Nissan Juke 2014 vs Ford EcoSport 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| 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: | 214 HP | 112 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 140 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 seconds | 14.1 seconds | |
|
Nissan Juke is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Juke engine produces 102 HP more power than Ford EcoSport, whereas torque is 110 NM more than Ford EcoSport. Thanks to more power Nissan Juke reaches 100 km/h speed 6.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 6.3 | |
|
The Ford EcoSport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan Juke consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford EcoSport, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Juke could require 165 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 52 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| Ford EcoSport 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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Ford EcoSport engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Pulsar | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.17 m | 4.27 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.65 m | |
| Nissan Juke is 11 cm shorter than the Ford EcoSport, width is practically the same , while the height of Nissan Juke is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 207 litres | 333 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
786 litres | 1238 litres | |
|
Ford EcoSport has more luggage space. Nissan Juke has 126 litres less trunk space than the Ford EcoSport. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford EcoSport (by 452 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Juke is 0.1 metres more than that of the Ford EcoSport. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`870 | 1`735 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Ford EcoSport has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Juke has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Ford EcoSport, so Ford EcoSport quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9000 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Juke has
|
Ford EcoSport has
| |