|
|
VS |
|
This is the Mazda CX-30 Vs Nissan Juke comparison for 2020. The Juke was the first of the stylish small SUVs and despite being a 10 year old design still looks fresh. It’s mostly unjustified comparing the CX-30 against the Nissan Juke for a few reasons, they are pricing, size and that a all new Juke will be released within the next 12 months. However the Juke in it’s original guise is still on sale and pricing does overlap between the two models.
Mazda CX-30 Vs Nissan Juke exterior comparison: The Juke is a good design although polarising but it works and hasn’t aged like other cars its age e.g.. Mitsubishi ASX from 10 years ago. The CX-30 is a sporty looking car although some will think it is conservative. We like both for these reasons. The Juke may be the smaller car but it looks bigger than it is.
Mazda CX-30 Vs Nissan Juke interior comparison: The interior of the Juke looks great but the materials are mostly hard plastics of not the best grade. As a result it does look and feel cheap in places but Nissan have done a great job in the design that like it’s exterior still looks great after so many years. Unless you sit in the CX-30 you would honestly think the Juke is pretty good for the price. The CX-30 in general has a very good interior of the price. It is a level above the price where it counts. The higher the model grade the better the CX-30 is.
Mazda CX-30 Vs Nissan Juke engine and technology comparison: The Juke is a surprising package in terms of equipment and engines. A small decent power turbo engine for most of the range followed by a larger turbo powered for significantly more power than the entire small SUV class than you get the NISMO enhanced version. We usually frown at turbo tuning but the Juke has more changes which justifies viewing it as a separate model. By all accounts to those who drive agree that it is a drivers car rather and one foot drivers the the entire class consists of. Nissan Should be applauded, if only they released it years ago. The CX-30 has shared engines with other Mazdas along with extensive safety systems list all very sensible choices.
Mazda CX-30 Vs Nissan Juke Street cred : A Juke NISMO RS will have those into JDM cars wondering if its the real thing as they didn’t realise the model exists. Furthermore it’s just not the cosmetic package with stickers. A real NISMO, well as real as you can get from the showroom. To be honest the regular Juke is probably on par with the CX-30.
The conclusion and winner of the Mazda CX-30 Vs Nissan Juke comparison is a draw. In general the CX-30 is the better buy for 2020 style refinement and quality with just enough speed to add interest and some substance to the look. It’s a no drainer with an automatic, so as good as any other in commuting and traffic. The Nissan Juke is still not the mainstream purchase due to it’s ‘different’ looks although all the hardware is there for an up to date small SUV. While the normal Juke is for commuting, the NISMO RS variant is for drivers as it is more difficult to drive, rather you have to take the time to drive it. Since the option is there and Nissan should be applauded for releasing it. Although available in Automatic the vocal masses who can’t drive anything else but an automatic will complain like wise the mainstream self proclaimed reputable websites don’t understand that this is the future. No one will look back and proclaim the CX-30 a classic, where as in 20 years the Juke NISMO RS has the chance at being part of the JDM collectables.
| Mazda CX-30 | Nissan Juke |
 |
 |
| Engines | |
| IL4 Cylinder Petrol DOHC VVT EFI 2.0 Litre (1998cc) Claimed 114Kw @ 6000RPM Claimed 200Nm @ 4000RPM |
4 Cylinder Turbo Petrol (2015) 1.2 Litre (1197cc) 95 Octane DOHC VVT EFI Claimed 85Kw @ 4500RPM Claimed 190Nm @ 2000RPM |
| 4 Cylinder petrol (91 Octane) 2.5 Litre (2488cc) DOHC VVT EFI Claimed 139Kw @ 6000RPM Claimed 252Nm @ 4000RPM |
4 Cylinder Turbo Petrol 1.6 Litre (1618cc) 95 Octane DOHC VVT EFI Claimed 140Kw @ 6000RPM Claimed 240Nm @ 2000RPM |
| 4 Cylinder Turbo Petrol (NISMO RS) 1.6 Litre (1618cc) 95 Octane DOHC VVT EFI Claimed 1627Kw @ 6000RPM Claimed 250Nm @ 2400RPM |
|
| Weight | |
| Up to 51 litres IL4 2.0 Petrol 6.5 litres per 100km IL4 2.5 Petrol 6.6 litres per 100km |
Kerb weight FROM 1160Kg Towing capacity up to 1200kg |
| Fuel capacity & consumption | |
| 6 speed Auto Overall height/width 1540/1795 Overall length/wheelbase 4395/2655 4WD system: FWD or AWD on Demand ANCAP Safety: 5/5 |
Up to 46 – 50 litres (95 Octane) IL4 1.2 Turbo 7.4 litres per 100km (petrol) IL4 1.6 Turbo 6.3 litres per 100km (petrol) IL4 1.6 NISMO RS 7.3 litres per 100km (petrol) |
| Other specifications | |
| 8 Speed Auto Overall height/width 1658/1910 Overall length/wheelbase 4425/2705 4WD system: FWD or AWD ANCAP Safety: 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) 175mm Water Fording depth xxmm Max |
Angle of: (degrees) Approach xx Departure xx Breakover xx Ground clearance (unloaded) 180 mm Water Fording depth xxmm Max |
| Performance | |
| 1.2 Petrol Turbo 0-100kph 10 secs 1.6 Petrol Turbo 0-100kph 8 secs 1.6 NISMO RS 0-100kph 7 secs |
|
| Pricing | |
| 2020 $29,990 – 43,490 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! |
2020 FROM $23,490 – 30,490 AUD 2020 NISMO RS $34,490 – 37,490 AUD 2016 FROM $23,490 – 33,490 AUD 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! |