Partner offers
City's legends. Nissan Qashqai vs Suzuki SX4 and Subaru XV
The ruble ruthlessly prioritized the C-class crossover segment. Suzuki SX4 and Subaru XV in the past fought to the last for each client, but today it is much more difficult to compete with the localized Nissan Qashqai
The Nissan Qashqai wasn't the first high-clearance C-Class hatchback, and its clean, stingy lines didn't make for a dizzying success. Nevertheless, in ten years more than three million cars were sold worldwide. Competitors - Suzuki SX4 and Subaru XV - are not so famous, but this does not mean at all that they have nothing to oppose to the bestseller.
With the change of generations, the Qashqai has become more massive and now looks more like a crossover than a passenger hatchback. With the launch of production in St. Petersburg, he began a third life - already as one of the most popular cars in the segment. The localized crossover received a suspension adapted to our conditions, with new shock absorbers and an extended track.
All-wheel drive hatch Suzuki SX4 originally played in the B-class. The next generation grew in size and imitated the Qashqai of the first generation: a tilted rear pillar, large naive headlights, a variator, an all-wheel drive switch washer. It didn’t work out just to repeat the success - the crossover, renamed the S-Cross, did not fundamentally change the situation on the European market. In Russia, he started well in 2014, but then the ruble collapsed - prices rose, and the supply of cars stopped.
During the time that we did not have the SX4, Suzuki worked on the bugs: removed the CVT, added a turbo engine and tried to make the car more solid. I overdid it with the latter - a powerful chrome-plated “I want to be Prado” grille and huge headlights seem to be borrowed from an SUV a couple of sizes larger and do not fit well with 16-inch wheels in spacious arches.
Subaru XV is essentially the Impreza hatchback, but with increased clearance up to 220 mm and a protective body kit. Despite the long nose, it looks more like an SUV than other test participants. This is a real exotic in the segment: a boxer engine with horizontal cylinders, its own transmission. Being the most affordable crossover of the Subaru brand, it was still inferior in popularity to the older Forester. In 2016, the XV underwent restyling and received new chassis settings, and with them a price tag of 1.6 million rubles, which made the crossover even more exotic.
Qashqai immediately has an abundance of soft plastic, accurate fitting of parts and a solid shine of piano lacquer. As well as options - only it has a panoramic sunroof in the entire roof and all-round cameras. Regular navigation learns about traffic jams via the radio channel and instantly recalculates the route.
The restyled Subaru XV has got nice aluminum and piano lacquer inserts, but the feeling of quality is spoiled by wide gaps and uneven stitching on the leather. The interior of the Suzuki SX4 has also changed for the better - a soft front fascia, modern navigation - but among the test cars, it is the most modest. In the top configuration, the same fabric upholstery of the seats, only with contrasting stitching. Multimedia Subaru offers additional applications, Suzuki - advanced voice control, but they do not know how to calculate the route taking into account traffic jams.
Nissan Qashqai is wider in the shoulders and outperforms competitors in the size of the wheelbase. In theory, its second row should be the most comfortable and spacious, there are even additional air ducts. But in reality, the sofa cushion is set low compared to competitors. In terms of headroom and legroom, the Nissan matches the more compact Suzuki and is inferior to the Subaru. The SX4's trunk is Nissan's, but if you fold down the rear seatbacks, the Qashqai takes revenge. Suzuki leads in terms of convenience: the loading height is lower, there is an additional compartment under the floor. The XV has the most uncomfortable and cramped trunk - only three hundred and a few liters.
Soft wide seat Nissan Qashqai with adjustable lumbar support pacifies, thick A-pillars affect visibility, but look reliable, as if emphasizing the strength of the body. Subaru has the tightest, sports seat, and the view is like in an openwork cockpit of an airplane. The nondescript seat of the SX4 is unexpectedly comfortable and cozy, and the landing here is the lowest - the usual passenger hatchback.
Nissan Qashqai accelerates with laziness - the engine roars with strain, the tachometer needle flies up to the red zone, but at the output - viscous rubber acceleration. The Subaru XV has a breathtaking acceleration: a good pickup at the start and another one, but closer to 60 km per hour. The CVT here is faster and struggles to look like a traditional "automatic". Suzuki SX4 gives the impression of being the liveliest of the three - due to the turbo engine, which produces peak torque already at 1500 crankshaft revolutions, the quick reactions of the six-speed automatic transmission and the smallest weight.
According to the passport, it is: Suzuki's acceleration to 100 km / h takes 10.2 seconds, but objectively, the dynamics of crossovers do not differ so much, by tenths of a second. Qashqai is 0.2 seconds faster than XV. Subjectively, it is the slowest, which is why you abuse the accelerator. Surprisingly, the speeding ticket came only to this car.
The Nissan crossover was also the most voracious: in traffic jams, gasoline consumption grew to 11 liters. Subaru with an atmospheric boxer with a similar mass and power turned out to be one liter more economical. The least appetite was shown by the Suzuki turbo engine: about 10 liters, according to the on-board computer.
All-wheel drive transmissions of crossovers are arranged approximately the same: the rear axle is connected automatically by a multi-plate clutch. The difference is hidden mainly in the settings and additional modes. Qashqai can be made front-wheel drive by turning the washer - fuel economy is most relevant for it. The Lock mode is designed for off-road - up to 40 km / h, the thrust will be distributed equally between the axles.
The SX4 clutch can also be force-locked, but only this Suzuki has dedicated Snow and Sport modes. In the first case, the motor responds more smoothly to gas, and the electronics transmit more torque. In the second, the clutch works with preload, the accelerator becomes sharper, and the grip of the stabilization system weakens.
Subaru does not allow intervention in the all-wheel drive system - the electronics itself distributes traction between the axles. The XV's multi-plate clutch is packaged in the same crankcase with the transmission, so it won't overheat off-road. In theory, Subaru should be the most driver and sporty, but no special modes are provided here.
The character of Qashqai is the most peaceful and urban - even the sport mode of the electric power steering only pinches the steering wheel without adding feedback. The stabilization system is tuned for maximum safety and firmly suppresses any hint of slipping. It's strange that it's completely disabled. The suspension of the Russian version has been adapted to bad roads, but it still goes through pits and ice buildups harshly. In principle, for the sake of smoothness, it was possible to abandon the fight against rolls and make the crossover even softer.
Subaru XV demonstrates rally genes: it has the sharpest steering and the most comfortable suspension on the primer. But going to all Subarovskie stars will not work: the supervision of strict electronics can only be weakened, but it is not completely turned off. Suzuki SX4 in Sport mode willingly and predictably rides sideways. Thanks to the thickest tires, the car works out the pits gently, but for the same reason, its reactions are inferior to Subaru in sharpness. The clearance of the crossover is the smallest among the cars in the test, and all-wheel drive is combined with a semi-independent rear beam.
The main trump card of the Nissan Qashqai is the Russian assembly, which made it possible to adjust prices. And a wide range of options, among which there is even a diesel. The simplest crossover with a 1.2-liter gasoline turbo engine, “mechanics” and front-wheel drive will cost one million rubles or more. A two-liter version with all-wheel drive and a CVT costs from 1.5 to 1.74 million rubles.
We compared four crossovers that are among the most affordable on the market today. We have two newcomers in the quartet - Suzuki New SX4 and Nissan Qashqai. Mitsubishi ASX is not a newcomer, but relatively recently it has undergone a light restyling. Skoda Yeti also after a recent facelift and will face the Japanese trinity. Yes, it just so happened that the honor of European automakers will be defended by only one of their representatives, and even the most expensive one. Well, the more interesting it is to find out if it makes sense to overpay.
Coincidentally, our editors decided not to miss the favorable situation in the car market and at the same time choose a car for themselves. True, we will make a reservation that we had our own criteria when choosing a car, namely: an economical gasoline engine (preferably atmospheric), a manual gearbox, front-wheel drive, not the poorest equipment. Roomy trunk, as there is always something to carry.
We searched dealers for the most affordable versions and we almost succeeded. It turned out to be especially difficult to maintain equality in the choice of motors. Starting from our “stove” Suzuki New SX4, we started looking for cars with “mechanics” and a 1.6-liter gasoline engine, because, alas, the Japanese crossover is not offered with other engines. Only Mitsubishi ASX could make an identical pair. In the basic version, it is equipped with a 117-horsepower 1.6-liter gasoline engine and a five-speed manual transmission. For the Nissan Qashqai, the base engine is a new 1.2-liter turbocharged unit with 115 hp, but there was no such car in the test fleet. I had to be content with a two-liter car with a CVT. The Skoda Yeti has a 105-horsepower 1.2-liter turbo engine in the "base". But there is also a 1.4TSI with 123 hp. With front-wheel drive and a six-speed "mechanics". So we took him to the team. Full identity, unfortunately, was not achieved, but that's how it is.
Suzuki New SX4 1.6 MT (2WD)
Dimensions (LxWxH) - 4300x1765x1590 mm. Clearance - 180 mm. Trunk - 430/1269 l. Dynamics (0-100 km / h) - 11.0 s. Fuel consumption (average) - 5.4 l
Arguing about appearance is a thankless task. But let's say a few words. Qashqai and SX4 are not twins at all, but there is something similar in their style. They look modern but fresh. ASX is lean and beat down, though it lacks sophistication. Rustic. And Yeti still stands out with unusual proportions. It is a pity that during the restyling, the designers removed the unusual round fog lights integrated into the upper part of the bumper. However, even in the current version, Skoda looks good, having become somewhat stricter and more solid.
Nissan Qashqai 2.0 AT (2WD)
Dimensions (LxWxH) - 4377x1837x1595 mm. Clearance - 200 mm. Trunk - 325/1585 l. Dynamics (0-100 km / h) - 10.1 s. Fuel consumption (average) - 6.9 liters
The largest both in appearance and dimensions is the Nissan Qashqai - 4377 mm. But the Skoda Yeti turned out to be the most compact - only 4223 mm in length. If you nitpick, then it could be sent to battle with subcompact crossovers, such as the Opel Mokka. But in fact, everything was mixed up not only in the Oblonsky house, but also in the class of compact crossovers. Therefore, the same Yeti performs, in fact, in two classes at once, however, like everyone else. ASX and SX4 go almost bumper to bumper - 4295 and 4300 mm respectively. Size, of course, matters, but we will return to it a little later.
Mitsubishi ASX 1.6 MT (2WD)
Dimensions (LxWxH) - 4295x1770x1615 mm. Ground clearance - 195 mm. Trunk - 384/1188 l. Dynamics (0-100 km / h) - 11.4 s. Fuel consumption (avg.) - 6.1 l
Skoda Yeti has the highest quality interior. Despite being somewhat boring, it feels expensive and solid. And it all starts with heavy doors that close with a dull slap, as if clinging to the opening. They are echoed by metal door handles rubberized from the back. A trifle that eloquently indicates attention to detail. The front seats are the most comfortable in the quartet. Rigid, dense, regular shape and with a wide range of adjustments.
Skoda Yeti 1.4 MT (2WD)
Dimensions (LxWxH) - 4223x1793x1691 mm. Clearance - 180 mm. Trunk - 322/1485 l. Dynamics (0-100 km / h) - 10.5 s. Fuel consumption (average) - 6.8 liters
The steering column of the Skoda Yeti is adjustable for reach and tilt. But, sitting comfortably behind the wheel, you realize that with an optimal fit, the plump donut of the steering wheel covers the top of the instrument panel. And if you raise the steering wheel, you will ruin the landing geometry. As an option, you can raise the chair, sitting upright, as in a bus. But this is the only ergonomic puncture in the Czech crossover. Other than that, he doesn't give a damn.
Despite having the shortest wheelbase, the Yeti's rear seats are comfortable. Legroom was achieved by a vertical landing of passengers. Chairs can be moved back and forth and change the angle of the backs. But because of the high central tunnel, only two passengers will feel comfortable.
The Yeti instrument panel is concise and informative, you just need to get used to the Czechs’ signature “chip” - the speedometer and tachometer numbers drawn around the circle. Yeti boasts plenty of storage space for small items, including a glove compartment on the front panel under the windshield a la Gazelle.
Qashqai pleased with full-fledged door handles, the presence of places for small things and the peaceful nature of the interior. The instrument panel looks great and is readable at a glance. The small color display of the on-board computer is especially good. And the graphics are beautiful, and the resolution is high. Despite the rather low cushion of the rear sofa, it turned out to be comfortable to sit there. There is enough space for both legs and head, and a low central tunnel allows the three of us to sit there.
Among the Japanese counterparts, the Nissan Qashqai looks the most attractive inside. And although there are no bright accents in it, nothing bothers or interferes with the driver's seat. The profile of the seat is not as adjusted as that of the Yeti, and there is not enough lateral support. But the finishing materials are pleasant both in appearance and to the touch. Although the abundance of glossy plastic is somewhat confusing. It just attracts dust and fingerprints. A fingerprinter's dream. There were no special ergonomic miscalculations in the interior of the Qashqai, except for the front armrest that does not retract forward. The only pity is that most of the interesting "gadgets" like a 7-inch color screen or a circular viewing system are available only in expensive trim levels.
At first, the interior of the Suzuki SX4 is not impressive - it is painfully rustic. But in reality, everything is not so bad. A minimum of buttons and they are all at hand. The chairs, however, are of a simple shape and do not hold too tenaciously in turns, but the back does not get tired in them. The instrument panel looks colorful, but it's not for everybody. But the front armrest, unlike the Nissan Qashqai, moves forward. There is a little less space in the back than in Qashqai, but the central tunnel is also low, so a third passenger will not be superfluous.
The interior of the Suzuki SX4 loses respectability to the Qashqai. There are also good finishing materials here, but there is no glossy plastic, and in general the interior looks neat, but without frills. It is felt that when developing the interior, the desire to somehow combine the pleasant with the not very expensive, without pretensions to "premium" was at the forefront. And so it happened. However, it is worth noting the good geometry of the driver's seat, a wide range of steering wheel and seat adjustments. It’s a pity, they didn’t make full-fledged door handles instead of cheap “pockets”. Places for small things are standard - a small glove compartment, pockets in the doors, a box-armrest, a niche on the center console.
In the basic configuration, the Mitsubishi ASX looks dreary. In expensive versions, the dullness of the interior slightly accelerates the large color display of the multimedia system. However, there are no special complaints about ergonomics, but where should they be if you don’t get confused in ten buttons with all your desire. ASX assumes a high driving position, even with the seat fully lowered. With its longest wheelbase and high-mounted front seats, the ASX offers rear passengers maximum legroom. But the sloping roof will put pressure on the head of tall passengers.
The interior of the Mitsubishi ASX is perhaps the most nondescript. Its essence is the same as that of Suzuki - the economy should be economical. But gloomy colors and booming plastic on the door cards spoil the impression. The only bright spot in this interior is the instrument panel. The speedometer and tachometer with bright red, almost sporty arrows are hidden in deep slanting bells. On the central tunnel there are as many as three cup holders and a roomy box armrest. The driver's landing is not ideal, I wanted to be a little more to pull the steering wheel towards me.
As for the trunks, the Skoda Yeti wins in terms of transformation possibilities, although in absolute terms it loses in terms of the volume of the cargo compartment to its competitors, providing only 322 liters in its normal state. All three seats in the back row in the Yeti fold separately to form a flat cargo area, and the trunk volume increases to 1485 liters, and this is the second result after the Qashqai. In addition, in Yeti you can fold not only the backs of the rear seats, but also fold their pillows forward or even dismantle the seats one by one from the passenger compartment, increasing the volume of the trunk. A full-sized “reserve” is stored in the deep underground, and on the side walls there are powerful guides with hooks, on which it is convenient to hang bags from supermarkets.
The Suzuki SX4 also boasts a double boot floor. Thanks to this, when folding the rear seatbacks, an almost flat cargo area is formed. This is where all the transformation possibilities of the SX4 end. In the usual version, the trunk turns out to be the most spacious - 430 liters, but the increase in folding the rear seat backs is small. The useful volume after such a transformation will be only 1269 liters, and this is only a little more than that of an outsider - Mitsubishi ASX.
The high floor, under which a full-size spare wheel is stored, prevented the Mitsubishi ASX trunk from showing outstanding volume figures. In the usual version, the trunk volume is 384 liters, and with the rear seat backs folded down - only 1188 liters. Thank you at least for the fact that during the transformation a flat cargo area is formed.
In the Russian version with a full-size spare tire under the floor, the trunk volume of the Nissan Qashqai is small - only 325 liters. But if you fold the backs of the rear seats, you get a record volume - 1585 liters. There is nothing more to boast of in the trunk of this crossover.
Since our crossovers are front-wheel drive, we deliberately did not conduct any off-road testing. The habitat of these cars is limited to city streets and flat highways. Although the geometric parameters of cross-country ability, in particular, high ground clearance, allow you to make exits from the asphalt. But mainly high ground clearance helps in the city not to cling to curbs and steep ramps with bumpers. The highest clearance declared by the manufacturer is for the Nissan Qashqai - 200 mm. However, in reality it is slightly smaller. In addition, a rather large front overhang does not add patency. ASX in terms of geometry looks the most preferable, despite the lower ground clearance by 5 mm. But the SX4 and Yeti boast 180 mm ground clearance, which in real life is also slightly less than the one declared by the manufacturer. The problem of long front overhang has not bypassed these crossovers, but this problem is most pronounced in the SX4. However, for urban off-road and such modest opportunities are enough.
With soundproofing, like many cars from Japan, our heroes have problems. And they are especially pronounced in the Mitsubishi ASX cabin. Solo starts the engine, which is silent only at idle. And if you spur him on, then he completely clogs all other sounds with his voice. The Suzuki SX4 does a little better with this, but its wheel arches are the lead. But the motor, even in extreme conditions, is not so vociferous.
Due to the difference in powertrains, direct comparisons of dynamics would be incorrect. Although no, we managed to push two of the four crossovers head-on. These are Suzuki SX4 and Mitsubishi ASX. Almost equal power, five-speed manual transmissions and front-wheel drive. Technical data suggests that the difference in acceleration to hundreds of cars is only 0.4 seconds in favor of the SX4. In reality, this is hard to see. But the nature of the motors and, accordingly, acceleration is different. The Mitsubishi engine loves revs, although it pulls well on the bottoms. But after 3,000 rpm, it gives a noticeable pickup. The Suzuki SX4 unit has a more even character, spinning up to maximum speed without a pronounced pickup. The operation of the gearbox was more like the Suzuki. And the lever moves are small, and the inclusions are soft and clear. But the manual gearbox lever in the ASX is like some kind of frame SUV - tall, with large moves and indistinct fixations. You have to get used to it.
From the point of view of acoustic comfort, Skoda Yeti looks the most preferable. All background noise in the car is balanced and does not cause discomfort. The Nissan Qashqai isn't bad either, but there's still work to be done on the sound deadening of the wheel arches.
The Skoda Yeti gearbox is a role model. Short moves and downright gun-like clarity of inclusions. You can feel the German roots. Dynamics is good without reservations. Yet 200 Nm of torque, and developed in a wide range of revolutions. The main thing is to work dexterously with the lever of the six-speed “mechanics”.
The limits of the 144-horsepower two-liter Nissan Qashqai gasoline engine are good, but they all dissolve somewhere between the CVT pulleys. In a medium-calm rhythm of movement, you can’t find fault with the operation of the variator, but when you want to go fast, typical defects of this transmission come out. There is not enough linear relationship between pressing the gas pedal and acceleration.
In terms of handling, there is no equal Skoda Yeti. Dense and assembled suspension, minimal roll, juicy effort on the steering wheel. Gambling car, which is nice to get through a bunch of corners at the limit. The only pity is that the suspension of energy intensity is almost not enough, and the shock absorbers are not enough to rebound. When passing “sleeping policemen”, the front suspension “thumps” unpleasantly.
SX4 and Nissan Qashqai are somewhat similar. They are good on smooth asphalt, but on the “comb” they transmit small vibrations to the body. Yes, and on deep irregularities there is not enough energy intensity. You can't go fast on a broken country road. The steering of both cars lacks information content. Like it or not, there is a feeling of a computer simulator. The SX4 steering wheel seems to be completely pinched in the near-zero zone, and with small deviations of the steering wheel it does not even want to go back on its own.
But Mitsubishi ASX has the most successful chassis from a crossover point of view. The energy efficiency is amazing. In the city, you can generally forget what it means to slow down in front of pits, manholes, tram tracks and “sleeping policemen”. Suspension forgives everything. At low speeds, the steering information is almost lacking, but on the arc the car already shows its rally genes. The only car that can be driven quickly and with pleasure on bad roads.
The spread of prices in our quartet turns out to be serious. Of course, those dealers whose price is pegged to the Russian ruble win first of all. These are Nissan and Suzuki. Let's start with the SX4. So, today the basic version of the crossover costs… hold on… 749,000 Russian rubles or $16,299! At the same time, already in the “base” the car has air conditioning, 7 airbags, a set of active safety systems (ABS, EBD, ESP, BAS), cruise control, electric and heated mirrors, front and rear power windows, a stereo system with steering control wheel, heated front seats, central locking with remote control. Checkmate. The car that took part in the test was in the GLX configuration, which, in addition to the above, has bi-xenon headlights, LED lights, fog lights, light and rain sensors, an intelligent system for accessing the passenger compartment and starting the engine with a button, dual-zone climate control, front and rear parking sensors, hill start assist, R16 alloy wheels. The price is 849,000 rubles or $18,475.
The base Nissan Qashqai with a 1.2-liter engine costs 848,000 Russian rubles or $18,434. The basic equipment is also good. Full power accessories, air conditioning, cruise control, 6 airbags, ESP, central locking with remote control, start / stop system, stereo system. The LE+ version of the test car was much better packaged. Xenon and fog lights, climate control, leather upholstery, intelligent entry and start button, surround view system, front and rear parking sensors, navigation system with 7-inch color display and much more. The cost of such a car with a two-liter gasoline engine, CVT and front-wheel drive is 1,242,000 Russian rubles or $27,060. And this is also a very good suggestion.
The minimum price of the Skoda Yeti within the framework of the promotion is 17,990 euros or 22,345 dollars. This is for a car with a 1.2 TSI petrol turbo engine (105 hp), manual transmission and front-wheel drive in the Outdoor Active package. The package includes two airbags, central locking with remote control, heated windshield, air conditioning. Not much. All the other joys of driving life are in the long list of options. Our car with a 1.4 TSI engine cost 22,500 euros or $ 27,946 and was additionally equipped with a proprietary multimedia system with navigation and a large color screen, a start-stop system, ESP, side airbags and a couple of other options.
Mitsubishi ASX in the basic version with a 1.6 engine and a manual transmission (this is exactly the car we had on the test) is offered at a price of $ 23,500. For this money, the buyer will not receive anything special: electric and heated mirrors, two airbags, air conditioning, a stereo system, power windows front and rear, heated front seats, leather-trimmed steering wheel, remote central locking. Compared to Japanese counterparts - expensive. This corresponds to the price of the base Yeti, but the ASX loses to the European competitor in comfort and transformation possibilities.
Andrey Kazakevich (Chief Website Editor)
All models are good enough and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Our editors' choice is truly rational - discreet in design, balanced and properly priced Suzuki New SX4.
But Nissan and Suzuki, "pegged" to the Russian ruble, today look like the most attractive offer on the market. After restyling, Skoda Yeti lost its charisma, but remained true to itself, but you have to pay for it, and in this situation on the market, the cost of the surcharge reaches 8-10 thousand dollars. Undoubtedly, the introduction of a Russian-assembled Czech crossover to the Belarusian market could change the situation and perhaps the outcome of this test turned out to be different, but we will start from the realities.
Mitsubishi ASX pleased with the good omnivorous suspension and excellent geometric data. But it should be understood that this is still not an off-road car, and therefore the clearance of rivals is quite enough for the city. But the native from the land of the rising sun could not please with the interior decoration and habits on the streets of the metropolis. But a colleague in the Japanese workshop in the person of Nissan Qashqai turned out to be a surprisingly interesting novelty, if not for one thing. Despite the presence of a CVT and the most powerful engine among the compared models, it is the version with a manual transmission and a more economical 1.2-liter engine that begs to be compared. But we managed to test this version at Nissan's road show in the Yakutsk Mountains, and this power unit caused mixed impressions. Not the best impressions from the alliance of the gearbox with the clutch pedal could not overshadow even the abundance of soft plastic in the cabin. And frankly, we are not yet ready to switch to turbocharged engines from Nissan.
And therefore, for us, it turned out to be the most optimal and balanced version of the city crossover from the no less legendary Japanese manufacturer of SUVs and crossovers, Suzuki, in terms of the main parameters. It was the absence of frankly weak moments with a fairly balanced chassis, combined with an economical and time-tested engine, that was the key factor in choosing this model. The well-coordinated operation of the gearbox and well-tuned clutch are perfect for comfortable movement in city traffic. Ground clearance is quite sufficient to conquer the urban landscape, and a roomy trunk is able to take on board a lot of payload - from photographic equipment to family belongings for a summer residence or a country picnic. The interior, in the absence of claims for premium, pleased with its verified ergonomics and good quality materials. Yes, what to dissemble - a crossover in almost the maximum possible configuration for $ 18,475 can convince any skeptic and staunch supporter of German SUVs!
Read the impressions of a close acquaintance with the heroes of the test drive and the conclusions of the experts "Behind the wheel" on.
Below are manufacturers' data and other important technical information, as well as the results of testing crossovers on roller platforms.
RUN ON THE PLACE
To evaluate the work of all-wheel drive, we not only go off-road, but also drive cars to.
The first task is for crossovers to move off two platforms installed under the front wheels. The whole trio got it done in the blink of an eye.
The second stage is the "diagonal". We put platforms under one front wheel and under the opposite rear wheel. Suzuki SX4 is the first to approach the "projectile" - and confidently performs the exercise. Next comes the Nissan Qashqai. He could not immediately cope with the task - only after the forced blocking of the clutch did he manage to move off the platforms. And Mitsubishi ASX - even with a lock, even without it - remained motionless: no traction was transmitted to the wheels standing on the pavement at all. Moreover, after 10 seconds of slippage, the transmission overheat warning light came on.
The final test - when only one wheel touches the ground - not a single crossover passed.
Bottom line: Suzuki SX4 - first place, Nissan Qashqai - second place, Mitsubishi ASX - third place.
Diagonal hanging is not an insurmountable obstacle for Qashqai. It generally allows more than the SX4: more sweeping suspension travel, ground clearance - 175 mm. He still has a beveled front bumper, and it would be quite good.
Here on the ASX with an angle of entry of 21.5 °, you can boldly force difficult terrain, although the clearance is the same 175 mm. But with good inclinations, the Mitzu is not a fighter: the driving electronics do not imitate differential locks very well, with diagonal hanging, the car freezes helplessly.
| | | |
PARAMETERS OF GEOMETRIC PASSABILITY (measurements of ZR)
MANUFACTURERS DATA
MITSUBISHI ASX | NISSAN QASHQAI | SUZUKI SX4 |
|
Curb / gross weight | 1515 / 1970 kg | 1575 / 1950 kg | 1260 / 1730 kg |
Acceleration time 0–100 km/h | |||
Max speed | |||
Turning radius | |||
Fuel / fuel reserve | AI-92, AI-95 / 60 l | ||
Fuel consumption: urban/extra-urban/combined | 10.0 / 6.7 / 7.7 l / 100 km | 9.6 / 6.0 / 7.3 l / 100 km | 7.9 / 5.2 / 6.2 l / 100 km |
ENGINE |
|||
petrol | petrol | petrol |
|
Location | front, transverse | front, transverse | front, transverse |
Configuration / number of valves | |||
Working volume | |||
Compression ratio | |||
Power | 110 kW / 150 HP at 6000 rpm | 106 kW / 144 hp at 6000 rpm | 103 kW / 140 hp at 5500 rpm |
Torque | 197 Nm at 4200 rpm | 200 Nm at 4400 rpm | 220 Nm at 1500-4000 rpm |
TRANSMISSION |
|||
type of drive | |||
Transmission | |||
Gear ratios: | 2,35–0,39 / 1,75 | 2,63–0,38 / 1,96 | 4,44 / 2,37 / 1,56 / 1,16 / 0,85 / 0,67 / 3,19 |
main gear | |||
CHASSIS |
|||
Suspension: front / rear | McPherson / multi-link | McPherson / multi-link | McPherson / elastic |
Steering | rack, with EUR | rack, with EUR | rack, with EUR |
Brakes: front / rear | Ventilated | disc, ventilated / disc | disc, ventilated / disc |
Tires | |||
SERVICE IN FIGURES
EXPERT ASSESSMENT OF CARS
Points are affixed collectively, by a group of experts ZR. The rating is not absolute, it shows the place of the car in this test with specific rivals. The maximum score is 10 points (ideal). 8 points is the norm for cars of this class.
Model | MITSUBISHI ASX | NISSAN QASHQAI | SUZUKI SX4 |
Driver's workplace | The most comfortable seat is in Qashqai. In SX4, the push-out back profile interferes, and in ASX, lateral support is too weak. There are no complaints about the ergonomics of Nissan and Suzuki, but we will criticize Mitsubishi for the CVT selector located too low. Visibility in the SX4 is worse - the mirrors are too small. |
||
8 | 9 | 8 |
|
Governing bodies | 8 | 9 | 9 |
8 | 8 | 7 |
|
Salon | It is most convenient to get into a Nissan: the doors open wide and the thresholds are always clean. In equipment, Qashqai is also ahead of rivals, as well as in space in the second row. The tightest rear seats are in Mitsubishi. In terms of trunk capacity, the SX4 is the leader. |
||
Front end | 8 | 9 | 8 |
Rear end | 7 | 9 | 8 |
Trunk | 8 | 8 | 9 |
Driving performance | Accelerating dynamics are Suzuki's forte. Thanks to the turbo engine, it easily breaks away from rivals. For brakes, the SX4 and Qashqai scored higher than the ASX, which was let down by an uninformative drive. In terms of handling, Suzuki is again in the lead, which steers at the level of a good-quality passenger car. |
||
Dynamics | 8 | 8 | 9 |
8 | 9 | 9 |
|
Controllability | 7 | 8 | 9 |
Comfort | In terms of comfort, Mitsubishi is a clear outsider: it has poor sound insulation and the most shaky suspension. Suzuki and Nissan are much better in these aspects. For the microclimate, Qashqai earned a point more than its rivals - the presence of steering wheel, windshield and rear seat heating helped. |
||
7 | 8 | 8 |
|
Smooth running | 7 | 8 | 8 |
8 | 9 | 8 |
|
Adaptation to Russia | The SX4 has the same ground clearance as a passenger car. Suzuki received the lowest score for service, since there are few dealerships of this brand. In this matter, Nissan is out of competition. For operation, the ASX receives nine points: only he can boast of a full-size spare wheel and the ability to digest AI‑92 gasoline. |
||
Geometric patency | 8 | 8 | 7 |
8 | 9 | ||
Nissan Qashqai was by no means the first C-class hatchback with high ground clearance, but to his credit, the number of cars sold on the world market for 10 years reached 3 million. The closest competitor is the Suzuki SX4, a little less "promoted", but no less effective. Having started its journey with a hatchback, Nissan has grown in size over time and is now more suitable for the description of a crossover. After the start of production in St. Petersburg, Qashqai prevailed with characteristics adapted to the harsh Russian conditions: on the domestic market, it began to be produced with an updated suspension adapted for cold weather, new shock absorbers and an extended front and rear track. On the other hand, the last generation Suzuki SX4 acquired similar features with Nissan: the ability to switch the all-wheel drive mode, the CVT and even a similar rear pillar. But after 2014, the Russian market fell, car prices rose, and SX4 sales “stand up”. Soon, the Suzuki concern nevertheless resumed deliveries of cars to Russia, albeit with minor modifications to its model. So, the inefficient CVT was removed, a turbo engine with a chrome grille was added, the size of the headlights was increased, etc.
Pros and cons of both models
Let's start a comparative review of these cars with what each of them has for itself. Nissan is distinguished by the presence of soft plastic with carefully calibrated details and piano lacquer gloss inserts. Against the background of the rest, this car is unique by all-round cameras and a huge sunroof that opens to the entire roof. The model has a built-in navigation system that instantly calculates the route, taking into account traffic jams. The interior of the Suzuki SX4 is also presented with a soft front panel and modern navigation, which, however, is more modest than that of Nissan. The Quashqai is much more spacious and outperforms the Suzuki in wheelbase length, but it is undeniably more comfortable: the SX4 has a lower loading height, a higher sofa cushion, and an additional compartment in the “underground”.Nissan Qashqai | Suzuki SX4 |
|
Assembly country | Great Britain | |
Average price of a new car | ~ 1,172,000 rubles | ~ 1,539,000 rubles |
body type | ||
Transmission type | Variable speed drive | |
type of drive | Front (FF) | Front (FF) |
Supercharger | ||
Engine volume, cc | ||
Power | ||
Maximum torque, N * m (kg * m) at rpm. | ||
Fuel tank volume, l | ||
Number of doors | ||
Trunk capacity, l | ||
Acceleration time 0-100 km/h, s | ||
Weight, kg | ||
Body length | ||
body height | ||
Wheel base, mm | ||
Ground clearance (road clearance), mm |
What is the point of buying a front-wheel drive crossover? The main advantages of such an SUV in comparison with counterparts with all-wheel drive are lower price and operating costs. Considering that the vast majority of SUVs rarely leave asphalt roads, the benefit of choosing a mono-drive version is obvious. Another and much more difficult question is which of the many representatives of the subspecies of front-wheel drive crossovers to give preference to? For example, Autostrada experts conducted a comparative test of the Spanish market bestseller and the "dark horse" Suzuki SX4 S-Cross.
INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR
Nissan strikes first, winning the visual argument. The exterior of Qashqai leaves a more solid impression due to its aggressive design and gain in overall dimensions. Suzuki, unlike its rival, does not play with muscles and looks more like a raised hatchback than a classic crossover. Inside Qashqai is also more interesting. Its interior is more refined in terms of design and selection of finishing materials. "Nissanovsky" interior is more spacious both in the first row and in the second. But the trunk turned out to be more voluminous in Es-Cross - 470 liters versus 455 liters. Also, the Suzuki bay has a lower lip, but the loading port is wider in the Nissan. In the field of ergonomics, the picture is mixed. With visibility, things are better with Qashqai, and its counterpart has more comfortable seats. But it takes less time to find the optimal fit behind the wheel of a Suzuki.
EQUIPMENT
Here, Es-Cross demonstrates the advantage due to the larger number of standard airbags - seven versus six. Otherwise, the basic set of cars for the main positions is the same: ABS, EBD brake force distribution system, BA emergency brake booster, ESP stability control system, HSA hill start assist system, cruise control with speed limiter.
DRIVING PERFORMANCE AND COMFORT
The functions of the power plants on the tested machines were performed by 1.6-liter diesel engines, coupled with 6-speed manual gearboxes. The Nissan engine had an advantage in power (131 hp versus 120 hp), although the engines developed the same peak torque - 320 Nm. However, Suzuki had two important trump cards - a smaller mass (by 200 kg) and shorter gear ratios. Therefore, the superiority of Es-Cross in accelerating dynamics did not come as a surprise. Here Suzuki won all the races despite the fact that according to passport data it is slower than Qashqai. Measurements of the braking dynamics revealed the advantage of Nissan, whose stopping distance from a speed of 60/80/100/120/140 km / h was 13/24/37/53/71 meters, while Es-Cross spent 14 /24/39/56/74 m.
Comparison in the field of efficiency was won by Suzuki due to lower fuel consumption on the highway: 4.4 l / 100 km versus 5.0 l. However, in the urban cycle, the consumption of crossovers turned out to be the same - 6.0 l / 100 km.
In terms of handling, the test "Japanese" are similar: their steering is not particularly accurate and suffers from a lack of information content. The dynamic stabilization system in both cars is tuned uncompromisingly and comes into operation too early, although from a safety point of view this is rather a plus. But there are still differences in the nature of the subjects. Suzuki has stiffer suspension settings and is more lively in corners. Nissan wins somewhat in terms of smoothness, although it also demonstrates a hard move, and behaves more stable on straight lines. Also, Qashqai has better internal sound insulation.
What is the dry residue? If we discard such parameters as interior design and quality, then the difference between the Nissan Qashqai and the Suzuki SX4 S-Cross looks small. The cars have a close level of standard equipment and are comparable in terms of driving performance. So the decisive argument in determining the winner is the price, and it is lower, and significantly (by more than 4.5 thousand euros *) for Suzuki.
Data obtained during the test
| Parameter | Nissan Qashqai 1.6 DCI | Suzuki SX4 S-Cross 1.6 DDIS |
| Acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h, s | 10,24 | 9,53 |
| Travel time from a place of 1000 m, s | 32,13 | 31,20 |
| Acceleration from 60 to 120 km/h in 3rd gear, s | 10,5 | 9,9 |
| Acceleration from 80 to 120 km/h in 4/5/6 gears, s | 7,8/9,2/11,7 | 7,2 / 8,3/9,9 |
| Travel time for a distance of 1000 m from the start at a speed of 40/50 in 4/5 gear, s | 32,7/33,5 | 31,7 / 32,1 |
| Braking distance from a speed of 60/80/100/120/140 km/h, m | 13 /24/37 / 53/71 | 14/24/39/56/74 |
| Fuel consumption, l / 100 km highway / city | 5,0/6,0 | 4,4 /6,0 |
| Noise level in the cabin when the engine is idling, dB | 50 | 52 |
| Noise level in the cabin at a speed of 100/120/140 km/h, dB | 67 / 70 / 72 | 69/71/74 |
| Interior width in the area of the front/rear seats, cm | 144 / 138 | 140/135 |
| Minimum / maximum height from the driver's seat cushion to the ceiling, cm | 89/94 | 90 / 96 |
| Height from rear seat cushion to ceiling, cm | 92 | 89 |
| Trunk volume, l | 455 | 470 |
Factory specifications
| Parameter | Nissan Qashqai 1.6 DCI | Suzuki SX4 S-Cross 1.6 DDIS |
| Price*, euro | 23 700 | 19 095 |
| Type | crossover | crossover |
| Number of doors/seats | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Length/width/height, m | 4,377/1,806/1,595 | 4,300/1,765/1,575 |
| Wheel base, mm | 2,646 | 2,600 |
| Clearance, mm | 200 | 180 |
| Curb weight, kg | 1515 | 1315 |
| Luggage compartment volume, l | 439-1513 | 430-1269 |
| engine's type | diesel, with direct injection, turbocharging and intercooler | |
| Working volume, cc | 1598 | 1598 |
| Number of cylinders/valves | 4/16 | 4/16 |
| Maximum power, hp / rpm | 131/4000 | 120/3750 |
| Maximum torque, Nm / rpm | 320/1750 | 320/1750 |
| Drive unit | front | front |
| Transmission | mechanical, 6-speed | mechanical, 6-speed |
| Turning diameter, m | 10,7 | 10,4 |
| Front suspension | spring, McPherson | spring, McPherson |
| Rear suspension | spring, twisting beam with torsion elements | |
| Front/rear brakes | ventilated disc/ disc | ventilated disc/ disc |
| Airbags, pcs | 6 | 7 |
| Security systems | ABS, EBD, BA, ESP, HSA | ABS, EBD, BA, ESP, HSA |
| Tires | 215/65 R16 | 205/50 R17 |
| Maximum speed, km/h | 190 | 180 |
| Acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h, s | 9,9 | 12,0 |
| Fuel consumption, lhighway / city / average | 3,9/5,2/4,4 | 3,8/5,4/4,4 |
| Fuel tank volume, l | 55 | 47 |
| CO2 emission, g/km | 116 | 115 |
* - price in Spain
In the underground niche, both Nissan (photo 15) and Suzuki have an anti-puncture kit
The front seats in both crossovers are stiff, however, the Suzuki seats provide better support.
