Nissan X-Trail 2014 vs Audi Q5 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
Audi Q5 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 50 HP less power than Audi Q5, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q5, which means that by driving the Nissan X-Trail over 15,000 km in a year you can save 390 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1220 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1330 km on highway | 1170 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan X-Trail gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan X-Trail can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Nissan X-Trail version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from seven 4x4 versions of Nissan X-Trail 2014 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Scenic, Renault Megane | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi A4, Audi A5 | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.66 m | |
| Nissan X-Trail is 1 cm longer than the Audi Q5, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan X-Trail is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1877 litres | 1560 litres | |
| Nissan X-Trail has 10 litres more trunk space than the Audi Q5. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan X-Trail (by 317 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 0.4 metres less than that of the Audi Q5, which means Nissan X-Trail can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`310 | 2`330 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Audi Q5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan X-Trail has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Audi Q5, so Audi Q5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 12 800 | 27 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Audi Q5 has
| |