Today we will talk about SUVs. No, not so - let's talk about crossovers, because the word "SUV" sounds almost vulgar. Let's try to make an objective comparison between Renault Captur and Ford Ecosport. And although both cars are mono-drive, and, frankly, do not have impressive cross-country ability, they are the undisputed leaders of the segment.
So, Ford Ecosport was first presented in 2003, as the development of specialists from the Brazilian branch of the concern. The car was based on the same platform as Ford Fusion, and Latin America became the main market for the model (Ecosport 1 was not supplied to Europe). Until 2011, the company managed to sell about 700 thousand copies of the car. In 2012, in India, the Americans introduced Ecosport 2, also developed in Brazil, but with ambitions to export to the world.
In 2016, Ecosport underwent a major modernization, which further adapted the model to European realities. In terms of safety, the car ranks among the top five in the segment.
Kaptur first appeared in public in 2013 and almost immediately attributed himself to the bestsellers on the world market. One of the reasons for this, according to most analysts, is that the car is built on the basis of the already sensational modular platform Clio 4..
In 2016, the French introduced an upgraded version of the crossover, later recognized as a second generation model. To somehow denote this, in the English version of the car's name, the first letter "C" was replaced by "K". The car received a more reliable suspension and a modular Kaptur platform. The Kaptur security system is about the same as that of Ecosport.
What's better? In this aspect, the French car looks stronger.
Appearance
The cars have quite the usual exterior design, as for representatives of the SUV segment. But between them, you can notice a number of serious differences. The exterior of Kaptur is designed very progressively and brightly, it has three-dimensionality and dynamism. Ecosport, in turn, can offer a very collected and aggressive appearance, which may be inferior to its counterpart in brightness, but in terms of dynamics it is definitely not worse than it.
At the front, the Kaptur is equipped with a large convex wind window, a drop-down hood, a branded radiator grill and a powerful bumper with an aggressive air intake. The front end Ecosport can offer a similar "front" and bumper, but a completely different style of false radiator grille, and, as experts say, a more delicate bumper than the opponent's.
On the side, the cars are also quite different. Kaptur has more voluminous wheel arches, and the profile surface is even and does not have any stampings or ribs, which cannot be said for Ecosport.
At the back, the cars have much more in common, but even the most experienced car enthusiast will instantly distinguish between them.
Our verdict: Kaptur's decisive victory in this local confrontation.
Salon
No matter how hard the American developers tried, they did not manage to achieve what was planned for the Ecosport salon. The interior of the crossover, although it has improved compared to its predecessor, is still noticeably inferior to Kaptur.
In the interior of the "Frenchman" luxury and premium are not observed, but it is its simple laconic design that attracts motorists. The compact dashboard of the Kaptur looks much nicer than the sweeping console of the "American". But the steering wheel is brighter for Ecosport.
As for roominess, here the French crossover clearly looks stronger. But the quality of finishing materials is higher at Ford Ecosport, which was a real surprise for experts and analysts who did not expect this for sure.
Specifications
Regarding the "filling", both models have a lot in common. We specially selected two approximately equal versions and opposed them in order to step over this "equality" and still decide on the choice of a crossover. So, Kaptur and Ecosport are equipped with 2-liter gasoline units connected to all-wheel drive. The body of the "Frenchman" is 60 mm longer than Ecosport, but lower by 57 mm. The size of the wheelbase is larger for the "Frenchman" - 2673 mm / 2519 mm. The ground clearance is also higher for the Kaptur, but only by 1 mm - 204 mm / 203 mm. Most surprising is the fact that Ecosport is heavier than the French model - 1488 kg / 1405 kg, although it is inferior in size to its counterpart. The trunk capacity is naturally larger for the Kaptur - 387 l / 333 l. As for the rims, Kaptur and Ecosport are equipped with 17 and 16-inch elements, respectively.
The units of both cars have a volume of 2 liters and operate on gasoline. In terms of returns, they are approximately equal - 143/140 horsepower, in favor of Kaptur. This resulted only in an insignificant superiority of the "Frenchman" in terms of dynamism. Its acceleration time from zero to hundred is 11.2 s, which is only 0.3 s faster than that of Ecosport. But the American can boast of greater efficiency - 8.3 l / on average.
Price
Both companies have always been famous for their loyal pricing policy, and in this case they decided not to change their principles: the average cost is 1,110 thousand rubles, and for its American competitor you need to pay 1,135 thousand rubles. The difference is minimal, which fits perfectly into the general nature of the comparison. But it must be remembered that the Kaptur have noticeably richer basic equipment.
Ford Ecosport 2017-2018 is a novelty from the US concern. Many characteristics and data have been upgraded in the car.
Nissan Qashqai 2017-2018 is a new model from a Japanese concern.
The American car has a dynamic and striving appearance. The appearance of the car is emphasized by a "pseudo-off-road" body kit made of plastic, which gives the audacity and aggressiveness of an ordinary SUV. The car has also updated the tailgate - it can now open in a limited plane. In general, the car looks solid, fast and will definitely find its client.
As for the new Nissan Qashqai, there are sharp bends of the body in its appearance, in almost all appearance there are different stampings, giving modernity and style to the car. It is also worth noting that the head optics have now been improved. The lanterns are narrowed, and it is also worth noting the small round fog lights. There are air intake flaps on the grille. The designers have modernized the car and improved the dynamics.
Interior Ford Ecosport and Nissan Qashqai
Inside the five-seat Ford Ecosport, it also looks bold and fresh. The front and door panels feature a multitude of multi-faceted features, original protrusions and smooth surfaces. It all looks very youthful. Inside, the car has a modernized dashboard in a chrome frame, and the "handbrake" is now located somewhat differently, the company also says that the noise insulation has been increased.
The equipment includes: satellite navigation system, a camera behind the car and a winter complex with heated area for "wipers", exterior mirrors and heated front seats.
Inside the Nissan Qashqai, although it does not have unlimited space, everyone sitting in the car will feel quite comfortable. The interior is stylishly decorated with flowing outlines and soft plastic - both on the front panel and on the doors. It is also worth highlighting the front seats, which have a pronounced, almost sporty side support, the back does not get tired even with long enough movements.
It is also worth noting that the manufacturers have improved the sound insulation. The equipment includes: halogen optics, air conditioning, cruise control system, anti-lock braking structure, assistant when starting up the hill.
Video
Start of sales in Russia
Both Ford Ecosport and Nissan Qashqai will start selling in our country from the second half of 2017.
Complete set
Ford Ecosport:
- The trend is a 1.6 liter engine. 122 "horses", gasoline, transmission - MT, front axle drive, acceleration - 12.5 s, speed - 180 km / h, consumption: 9.1 / 5.3 / 6.7
- Trend + - 1.6 liter engine. 122 "horses", gasoline, transmission - MT, front axle drive, acceleration - 12.5 s, speed - 180 km / h, consumption: 9.1 / 5.3 / 6.7
- Engine 1.6 l. 122 "horses", gasoline, gearbox - AMT, front axle drive, acceleration - 12.5 s, speed - 175 km / h, consumption: 9.2 / 5.7 / 6.9
- Motor 2 HP 140 "horses", gasoline, transmission - MT, drive on both axles, acceleration - 11.5 s, speed - 180 km / h, consumption: 11.5 / 6.6 / 8.4
- Titanium, Titanium + - 1.6 liter engine. 122 "horses", gasoline, gearbox - AMT, front axle drive, acceleration - 12.5 s, speed - 175 km / h, consumption: 9.2 / 5.7 / 6.9
Nissan Qashqai:
- XE - 1.2 liter engine. 115 "mares", gasoline, box - MT, CVT, front axle drive, acceleration - 10.9 / 12.9 sec, speed - 185/173 km / h, consumption: 7.9 / 5.4 / 6.3 and 6.7 / 5.2 / 5.7
- SE - 1.2 liter engine. 115 "mares", gasoline, box - MT, CVT, front axle drive, acceleration - 10.9 / 12.9 sec, speed - 185/173 km / h, consumption: 7.9 / 5.4 / 6.3 and 6.7 / 5.2 / 5.7
- Motor 2 HP 144 "mares", gasoline, transmission - MT, CVT, front axle drive, acceleration - 9.9 / 10.2 sec, speed - 184/194 km / h, consumption: 10.8 / 6.1 / 7.8 and 9.3 / 5.6 / 7.0
- Engine 1.6 l. 130 "mares", diesel, gearbox - CVT, front axle drive, acceleration - 11.2 sec, speed - 183 km / h, consumption: 5.7 / 4.6 / 5.0
- Motor 2 HP 144 "mares", gasoline, gearbox - CVT, drive on both axles, acceleration - 10.5 sec, speed - 182 km / h, consumption: 9.6 / 6.1 / 7.4
- Complete sets SE +, City, City 360, LE, LE Roof, LE +, LE Sport - dvig. the same as in the trim levels above.
Dimensions (edit)
- L * W * H Nissan Qashqai - 4377 * 1837 * 1595 mm
- L * W * H Ford Ecosport - 4237 * 1775 * 1662 mm
- Clearance Nissan Qashqai - 190 mm, Ford Ecosport - 200 mm
Price of all configurations
The price of Ford Ecosport is from 900,000 rubles. up to 1,200,000 p. The price of Nissan Qashqai is from RUB 1,130,000. up to 1,722,000 p.
Ford EcoSport and Nissan Qashqai engine
For our country, Ford Ecosport is equipped with two power units: atmospheric gasoline engines, in-line 4-cylinder, 16-valve DOHC timing belt with fuel distribution. Junior Ti engine - VCT 1.6 l. 122 "horses", the torque is 159 Newtons per meter.
The older engine is 2-liter with 140 "horses", the torque of which is 186 Newtons per meter. Checkpoint - "mechanics" and "robot".
Nissan Qashqai is equipped with a four-cylinder turbo engine: 1.2 liters. 115 "mares", acceleration is about 10.5 - 12.9 seconds. The speed of which will reach 194 km / h.
The next one is an atmospheric engine of 2 liters, 144 "mares", the acceleration will be about 10 seconds, the speed with this engine reaches about 195 km / h.
Diesel unit - 1.6 liters 130 "mares", acceleration - about 11 seconds. The speed is 182-183 km / h.
Trunk Ford Ecosport and Nissan Qashqai
The trunk of Ford Ecosport is designed for 1238 liters. The trunk of the Nissan Qashqai is designed for 1585 liters.
Final conclusion
The result is very impressive. Both new items are modernized when compared with the previous generation. Most of the characteristics have been improved. In some ways one model is better in other ways.
Ford EcoSport. Price: from 959,000 rubles. On sale: since 2012
Nissan Juke. Price: from 739,000 rubles. On sale: since 2011
Yes, both of these machines are ambiguous. But if, looking at the Ford EcoSport, one can still assume that the designers simply got a little lost in the jungle of their kinetic design, then what Nissan was guided by when creating its Juke is difficult to explain from a common point of view. Only one thing comes to mind: Juke was painted by women. Note: not a woman, but women. The man was called only when it was necessary to put the steering wheel and pedals in the right place. And apparently that is why Juke is mostly liked by the fairer sex. There are, of course, men driving this car, but most likely they are either husbands who drive the car away for service, or ... In general, psychologically I feel unwell while driving a Juke, and even somewhere I envy a colleague who hangs at this moment on my tail at EcoSport. Whatever one may say, the design of Ford is less defiant, and by gender it is not so clearly oriented. In any case, a colleague there, unlike me here, is not perceived as a foreign body. So we rush along the highway away from the city. There, where only seagulls can look at me with reproach.
In the meantime, the wheels are lifting spring dust into the air from the highway, I note that the Juke is somehow cramped. But it is not crowded in terms of location, but in terms of sensations. Low windshield, narrow front side, and rear loopholes at all. As if you are not driving a crossover, but in a BRDM. Plus these growths in the side lights on the hood. However, this is just not bad: dimensions with such "limiters" feel much better and only confirm the theory of who drew this car. Apparently, they took care of it in advance. In addition, these transparent bumps along the edges of the hood create a certain illusion of stability, and therefore you enter corners with great excitement.
This, by the way, was also noticeable in the way the colleague, following the EcoSport, slowed down all the time in the corners, but the overall width, and the track, the cars were almost identical. Later, when we switched cars, I understood why this was happening. The Juke's design is sharpened more in width, and this psychologically "gives" the car more lateral stability, while the EcoSport promotes longitudinal lines. So you run into corners in the Juke with little or no deceleration. At such moments, the EcoSport wants to be tilted a little towards the corner.
Ford, in comparison with Nissan, is more wobbly. Affect here and the high height of the car, and the greater ground clearance. But it is softer, and this is fully appreciated when you find yourself on the broken asphalt. Juke shudders from minor irregularities. Seemingly completely flat asphalt, when suddenly there was a shake-up. You come back to see what it was, and a toothpick is lying on the road ... I exaggerate, of course, but still, compared to the EcoSport, which is more balanced in terms of suspension, the Juke is like that.
But here we are. The coastline is empty, and the seagulls, whose ridicule I was ready to endure, flew away altogether when they saw our appearance. Scared? Strange, before this was not noticed behind them. However, it is for the best, let's start comparing interiors in silence. And the interiors of these cars are distinctive in their own way and, we must pay tribute to the designers, they are not beaten. But in the Juke, despite its deliberate simplicity (which only are painted in the body color of the door armrests or the "beard" of the center console), the interior looks much richer than in EcoSport. This richness is manifested in the details, whether it be the ventilation system handles or the keys on the dashboard - more chiseled, more pleasant tactilely, and the sound they make when pressed or rotated is somehow softer. The instrument panel is also perceived richer. At EcoSport, it is too simple, although you can't deny it readability. However, in Juke it is also not very sophisticated, but wells give it a certain charm - a kind of reference to the world of speed and drive. The steering wheel echoes this. It's as versatile as the EcoSport, but it's worth noting that the buttons on the steering wheel are more convenient to use in Ford. On Nissan, in the process of rotation, especially when parking, when you rotate the steering wheel with your palm, every now and then you touch the radio button. The EcoSport has no protruding elements on the steering wheel.
When maneuvering in reverse in the Juke, the rear view camera is of great help. And when parking in cramped conditions, all-round visibility is of great help. And although you will not be able to see the details in the smallest detail, the resolution of the cameras is not enough, but it will definitely help you not to park in the bumper of a neighboring car. The EcoSport does not have such assistants, although, like the Juke, it was top-of-the-line. But the latter can boast of a voice control system, an audio system and a telephone. If necessary, SYNC can even read aloud the incoming text message.
Fidgeting in the Ford driver's seat, you notice that it is equipped with a reclining armrest, which is convenient, but the seat profile itself is better developed in Nissan, and you still feel more comfortable behind the wheel of the Juke. The lumbar region of his seat is not nearly as hollow as in the EcoSport. Although the armrest, of course, would not have been superfluous. The rear seats of cars have almost the same parameters, so I don’t presume to conclude where it is more comfortable to sit. I didn’t sit for a long time, but in a short time it’s difficult to understand anything. But getting in and out of the second row in these cars is equally inconvenient. The doorways are not wide, and the doors themselves do not open at a very large angle, plus the floor level is quite low relative to the threshold.
Car luggage racks are small, but when visually comparing them, it seems that EcoSport has more. This is facilitated by a huge swing door. Opening it, the entire volume of the trunk, from floor to ceiling, you see immediately, this is what creates such an illusion. But the numbers stubbornly prove otherwise. The Juke's trunk is 44 liters larger. And they hide under the floor. The double floor divides the trunk of the car into two parts and, if necessary, putting it down or pushing it behind the backs of the second row, you just get 354 liters of usable volume. And if you don't need it, be content with being on par with the bumper.
As already mentioned, both cars were tested in maximum trim levels, however, with one caveat: the cars were mono-drive. However, this did not stop us from getting where we planned. Sufficient ground clearance - 200 mm for Ford, 180 for Juke - and good geometric cross-country ability allow them to climb a little further than conventional cars. And this is quite enough to feel a little freer than the rest.
And in order to feel more comfortable on the road, of course, it is better to choose cars with automatic transmissions. More precisely, with a "robot", as in EcoSport, and a variator, as in Juke. Both the first and the second behave quite adequately in cars, which allows the driver not to strain in the city traffic and feel tolerable on a suburban highway, even with not very powerful engines. In particular, Ford had a 1.6-liter 122 hp engine. with., and on the Juke is similar in volume, but slightly weaker, at 117 liters. with. And I must say, there was not much difference in the dynamics. According to this indicator, both cars are solid middlings.
"And who is more terrible or more beautiful?" - you ask. I will say this, they are both terribly beautiful, and which word in this phrase is closer to you, choose for yourself. Beauty is a purely individual concept, and, to paraphrase the classics, we can say this: "To whom and Angelina Jolie is the bride" ...
The trunk of a Ford EcoSport visually seems large ...
... but in reality it is still more in Nissan Juke
FORD ECOSPORT from 959 000 rub.
|
Driving Of course, there will be no splash of emotions from driving this car. But everything is predictable. The dynamics with this engine is not awesome, but quite acceptable Salon A bit discordant with the exterior, but in principle, quite interesting Comfort For this indicator, the car is very good. The work of the suspension is especially pleasing. Security Basic configuration 2 airbags, ABS, ESP and EBA Price The price is not very attractive, but still reasonable Average score |
There is not a lot of space behind, but sitting is quite normal, but getting in / out is not very comfortable
The ground clearance of 200 mm allows you not to be very careful on the country road
The instrument panel lacks some elegance - it is simple to disgrace, but it reads well
Climate control unit is discouraging at first
Well, there are a lot of buttons. But it looks impressive
NISSAN JUKE from 739,000 rub.
|
Driving Even not with the most powerful engine, the car is rather mischievous and runs briskly. The main thing is not to flirt Salon Spacious in the front and quite comfortable in the back. The interior impresses with the quality of materials. The design is quite consistent with the appearance of the car Comfort Soundproofing is not bad, but the suspension is sharpened exclusively for good roads Security In the "base" 4 pillows, ABS, ESP, EBD Price Not so small, but acceptable Average score |
The salon looks impressive, and the materials are chosen wisely
The instrument cluster does not stand out from the overall design concept
Some keys cling easily when you turn the steering wheel quickly
The center console is quite elegant, however, and you can't deny it functionality
The back is a little gloomy, but in principle it is quite comfortable
| Specifications | ||
| FORD ECOSPORT | NISSAN JUKE | |
| Dimensions, weight | ||
| Length, mm | 4273 | 4135 |
| Width, mm | 1765 | 1765 |
| Height, mm | 1680 | 1565 |
| Wheelbase, mm | 2519 | 2530 |
| Clearance, mm | 200 | 180 |
| Curb weight, kg | 1386 | 1386 |
| Full weight, kg | 1715 | 1685 |
| Trunk volume, l | 310/1238 | 354/1189 |
| Fuel tank volume, l | 52 | 46 |
| Dynamics, efficiency | ||
| Maximum speed, km / h | 174 | 170 |
| Acceleration time 0-100 km / h, s | 12,5 | 11,5 |
| Fuel consumption, l / 100 km: | ||
| urban cycle | 9,2 | 8,3 |
| extra-urban cycle | 5,6 | 5,2 |
| mixed cycle | 6,9 | 6,3 |
| Technique | ||
| engine's type | petrol, in-line, 4-cylinder | |
| Power h.p. at min -1 | 122 at 6400 | 117 at 6000 |
| Torque Nm at min -1 | 148 at 4300 | 158 at 4000 |
| Transmission | robotic, 6-speed | variable speed drive |
| Drive unit | front | front |
| Front suspension | independent | independent |
| Rear suspension | independent | independent |
| Brakes (front / rear) | disc / drum | disk / disk |
| Tire size | 205/60 R16 | 205 / 50R16 |
| Operating costs * | ||
| Transport tax, p. | 3050 | 2925 |
| TO-1 / TO-2, p. | 10 500 /10 500 | 6300 / 17 960 |
| OSAGO, p. | 7200 | 7000 |
| Casco, p. | 46 000 | 50 000 |
* Transport tax in Moscow. TO-1 / TO-2 - according to the dealer's data. Casco and OSAGO - at the rate of 1 male driver, single, 30 years of age, 10 years of driving experience.
Our verdict
Ford EcoSport and Nissan Juke are far from unambiguous cars in perception. But if their appearance can divide even parishioners of the same church into two camps, then the internal content is quite similar. However, if drive is closer to you, then this is still a Nissan Juke, but if a summer residence, then, of course, Ford EcoSport.
Cars are provided by the following companies: Ford EcoSport - Ford Sollers, Nissan Juke - "Autocentre of Mark".
If earlier, having an amount of a million and a little thousand rubles, it was quite possible to swing at an all-wheel drive crossover with good power (and not even the lowest class), today for this money you will only be offered some kind of front-wheel drive "anti-crisis option." We have already tested similar cars in the fall. Today I found one more reason to return to the topic. The Nissan Juke has recently been updated, and the Ford EcoSport has also hit the market. EcoSport is longer "according to the passport", but do not forget that about 26 cm in length is consumed by a spare tire. And without it, Ford turns out to be even shorter than Nissan by a little 12 centimeters. The "Japanese" also has a slightly larger wheelbase - by 11 mm. The width is parity, and Ford turned out to be higher with an advantage of 64 mm. EcoSport was born at the wrong time. Immediately the price went up, which knocked down demand even more. For example, a test car in the "Titanium" configuration was estimated at more than 1.4 million rubles when I took it for a test. However, during the time spent with us, the car managed to fall in price. Ford announced a price cut, and a week later I returned the EcoSport for 1,299,000 rubles. And at the time of publication, the price dropped to 1,239,000 rubles. Fun time. Nevertheless, the cheaper crossover still turned out to be much more expensive than the updated Juke. With some additional options, the price tag of the latter was 1,126,000 rubles. 
With very similar dimensions, cars look different. EcoSport is thin, elongated, and Juke is low and wide. I must say that EcoSport's career did not work out right from the very beginning. Sales of the model in Europe did not go, and in the first months the car showed statistics many times worse than opponents Peugeot and Opel. Ford thought and announced that the car will soon receive an update. And it will touch the intricate fifth door with a spare tire attached to it. 
EcoSport looks peculiar. Obviously, he wants to be like serious "crooks", and the old school. There is also a silver decor in the front part - like a powerful engine protection. Behind - a large spare wheel under the cover. But with such a size, in spite of everything, the look still turns out to be quite harmless. First, this "napkin" will be made a free option (for fans of this style, apparently). Secondly, they plan to modify the mechanism for opening the tailgate (more on that later). Agree, it is unlikely that such news can spur sales of the original version. However, in the Russian office I was told that the updated door will not reach us soon, and in Europe it has not yet been decided when this option will start. Therefore, EcoSport is still relevant for Russia in its current form. 
The rear of the Ford is notable for the fifth door. The spare wheel was forced to resort to the side opening mechanism. The door handle is effectively hidden in the right lantern. Stylish, but sometimes inconvenient The "Japanese" with the image and marketability is in order. And after the update, the car has become even prettier and more modern. A new shape of the headlights added color to the front - it is close to the general corporate style. Lenses and xenon are now available in the lower "saucers". The drawing of the false radiator grille has become more interesting. Bumpers and taillights have been appropriately modified. The goal has been achieved, now when you see the pre-styling Juk, you immediately understand - it is more boring than the new one. 
The updated Juke has changed quite a bit. The shape of the upper headlights has been corrected, xenon can now be found in the central circles, the false radiator grille, rims and bumper in the lower part have been updated. Refreshing is good - the car looks more modern. You can additionally decorate the car - put wheels with colored inserts, and order yellow inserts and sports seats in the salon. I saw a car with such a set of accessories - it looks really bright and interesting. 
At the rear, the design of the lanterns has been changed and, again, the shape of the lower part of the bumper. Juke's distinctive profile with updated details has become brighter than Ford, compared to Nissan, it looks more everyday and pragmatic. Even in spite of the very cheerful blue metallic and rich chrome front end. In general, its design is not bad either. Nice front end, with small neat headlights and high-set foglights, strict lines of the sidewalls. Practical appearance of a station wagon. I would venture to suggest, by the way, that without a spare wheel, part of the charm will still be lost and the rear part will be scanty. In general, the Nissan Juke has a greater visual appeal in this pair. But even then with a caveat - if you are already accustomed to its design and accept it. If not, the more traditional Ford EcoSport is preferred. I open the easy door of the "Japanese" and immediately notice that there are very few changes inside. Rather, there are practically none. The center panel is the same, with a small touchscreen display at the top and a fun climate control unit. But the visor over the devices was covered with a material resembling leather, it became prettier. 
Juke's rounded interior has remained virtually unchanged. The visor has acquired a more high-profile leather-like finish. The three-spoke steering wheel is comfortable, and the gearshift lever is set high to avoid dragging. There is not enough steering wheel adjustment for reach, but overall the fit is comfortable. Forward visibility is excellent. And back - no, but the circular view system helps. The devices are readable and look more interesting than those of the competitor. The touchscreen color display and the climate control unit are also definitely better and more modern Landing in the updated car - no changes. There was no steering wheel adjustment for takeoff, and it will not appear, and it will appear only on the next generation of the car. With my 187 cm, I manage to find a comfortable fit behind the wheel, although at first it seems that I am sitting closer than I would like. 
On the central tunnel there are cup holders and seat heating keys. Juke's glove compartment is more capacious than the opponent's. Salon inside seems wider than that of the enemy. A wide wavy hood visually works for this, which is clearly visible from the first row. It sways amusingly on the waves, somewhat reminiscent of it on the Infiniti Q70. And the overhead bulging headlights give you a good feel for the front of the car. Throw in the optional 360-degree view and you know that the Japanese have come up with a very correct recipe for gaining mass acceptance by women. 
A number of additional vehicle functions can be activated using the buttons to the left of the steering column. The visor is covered "under the skin". Juke still pleases with cute design elements in the cabin. I am changing to EcoSport. Landing here is higher and more vertical, there are no problems with it. There are enough adjustments. True, when I am in a comfortable position, I have to accept the fact that a very subtle personality can sit behind me. Also, it will not be possible to completely fold the backrests of the second row seats, it will rest against my chair. Juke has a similar story. The cars are small, there's nothing you can do about it. 
The interior decoration largely copies the Fiesta hatchback. However, the plastic is oak everywhere, and the quality of the fit is not impressive. On the door panel there is a soft armrest and a shallow pocket with a recess for a container with a drink. The gauges are readable, but they look cheap. Monochrome information display - greetings from the past. The climate control control unit is also ascetic, although it tries to impress with its unusual shape. The interior of EcoSport is not worked out sportively, but economically. Plastic is everywhere oak, gray and unsightly (in Juke you will not find elastic areas on the dashboard either, but the panel looks nicer). It doesn't even have a color display. It cannot be ordered at all, even for the top version with a two-liter engine and four-wheel drive. And the build quality of the cabin is lame in places. 
The tunnel has three cup holders and small niches. On the lever of the "robot" in the upper part, which has already become traditional for Fords, a two-legged gear shift key. An additional socket is found in the niche between the right second row seat and the door. It is impossible to order a color display, only such a schematic monochrome screen is available. Controlled by a scattering of blind buttons from below. The control algorithm is intricate, at first it requires attention. Controlling the radio and climate in EcoSport is less convenient than in a competitor. And you also need to look closely at the small display - the fonts are small and thin. And you can't make a discount on the class here, because the price. 
Behind the podium of the RCP selector is a 12-volt socket and a USB input. To the left of the steering column, the developers have attached a small compartment for storing small items. There is little space at the back, both here and there. Trips for adults above average height are registered in the second row only for short and in the city. As for the trunks, here, too, both cars are not so hot. A similar amount of space is used in different ways. At Ford, this is an oblong and deep enough compartment where large bags will have to be stacked on top of each other. Nissan has a wider trunk, but it is located high and the opening is small. But there is a comfortable underground. 
Juke's seats (hereinafter - photo on the left) are better profiled and generally more comfortable than the opponent's. They fit tighter and hold better in turns. Ford seats (hereinafter - photo on the right) are flatter. But there is a practical bonus - a pull-out niche is located under the seat. 
The rear is cramped in both cars. The Ford has a little more headroom, but the weather does not. In general, a person of average height and taller will feel cramped here. There is nowhere to put your legs, there is little headroom in the shoulders. Ford's feature is the fifth door. It opens to the side and is equipped with a gas shock absorber, which works quickly and helps to wield a heavy structure well. One bad luck - the door is fixed only in extreme positions. You have to hold it with your hand or always open it wide. The company promises to finalize the design. But how gracefully the handle is hidden in the right lamp. For this, thanks to the designers, more such zest for mass production! 
In the front-wheel drive Juke, the boot volume is increased and is 354 liters (1189 liters with the second row seat backs folded out). Ford's figures are as follows - 310 and 1238 liters. Juke's fifth door is small and the loading height is large. Not very comfortable. Ford has a different problem. The fifth door, the door is equipped with a gas stop and has only two extreme positions, and opens to the side. And the width of the trunk is too small. One more nuance. If a tall driver is driving, then in order to fold the backs of the second row, his seat will have to be moved forward. Juke has the same problem. But he has an underground in the trunk. Actually, behind the wheel of Dzhuk there is a feeling as if you are sitting in a small sports coupe. And when you start moving, you are not disappointed at all. It is managed recklessly. And even with not the most powerful 1.6-liter aspirated engine spurs to dynamic driving. There are 18-inch wheels with low-profile wide tires. And the suspension is stiffer than the opponent's. Juke rolls less, dives more willingly into turns, following the steering wheel with minimal delays. The machine is light enough, and therefore very understandable in its reactions. With Juke you quickly find a common language and set off to conquer fast turns. 
Dzhuk even with not the strongest engine is a provocateur, makes you go faster. The handling is sharp. It can be "softened" a little by ordering 16-inch wheels with 205/55 tires instead of the optional 18-inch wheels with 225/45 tires. In this case, you somehow immediately stop paying attention to the fact that, for example, he is noisier than a competitor. The arches and the street are better bugged here. More engine and CVT sounds. But how Dzhuk keeps the trajectory in a fast bend, with minimal roll and without a hint of horizontal swing, if suddenly a wave goes along the road. You immediately remember that it was in its depths that Nissan "packed" the stuffing from the GT-R, creating an unsurpassed show car. 
Under the perky nature of this crossover, a box is asked, different from the variator. Nissan's X-tronic is not bad, but the traction control is still "blurry" And Ford? Does the company want to mate the EcoSport with the powertrain and engine from the new Ford GT supercar? Personally, I have not heard anything about this. Apparently, this is the difference in approaches. A big bet has been made on Juka and the creators love him more. Hence the result. However, it's too early to write off the cute blue crossover. Ecosport, although devoid of a pronounced driver's charisma, is nevertheless endowed from birth with good manners on the road and even a little outside it. 
Ford also handles pretty well. The suspension is generally more comfortable than that of the "Japanese", the reactions are smoother. The level of ride comfort is higher. On "sixteenth" wheels, with a slightly higher ground clearance, it allows you to feel better on roads without asphalt, and to move in the city, not really tracking the position of hatches, defective and worn canvas. EcoSport has a more energy-intensive suspension. This became clearly visible when we drove out onto country roads thawing under the rays of the early spring sun. It should be noted that Ford's electric power steering is also well tuned. In general, this car is quite driver-friendly. Yes, and in limiting modes is understandable. EcoSport is less sensitive to the rut (but here we must also take into account the difference in rubber). True, one feels that he is heavier than the enemy. Hence the worse dynamics and higher fuel consumption. 
A more powerful motor does not guarantee the EcoSport better dynamics, even in spite of the agile robotic gearbox. This is because Ford is 140 kg heavier. Where Juke loses to his opponent is in the gearbox. After all, a variator is a variator. And so far no one has said anything new in this genre. Slightly extended reactions to the driver's requests and the need to not stand on ceremony with the accelerator pedal still characterize him. But robotic gearboxes are progressing, and this is demonstrated by Ford, whose Powershift works quickly and smoothly. Moreover, it allows you to easily and effortlessly get under way, almost like on a conventional "machine". And in sport mode, it pleases with quick downshifts under the verified "over-rotation". 
Juke is more economical than EcoSport. He consumed about ten liters of fuel in a mixed mode with the advantage of the city. EcoSport “drank” in the region of 11 liters per “hundred”. We did not find any complaints about the brakes of either one or the other car. But it should be noted that the more expensive Ford is equipped with drum mechanisms on the rear axle, while Nissan has disc mechanisms. 
Both cars underneath are typical front-wheel drive cars with slightly increased ground clearance. There is no additional protection here. The bottom points are the subframes and exhaust systems. It turns out that the driving performance is similar to the exterior. The perky and more gambling Nissan is less practical. And Ford, endowed with less expressive handling, is nevertheless loyal to the surface, quieter and more comfortable. Conclusion For me, the winner in the confrontation is obvious - Nissan Juke. In this pair, he is preferable to the opponent. Prettier, better quality and more interesting inside. It drives faster and uses less fuel, is more modern and finally cheaper. All that remains is the design. Many are still skeptical about the external data of this car. But here, as they say ... As for EcoSport, this is the choice of a pragmatist. A person who is loyal to the Ford brand or who buys this particular car for some other personal reasons. He is not much more practical than the same Juke, just as cramped and not too roomy. But, unfortunately, the energy intensity of the suspension and better sound insulation are not enough to bypass such a charismatic competitor as the old Juke. 
Options and prices
Nissan juke The basic version (Base) is estimated at 862,000 rubles. It is a front wheel drive vehicle with a five-speed manual gearbox and a 1.6 (94 hp) engine. The more expensive XE version costs 936,000 rubles. Next comes a car with a more powerful aspirated, as in the test. Prices for a car with "mechanics" - 1,006,000-1,091,000 rubles. For a modification with a variator, they ask from 996,000 to 1,226,000 rubles. The top version with a 1.6 turbo engine (190 hp), four-wheel drive and "mechanics" costs 1,280,000-1,301,000 rubles. And with a variator - 1,400,000-1,421,000 rubles. Dealers have not yet offered the Nismo version in an updated body. Ford EcoSport The most affordable EcoSport is the Trend version with a 1.6-liter engine (122 hp) and a five-speed manual transmission. Such a car costs 1,039,000 rubles. For the version with a six-speed automatic transmission, they ask for 1,089,000 rubles. Trend Plus costs 1,139,000 rubles for a front-wheel drive version with a 1.6 engine and a manual gearbox and 1,189,000 rubles for the same car, but with a Powershift “robot”. The all-wheel drive version is offered only with "mechanics" and a two-liter petrol engine (140 hp) for 1,279,000 rubles. The same machines in the Titanium configuration cost 1,199,000, 1,239,000 and 1,339,000 rubles, respectively. The top version of Titanium Plus is estimated at 1,329,000 (1.6 and Powershift) and 1,429,000 rubles (two liters, four-wheel drive and "mechanics").Security
Nissan juke
Ford Ecosport 
Specifications (manufacturer data)
| Nissan Juke 1.6 CVT | Ford EcoSport 1.6 AT | |
|---|---|---|
| Body | ||
| Type of | Station wagon (SUV) | Station wagon (SUV) |
| Number of seats / doors | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Engine | ||
| Type of | Petrol | Petrol |
| Engine location | Front transverse | Front transverse |
| Number and arrangement of cylinders | 4, in a row | 4, in a row |
| Working volume, cubic meters cm | 1598 | 1596 |
| Power, hp with. at rpm | 117/6000 | 122/6400 |
| Torque, Nm at rpm | 158/4100 | 148/4300 |
| Transmission | ||
| Drive unit | Front | Front |
| Transmission | Continuously variable (CVT) | 6-RCP |
| Brakes | ||
| Front | Ventilated discs | Ventilated discs |
| Rear | Disk | Drum |
| Suspension | ||
| Front | Independent, spring-loaded, McPherson | |
| Back | Semi-dependent, spring | Semi-dependent, spring |
| Dimensions, volume, weight | ||
| Length / width / height, mm | 4135/1765/1565 | 4012(4273)/1765/1629 |
| Wheelbase, mm | 2530 | 2519 |
| Clearance, mm | 180 | 200 |
| Curb weight, kg | 1140 | 1280 |
| Fuel tank volume, l | 46 | 52 |
| Trunk volume, l | 354-1189 | 310-1238 |
| Tires | 205/60 R16 | 205/60 R16 |
| Dynamic characteristics | ||
| Maximum speed, km / h | 170 | 174 |
| Acceleration to 100 km / h, sec. | 11,5 | 12,5 |
| Fuel consumption, l / 100 km | ||
| Urban cycle | 9,2 | 9,4 |
| Country cycle | 5,6 | 5,7 |
| Cost, rub. (as of April 2015) | ||
| Basic version | 939 000 | 1 089 000 |
| Test car | 1 146 000 | 1 239 000 |
Photo Bonus
