Nissan Juke 2013 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 154 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.8 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Nissan Juke is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Juke engine produces 83 HP more power than Mitsubishi ASX, whereas torque is 96 NM more than Mitsubishi ASX. Thanks to more power Nissan Juke reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi ASX is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Juke consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Juke could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Juke consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 1080 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1280 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi ASX gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 350'000 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 Mitsubishi ASX engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 15 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 | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.62 m | |
| Nissan Juke is 13 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 | 442 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1219 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX has more luggage space. Nissan Juke has 191 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Juke is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi ASX. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`735 | 1`870 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Mitsubishi ASX has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Juke has serious deffects in 100 percent more cases than Mitsubishi ASX, so Mitsubishi ASX quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Juke has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |