Nissan Juke 2010 vs Toyota Urban Cruiser 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 132 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Nissan Juke is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Juke engine produces 90 HP more power than Toyota Urban Cruiser, whereas torque is 108 NM more than Toyota Urban Cruiser. Thanks to more power Nissan Juke reaches 100 km/h speed 4.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Urban Cruiser is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Nissan Juke consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Urban Cruiser, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Juke could require 315 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Juke consumes 3.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Urban Cruiser. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 630 km on highway | ||
| 450 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Pulsar | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota Corolla, Toyota Auris, Toyota Yaris, Toyota Verso, Toyota iQ | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Urban Cruiser might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Toyota Urban Cruiser 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. | |||
| Toyota Urban Cruiser 2008 1.3 engine: The engine is known for its reliability but exhibits several common issues, especially as mileage increases. Owners report minor oil consumption, which tends to grow over time due to piston ring coking. Individual ignition ... More about Toyota Urban Cruiser 2008 1.3 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 3.93 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.53 m | |
|
Nissan Juke is larger. Nissan Juke is 21 cm longer than the Toyota Urban Cruiser, 4 cm wider, while the height of Nissan Juke is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 251 litres | 314 litres | |
|
Toyota Urban Cruiser has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Nissan Juke has 63 litres less trunk space than the Toyota Urban Cruiser. This could mean that the Nissan Juke uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`860 | 1`590 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Nissan Juke scores higher in safety tests, but Toyota Urban Cruiser is better rated in child safety tests. The Toyota Urban Cruiser scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Juke has
|
Toyota Urban Cruiser has
| |