Subaru Outback 2002 vs Nissan X-Trail 2003
| 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 | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 156 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 223 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
| Subaru Outback engine produces 9 HP less power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 7 NM less than Nissan X-Trail. Despite less power, Subaru Outback reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 9.6 | |
| Subaru Outback consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that by driving the Subaru Outback over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. | |||
| 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) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.72 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.58 m | 1.68 m | |
| Subaru Outback is 21 cm longer than the Nissan X-Trail, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru Outback is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 464 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`980 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |