Nissan X-Trail 2010 vs Suzuki Grand Vitara 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 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: | 173 HP | 129 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is more dynamic to drive. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 44 HP more power than Suzuki Grand Vitara, whereas torque is 60 NM more than Suzuki Grand Vitara. Thanks to more power Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Grand Vitara, which means that by driving the Nissan X-Trail over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Grand Vitara. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 66 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 970 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 840 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | 205 mm (8.1 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Megane | |
| 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 Nissan X-Trail 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. | |||
| 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 | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Nissan X-Trail is 34 cm longer than the Suzuki Grand Vitara, 2 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 479 litres | 398 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1773 litres | no data | |
|
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage capacity. Nissan X-Trail has 81 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki Grand Vitara. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 0.6 metres more than that of the Suzuki Grand Vitara, which means Nissan X-Trail can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 8600 | 5600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Suzuki Grand Vitara has
| |