Nissan Juke 2010 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| 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: | 110 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Juke engine produces 40 HP less power than Mitsubishi ASX, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Mitsubishi ASX. Due to the lower power, Nissan Juke reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 5.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.7 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Juke is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Juke consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX, which means that by driving the Nissan Juke over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Juke consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1280 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 920 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi ASX gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Juke might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Nissan Juke 2010 1.5 engine: The engine has many modifications, is sufficiently common and spare parts are available. The fuel consumption/power ratio is good. The fuel injection system can be a problem and the timing belt change interval ... More about Nissan Juke 2010 1.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.62 m | |
|
Nissan Juke is smaller. Nissan Juke is 16 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi ASX, width is practically the same , while the height of Nissan Juke is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 251 litres | 419 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 1219 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX has more luggage space. Nissan Juke has 168 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi ASX. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi ASX (by 389 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Mitsubishi ASX has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Juke has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than Mitsubishi ASX, so Mitsubishi ASX quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 5800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Juke has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |