Subaru Forester 2013 vs Nissan X-Trail 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 147 HP | 173 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is a more dynamic driving. Subaru Forester engine produces 26 HP less power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Nissan X-Trail. Due to the lower power, Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Subaru Forester is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Forester consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that by driving the Subaru Forester over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Forester consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1050 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 890 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 17 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Subaru Outback, Subaru Legacy | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 4.60 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.70 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Subaru Forester is 4 cm shorter than the Nissan X-Trail, width is practically the same , while the height of Subaru Forester is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 505 litres | 479 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1773 litres | |
|
Subaru Forester has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Subaru Forester has 26 litres more trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. The Nissan X-Trail may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Forester is 1 metres less than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Subaru Forester can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`080 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 16 800 | 8600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.8/10 | 9.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |