|
|
VS |
|
This is the new Mazda CX-3 Vs Nissan Juke comparison. As our opinion on the CX-3 grows as we revisit it’s competitors. This time it’s comparison with an SUV that’s closest in size, the Nissan Juke. The Nissan Juke was ahead of it’s time when released in 2010, combining futuristic styling, state of the art technology and performance. The Juke is a big seller in parts of the world that have a proper marketing department unlike Australia which seem to have poor direction and shocking marketing. The Mazda CX-3 has just been released as we write this (May 2015) and is the model that seems to have pin point marketing, packaging and pricing.
Mazda CX-3 Vs Nissan Juke exterior: The CX-3 looks great in the showroom and on the road. It’s look straddles conservative and modern styling themes perfectly. It strangely appeals to our female partners more than the guys. The Juke was not designed to be conservative it still looks different from all the other SUVs in the class and it is cool. All of us like the it for one reason or other in terms of design. The Juke is also a smaller one.
Mazda CX-3 Vs Nissan Juke interior: The interior of CX-3 copies the theme of the other Mazda’s in the updated part of the range. It looks and feels good to be in. The Nissan Juke is a completely different design to the rest of Nissan’s range. It is was modern and stylish and great when released – like the CX-3 of 2015. Over the 5 years its been around the the design still works and mostly cool to be in however the materials used needs to be updated to compete – otherwise it has individual character. That said better looking covers over the hard plastics, except for the colored ones or course is all that required but overall entirely forgivable due to age.
Mazda CX-3 Vs Nissan Juke engine and technology: There are different tech in both SUVs. The Juke was one of the first with turbo charging a small SUV and it shows. It has lots of power, speed and traction thanks to the GTR bits underneath for the AWd model. Although fuel economy was considered back in 2008 there wasn’t much on offer hence while economical by 2010 standards and not that far off in real life in 2015 so can’t be used as a real purchasing factor. What makes the Juke better than it’s competitors is the BEST AWD system and that’s where the fun is for this class of small SUV. Unfortunately it only comes with a CVT which ruins the package. On the other hand the CX-3 has all the latest fuel saving tech and quite powerful in petrol or diesel. Everything lse is a refinement of existing tech. The additional safety standards are good too but there is nothing more to boast in the CX-3.
The conclusion is two fold. As far as technicalities goes each one has features the other one doesn’t. The only key factor is which one is the better drive for you and we can’t tell you which one is suited to you. The Juke holds up really well despite being an older design. The Juke is for those who are individuals and want something different and affordable performance. The CX-3 is seemingly designed as the standard for 2015 small SUV template and it probably is but for the masses not individual. We would be happy in either SUV for different reasons.
| Mazda CX-3 | Nissan Juke |
 |
 |
| Engines | |
| SKYACTIV-G IL4 Cylinder Petrol DOHC EFI 2.0 Litre (1998cc) Claimed 109Kw @ 6000RPM Claimed 192Nm @ 2800PM |
4 Cylinder Turbo Petrol (2015) 1.2 Litre (1197cc) 95 Octane DOHC VVT EFI Claimed 85Kw @ 4500RPM Claimed 190Nm @ 2000RPM |
| SKYACTIV-D IL4 cylinder Diesel 1.5 Litre (1499cc) Turbo-charged – DI – CR Claimed 77kW @ 4000rpm Claimed 270Nm @ 1600rpm |
4 Cylinder Petrol 1.6 Litre (1598cc) 95 Octane DOHC VVT EFI Claimed 86Kw @ 6000RPM Claimed 158Nm @ 4000RPM |
| 4 Cylinder Turbo Petrol 1.6 Litre (1618cc) 95 Octane DOHC VVT EFI Claimed 140Kw @ 6000RPM Claimed 240Nm @ 2000RPM |
|
| Weight | |
| Kerb weight FROM 1332Kg Towing capacity up to 1200Kg |
Kerb weight FROM 1160Kg Towing capacity up to 1200kg |
| Fuel capacity & consumption | |
| 44 litres 2.0 litre Petrol: 6.7 litres per 100km 1.5 Litre Diesel: 5.1 litres per 100km |
Up to 46 – 50 litres IL4 1.6 Turbo 7.4 litres per 100km (petrol) IL4 1.6 6.3 litres per 100km (petrol) |
| Other specifications | |
| 6 speed Auto Overall height/width 1550/1765 Overall length/wheelbase 4275/2570 Drive system: On demand AWD or 2WD Tyre size: 215-50-18 215-60-16 NCAP safety rating 5/5 |
6 speed manual or CVT Auto Overall height/width 1565/1765 Overall length/wheelbase 4135/2530 4WD system: FWD or AWD ANCAP Safety: 5/5 Tyre size: 215-55-15 |
| Capability | |
| Angle of: (degrees) Approach xx Departure xx Breakover xx Ground clearance (unloaded) xxxmm Water Fording depth xxmm Max |
Angle of: (degrees) Approach xx Departure xx Breakover xx Ground clearance (unloaded) xxxmm Water Fording depth xxmm Max |
| Performance | |
| 1.2 Petrol 0-100kph 10 secs 1.6 Petrol 0-100kph 10 secs 1.6 Petrol Turbo 0-100kph 8 secs |
|
| Pricing | |
| 2015$19,990 – 37,990 AUD*Base price for model grades. There are lots of accessories and on roads to consider in the final price including weekly sales bargains. | 2015 FROM $22,990 – 32,490 AUD 2013 FROM $21,990 – 32,190 AUD *Always check with the dealer for up to date pricing, specifications, on-road costs, accessories and specials etc.. everything as usual is subject to change! |