Nissan X-Trail 2010 vs Audi Q5 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Audi Q5 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 20 HP less power than Audi Q5, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Audi Q5. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.3 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 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Audi A4, Seat Altea, Audi A5, Seat Leon, Seat Exeo | |
| 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. | |||
| Nissan X-Trail 2010 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.65 m | |
| Nissan X-Trail and Audi Q5 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 479 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1560 litres | |
|
Audi Q5 has more luggage space. Nissan X-Trail has 61 litres less trunk space than the Audi Q5. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 1.2 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`170 | 2`310 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Audi Q5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan X-Trail has serious deffects in 195 percent more cases than Audi Q5, so Audi Q5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8600 | 9800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Audi Q5 has
| |