower rear-seat air vents, map pockets, a fold-down central arm rest with two cupholders, room for small bottles in the doors and two USB-A ports.

The boot can take 400 litres with all seats up and 1635L with the rear seats folded. That figure is measured from the floor to the top of the rear seats. 

Jeep says the Wrangler has 898L capacity with all seats in place but that is measured from the floor to the roofline.

There is no under-floor storage in the 300’s boot and the full-size spare wheel is housed in traditional 4x4 fashion on the tailgate.

One of the key selling points across GWM’s entire range is value for money, and the Tank 300 has always had that in spades. 

As with the petrol and hybrid 300, the diesel is offered in two well-specified model grades - Lux and Ultra.

At $47,990 drive-away, the Lux diesel is $2000 more than the Lux petrol, but $3000 cheaper than the Lux hybrid. 

The Ultra diesel, at $51,990, is $1000 pricier than the petrol equivalent and $5000 more affordable than the hybrid Ultra.

The GWM Tank 300 diesel Lux is also more affordable than equivalent grades of a number of ladder-frame 4x4 SUV rivals like the Isuzu MU-X, Toyota Fortuner, SsangYong Rexton and the Ford Everest.

It’s also significantly more affordable than the Jeep Wrangler, with the Tank 300 Lux costing about $30,000 less than a Wrangler Unlimited Sport S.

Note however that many of those models - except the Wrangler - have the option of seven seats, whereas the Tank is strictly a five-seat proposition. If you want a third row, check out GWM’s Tank 500.

There are cheaper off-road large SUVs out there – the LDV D90 and Mahindra Scorpio. But the Tank 300 is a more refined and higher-quality offering than those models.

Standard gear in the Lux includes 17-inch alloy wheels, synthetic leather seats and steering wheel, power-adjustable front seats, dual-zone climate control, seven-colour ambient lighting, keyless entry and start, a sunroof, power-folding mirrors, paddle-shifters, a nine-speaker audio system with digital radio, built-in sat-nav, and a pair of 12.3 inch digital displays with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.

It also gets roof rails, side steps, privacy glass, all-terrain mode selection and a rear diff lock.

The Ultra upgrades to 18-inch wheels, Nappa leather-accented seats, heated and ventilated front seats, a heated steering wheel, more adjustment for the front seats and a memory setting, a massage function for the driver’s seat, a wireless phone charger, 64 colours in the ambient lighting suite, and a nine-speaker premium audio system.

There is nothing obvious missing from the standard features list, but I don’t know why a wireless device charger is limited to the top grade.

Here’s where things get really loopy. Australian ute buyers are used to the idea of a rugged diesel engine up front, connected to the wheels via a chunky traditional transmission and usually a low-range capable transfer case.

BYD does things differently. It has a comparatively small 1.5-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol engine, which primarily acts as a range-extending generator, although it can provide drive to the front wheels in certain conditions from 70km/h.

The wheels are otherwise driven by two separate electric motors on each axle, and draw their power from a combination of the engine and a large 30kWh battery pack mounted centrally under the floor.

BYD says this is the world’s first longitudinally-mounted range-extender hybrid set-up, although usually the benefit of longitudinal mounting for the engine is a more direct connection to the rear axle, so outside of potential packaging benefits, I’m not sure what the upside of this is.

Regardless, the peak combined power of the electric motors is said to be 321kW/650Nm which is in some cases double the outputs of the Shark’s diesel rivals. As a result, BYD claims the Shark 6 can sprint from 0-100km/h in just 5.7 seconds (only slightly slower than a hot hatch), an impressive feat considering its 2710kg kerb weight.

The big news with the Tank 300 is, of course, the new engine.

It is a 2.4-litre four-cylinder turbocharged diesel engine borrowed from the GWM Cannon and Cannon Alpha utes.

It pumps out 135kW of power and 480Nm of torque. That’s more torque than an MU-X but not as much as an Everest.

It is paired with a nine-speed automatic transmission and has part-time four-wheel drive. 

If you need to tow, the diesel has a 3000kg towing capacity, which is 500kg more than the hybrid and petrol. It can’t beat the 3.5-tonne towing capacity of the MU-X and the Everest.

Payload has also increased compared with the petrol and hybrid, up from 400kg to 600kg.

GWM says it conducted extensive testing internationally but also in Australia to improve towing performance. There are approximately 20 different parts compared with the other powertrain variants to get the best out of towing in the diesel.

A rear diff lock is standard on both grades while the Ultra gains a front diff lock.

Like all plug-in hybrids, the Shark 6 has a headline-grabbing official/combined fuel efficiency number of just 2.0L/100km.

Is this number achievable in the real world? The answer is maybe, because a huge battery pack grants the Shark 6 an NEDC electric-only driving range of 100km.

Now, usually NEDC is straight-up impossible to get in real driving conditions. The more accurate WLTP tends to be more possible (and has a correspondingly lower range number on most vehicles), but in my real-world test, the results were surprising.

As part of this test, I charged the Shark up to 100 per cent then drove it in electric mode only until it reached the reserve level and the engine was forced to turn back on, and was surprised to find it managed to travel a smidge over 90km in pure-electric mode. Considering its official number is NEDC I was expecting something like 70km, at most.

If you can charge it to 100 per cent each time, then it seems reasonable to get at least close to the official fuel consumption number.

On the topic of charging, the Shark 6 is a mixed bag. On the one hand, unlike many PHEVs, the BYD can charge on a fast DC connector at a rate of up to 55kW, which is necessary considering its large battery size.

This should get you from 25-80 per cent in around half an hour. My single charging session took the battery from 25-100 per cent (yep, you can charge BYD’s LFP battery to 100 per cent on DC), in just over 40 minutes.

On the other hand, the slow AC charging leaves a little to be desired. At a max rate of 7.0kW it’s faster than most PHEVs but the sheer size of its battery means you’ll need to plug in for four and a half hours to get it close to full.

In this case, an 11kW AC inverter could nearly halve this time, making it a simple task to top the Shark up at a public AC location.

Charging at home via a wall socket, meanwhile, will be a laborious task, taking in excess of 10 hours.

An additional part of my testing was a 400km loop from Sydney to regional areas and back. Set to 'Hybrid' mode, the battery ran out about a third of the way into the drive, and I had to rely on engine power for much of the journey.

Even with the battery depleted, though, a 140km freeway journey saw average fuel consumption of 9.5L/100km, just as good as most diesel utes in such conditions.

All in all, with a combined freeway portion and EV city driving portion, the car was reporting around 6.5L/100km of fuel consumption. Not bad at all, and with the near-genuine 100km electric driving range, for some use-cases, this could be close to zero.

The diesel Tank 300 consumes 7.8 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres on the official combined cycle, which is better than the 9.5L figure for the petrol and the 8.4L quoted for the hybrid.

That figure also sits somewhere between a 2.0-litre bi-turbo Everest (7.1L/100km) and a 3.0L MU-X (8.3L/100km).

It has a 75-litre fuel tank and GWM claims an NEDC range of about 950 kilometres. GWM says the Euro 5 engine does not require Adblue.

Given the restrictions of a media launch, we did not obtain real-world fuel use figures.

It takes about thirty seconds behind the wheel to realise the Shark 6 is bringing something entirely new to the ute segment. I can guarantee it is like nothing you have ever driven before.

Yes, it has the same elevated driving position, and a hint of the ladder frame ruggedness underneath, but that's where the similarities to most utes ends.

The cabin is near dead quiet, especially at city speeds. The combination of primarily electric drive and acoustic glass in the front makes the Shark 6 about the opposite of the usual ute cabin ambiance which is defined by diesel engine clatter and constant mechanical feedback from the gearbox or tyre rumble.

Instead, the Shark 6 offers a better cabin ambiance than some luxury SUVs. It’s so quiet and composed it’s almost uncanny. The road feels distant, power is delivered without the hesitancy of turbo lag or a reluctant transmission, and even the suspension, which consists of coil rather than leaf springs, is nice and quiet.

The ride is surprisingly smooth. Sure, the tune has a firmness to it, as does the frame, to help control the additional weight of the batteries. But unlike most dual-cabs, the Shark 6 is nice and balanced over both axles largely due to the all-coil set-up and a chassis design which places the weight of the batteries in the centre.

The steering is alarmingly light in its standard ‘Comfort’ setting, feeling much more like an EV than the usual mechanical feeling of ute steering.

It makes the big Shark 6 easy to manoeuvre and betrays its enormous kerb weight, but it has the side-effect of feeling artificial and detached from the road.

It could be a deal-breaker for some ute buyers, particularly off-roaders looking for a more organic feel. I found the heavier ‘Sport’ mode added a little feel and necessary heft back.

The light steering combines with the coil springs to make for a ute which drives far closer to an SUV than anything else in the class (even the Ford Ranger!).

It also handles corners relatively well, and soaks up most road imperfections with an almost magic-carpet like feel.

This is also helped along by a smart tyre choice offering lots of sidewall, and unlike BYD’s initial Atto 3, comes with a good Continental tyre from the factory.

As a result it handles urban duties with impressive ease, and I was also taken aback by how little gravel trails impacted it. In my adventures, corrugations and rough road textures were dispatched without fuss, with only the largest potholes being communicated with a stiff hit into the cabin, proving the limitations of the suspension.

When it comes to hybrid driving, the Shark 6 remains impressive. Due largely to it keeping a whopping 25 per cent battery in reserve, even when it reaches this level the engine makes minimal impact on refinement, for the most part just buzzing away at idle.

However, when more is asked of it at the reserve battery level, for example a sustained hill with a tall gradient, the engine will suddenly roar up to high RPM as it tries to keep the battery level stable. The result is an unpleasant buzzing engine tone entering the cabin.

It’s still more distant than when you ask a lot of a Toyota hybrid, but noticeable regardless. A bit hard to complain when you’ll hear it a fraction of the time, or perhaps never, in regular driving situations.

On the whole the Shark 6 is immensely impressive, especially considering the price. Not only is it a good plug-in hybrid, it does a remarkable job of showing what ute owners have been missing out on. Australia’s favourite dual cabs should be worried.

I last drove a Tank 300 in late 2023 and it was the hybrid variant. While the hybrid has some positives, its driving characteristics were not high on that list.

It had an erratic throttle response, hesitation on take-off and it felt underdone.

In contrast, this new diesel variant just feels like the right fit for this SUV. 

There is slight lag accelerating from a standing start, but the powertrain is torquey and there’s plenty on tap when overtaking or just increasing speed when already on the go. GWM has not provided a 0-100km/h time.

It is clear you’re in a diesel as soon as you turn on the ignition - it has that typical diesel rattle, but it is not as unsophisticated as some oil-burners I have driven.

The cabin could do with some extra insulation with wind and tyre noise detected, but it’s hardly a deal breaker.

Given the vehicle’s size, heft (nearly 2.3-tonne kerb weight) and the fact it’s shaped like a brick, the 300 holds its nerve on winding stretches of road with only a little body roll. In saying that, best not to treat it like a Mini Cooper on your favourite twisty road. 

Ride quality is a bit mixed. We only drove the Ultra on 18-inch wheels and while it manages to soak up bumps, the ride is jittery, and that’s even more evident on uneven road surfaces.

Steering is heavily weighted and a little vague, but fine for a big off-roader, and the brakes need to be pushed hard.

One quirk is the indicator - it appears to be a one-touch setup for indicating to change lanes, but then the indicator stays on. I tried several times to test this, even flicking it to the opposite side to turn it off and it was very stubborn. 

The good news is it appears GWM has toned down the awful indicator sound of its earlier models and is now much more subtle. 

So on-road the Tank 300 is more than competent, and a much nicer vehicle to drive in an urban setting than a Jeep Wrangler, for example.

We also drove it briefly on an off-road trail, and in low range the Tank 300 proved that it can do what it says on the box. 

I’m no off-roading expert and there are much more challenging trails out there, but I had confidence that the Tank 300 would not let me down traversing the many chunky rocks, massive holes and fallen tree limbs.

ANCAP awarded the Tank 300 a five-star crash safety rating from testing done in 2022, scoring highly across all four of the major test categories.

GWM says it is waiting to hear from ANCAP but expects the diesel to be covered by the same rating.

As well as seven airbags including a front centre bag, the Tank 300 has a long list of safety gear covering both the Lux and Ultra. 

There’s a suite of collision mitigation systems that includes auto emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning, lane-keep assist, emergency lane keep, lane centring, front and rear collision warning, front and rear cross-traffic alert and lane change assist.

It also has driver fatigue monitoring, a rear seat child monitor, door opening warning, adaptive cruise, traffic sign recognition and hill-descent control.

I noted this in my recent GWM Haval H6 GT PHEV review, but GWM has made consistent tweaks to improve its advanced driver-assist systems (ADAS) and as a result they are less intrusive than they were when the Tank 300 launched in 2023.

There is still the occasional tugging of the wheel but it’s much less of a tug-of-war than it once was.

For the first 45 minutes of our test drive there was an annoying beep every 10 seconds that my co-driver and I could not identify. There was no icon on the driver display to indicate that it was a lane departure warning or speed limit alert, but eventually it just stopped. We still have no idea what it was but it was, thankfully, not present in the vehicle we drove in the second half of the launch drive.

BYD offers the Shark 6 with a six-year and 150,000km vehicle warranty, which is a little different from the usual five-year and unlimited kilometres most rivals are covered by. Additionally, the high-voltage battery is covered for a more industry-standard eight-years and 160,000km.

The service schedule is posted on BYD’s website and extends all the way out to 11 years or 220,000km. Most scheduled visits during this time cost $360, however there are some pretty significant stings along the way. The 40,000km service comes in at $788, while the 80,000km service costs a whopping $1727 in a single visit.

All said and done, over the life of the six-year warranty, the Shark 6 will cost an average of $778 per year, which is surprisingly expensive for a vehicle with a primarily electric powertrain.

GWM covers the Tank 300 with its seven-year/unlimited-kilometre new-vehicle warranty, which is an impressive offer.

You are covered for seven years of roadside assist and the Tank is offered with a seven-year capped-price servicing program.

GWM is yet to confirm the Tank 300 diesel’s servicing offer (including pricing), but expect a service schedule similar to the Cannon ute with the same powertrain.

That means the first service might be required at 5000km or six months and beyond that it will need a service every 12 months or 10,000km, whichever occurs first.