Ford EcoSport 2017 vs Nissan X-Trail 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Ford EcoSport) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Nissan X-Trail) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 192 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is a more dynamic driving. Ford EcoSport engine produces 20 HP less power than Nissan X-Trail, but torque is 58 NM more than Nissan X-Trail. Due to the lower power, Ford EcoSport reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 9.1 | |
|
The Ford EcoSport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford EcoSport consumes 3.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that by driving the Ford EcoSport over 15,000 km in a year you can save 570 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 810 km on highway | ||
| Ford EcoSport gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.10 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.68 m | |
| Ford EcoSport is 41 cm shorter than the Nissan X-Trail, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford EcoSport is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 320 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1145 litres | 1841 litres | |
|
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage space. Ford EcoSport has 90 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 696 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`805 kg | 2`000 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`348 kg | 1`380 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 457 kg | 620 kg | |
| Ford EcoSport load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 36 procentiem less than Nissan X-Trail. Therefore, Nissan X-Trail is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 10 800 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford EcoSport has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |