Kia Sportage JA vs Nissan X-Trail T30: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Kia · 1993–2002
Sportage JA
- Power
- 70 kW95 PS
Nissan · 2000–2007
X-Trail T30
- Power
- 100 kW136 PS
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
Categories won: Sportage JA 1 X-Trail T30 2
- Family X-Trail T30 Boot: 410 l vs 300 l
- City Sportage JA Length: 4,245 mm vs 4,510 mm; Width: 1,735 mm vs 1,765 mm
- Running costs X-Trail T30 Fuel per year: €2,280 vs €2,890 (estimated)
In plain words
Nissan X-Trail T30 has more power: 100 kW (136 PS) against 70 kW (95 PS) for Kia Sportage JA. Nissan X-Trail T30 is 265 mm longer than Kia Sportage JA (4,510 mm vs 4,245 mm). Nissan X-Trail T30 has the bigger boot: 410 l against 300 l. At 15,000 km a year, fuel would cost about €2,890 (Kia Sportage JA), €2,280 (Nissan X-Trail T30) (estimated). Kia Sportage JA is the older design (from 1993); Nissan X-Trail T30 arrived in 2000. On the catalog figures, the Nissan X-Trail T30 is the pick for family and running costs; the Kia Sportage JA is the pick for city.
Size and weight
| Sportage JA | X-Trail T30 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,245 mm167.1 in † | 4,510 mm177.6 in +265 mm +10.4 in +6.2% |
| Width | 1,735 mm68.3 in | 1,765 mm69.5 in +30 mm +1.2 in +1.7% |
| Wheelbase | 2,360 mm92.9 in † | 2,625 mm103.3 in +265 mm +10.4 in +11.2% |
| Boot | 300 l10.6 cu ft | 410 l14.5 cu ft +110 l +3.9 cu ft +36.7% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Yes | Yes |
Difference vs Sportage JA (±). Garage check: a standard single garage takes a car up to about 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in) long and 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) wide (width as listed in the catalog; some makers include the mirrors). Leave about 0.6 m (2 ft) to open the doors. † from another version of this generation.
Full specifications
| Kia Sportage JA | Nissan X-Trail T30 | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 2.0 · petrol · 70 kW (95 PS) | 2.2 dCi diesel · 100 kW (136 PS) |
| Production years | 1993–2002 | 2000–2007 |
| Body | Convertible, SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | South Korea | Japan |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 70 kW (95 PS) 94 hp | 100 kW (136 PS) 134 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 61–95 kW (83–129 PS) 82–127 hp | 84–206 kW (114–280 PS) 113–276 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | No data | 314 Nm 232 lb-ft |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | Diesel |
| Engine | 2,000 cc 2.0 l | No data |
| Gearbox | No data | 6-speed manual |
| Drive | No data | Four-wheel drive (4×4) |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,245 mm 167.1 in † | 4,510 mm 177.6 in |
| Width | 1,735 mm 68.3 in | 1,765 mm 69.5 in |
| Height | 1,650 mm 65.0 in | No data |
| Wheelbase | 2,360 mm 92.9 in † | 2,625 mm 103.3 in |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 300 l 10.6 cu ft | 410 l 14.5 cu ft Better |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 60 l 15.9 gal US † | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 11.0 l/100 km 21.4 mpg US | 9.2 l/100 km 25.6 mpg US Better |
| Fuel cost per year | €2,890/year estimated | €2,280/year estimated Better |
| Range on a full tank | 545 km 339 mi estimated | No data |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | No data | ★★★★☆ (2002) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (1): Class.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.75/l petrol, €1.65/l diesel. † from another version of this generation.