Subaru Outback 2013 vs Nissan X-Trail 2014
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Subaru Outback is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Nissan X-Trail can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Nissan X-Trail also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.0 - 3.6 | 1.6 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 - 260 HP | 130 - 177 HP | |
| Torque: | 235 - 350 NM | 200 - 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.6 - 9.9 seconds | 9.4 - 12.1 seconds | |
| In general, Subaru Outback are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Nissan X-Trail. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 - 9.9 | 4.9 - 8.3 | |
|
Subaru Outback petrol engines consumes on average 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than Nissan X-Trail. On average, Subaru Outback equipped with diesel engines consume 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan X-Trail can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Subaru Outback is larger, but lower. Subaru Outback is 16 cm longer than the Nissan X-Trail, width is practically the same , while the height of Subaru Outback is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 526 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1848 litres | 1982 litres | |
|
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Subaru Outback uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan X-Trail (by 134 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Outback is 0.2 metres less than that of the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`080 kg | ~ 2`195 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 8600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Outback has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |