Kia Shuma 2001 vs Nissan X-Trail 2007
| Body: | Hatchback | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 101 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 148 NM | 196 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is a more dynamic driving. Kia Shuma engine produces 40 HP less power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 48 NM less than Nissan X-Trail. Due to the lower power, Kia Shuma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 8.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 9.8 l/100km | |
|
The Kia Shuma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Kia Shuma consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that by driving the Kia Shuma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Kia Shuma consumes 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan X-Trail gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Serena | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Kia Shuma engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Kia Shuma is smaller. Kia Shuma is 12 cm shorter than the Nissan X-Trail, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Kia Shuma is 26 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 440 litres | 479 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1207 litres | no data | |
|
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage space. Kia Shuma has 39 litres less trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia Shuma is 1 metres less than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Kia Shuma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`625 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 4600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia Shuma has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |