Ford Maverick 2000 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: | 2.0 - 3.0 (petrol) | 2.0 - 2.5 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 124 - 197 HP | 136 - 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 - 265 NM | 192 - 314 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 - 13.5 seconds | 9.9 - 13.1 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.8 - 12.8 | 7.1 - 10.0 | |
|
Ford Maverick petrol engines consumes on average 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than 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: | 4.41 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.70 m | |
| Ford Maverick is 10 cm shorter than the Nissan X-Trail, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford Maverick is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 985 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1841 litres | |
|
Ford Maverick has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Ford Maverick has 575 litres more trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. The Nissan X-Trail may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`020 | ~ 2`009 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Maverick has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |