Ford EcoSport 2017 vs Nissan X-Trail 2003
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.0 - 2.0 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 - 166 HP | 136 - 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 - 250 NM | 192 - 314 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 - 14 seconds | 9.9 - 13.1 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.1 - 5.8 | 7.1 - 10.0 | |
|
Ford EcoSport petrol engines consumes on average 4.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than Nissan X-Trail. On average, Ford EcoSport equipped with diesel engines consume 3.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.10 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.70 m | |
| Ford EcoSport is 41 cm shorter than the Nissan X-Trail, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford EcoSport is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 356 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1238 litres | 1841 litres | |
|
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage space. Ford EcoSport has 54 litres less trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan X-Trail (by 603 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`751 | ~ 2`009 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 14 600 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford EcoSport has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |