Hyundai Tucson JM vs Nissan X-Trail T30: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Hyundai · 2004–2009
Tucson JM
- Power
- 104 kW141 PS
- Kerb mass
- 1,537 kg
Photo: RL GNZLZ / Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0
Nissan · 2000–2007
X-Trail T30
- Power
- 100 kW136 PS
- Kerb mass
- -
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
Categories won: Tucson JM 2 X-Trail T30 1
- Family Tucson JM Boot: 540 l vs 410 l
- City Tucson JM Length: 4,325 mm vs 4,510 mm
- Off-road X-Trail T30 Drive and body: Four-wheel drive (4×4) · SUV vs All-wheel drive · SUV
In plain words
Hyundai Tucson JM has more power: 104 kW (141 PS) against 100 kW (136 PS) for Nissan X-Trail T30. Nissan X-Trail T30 is 185 mm longer than Hyundai Tucson JM (4,510 mm vs 4,325 mm). Hyundai Tucson JM has the bigger boot: 540 l against 410 l. Nissan X-Trail T30 is the older design (from 2000); Hyundai Tucson JM arrived in 2004. On the catalog figures, the Hyundai Tucson JM is the pick for family and city; the Nissan X-Trail T30 is the pick for off-road. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the Nissan X-Trail T30 yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
| Tucson JM | X-Trail T30 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,325 mm170.3 in | 4,510 mm177.6 in +185 mm +7.3 in +4.3% |
| Width | 1,795 mm70.7 in | 1,765 mm69.5 in −30 mm −1.2 in −1.7% |
| Wheelbase | 2,630 mm103.5 in | 2,625 mm103.3 in −5 mm −0.2 in −0.2% |
| Boot | 540 l19.1 cu ft | 410 l14.5 cu ft −130 l −4.6 cu ft −24.1% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Yes | Yes |
Difference vs Tucson JM (±). 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.
Full specifications
| Hyundai Tucson JM | Nissan X-Trail T30 | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 2.0 (141 PS) · petrol · 104 kW (141 PS) | 2.2 dCi diesel · 100 kW (136 PS) |
| Production years | 2004–2009 | 2000–2007 |
| Body | 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. | 104 kW (141 PS) 139 hp Better | 100 kW (136 PS) 134 hp |
| Power, all versions | 104–129 kW (141–175 PS) 139–173 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 |
| Power per tonne | 68 kW/t 82 hp/ton calculated | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | Diesel |
| Engine | 2,000 cc 2.0 l | No data |
| Gearbox | No data | 6-speed manual |
| Drive | All-wheel drive | Four-wheel drive (4×4) |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,325 mm 170.3 in | 4,510 mm 177.6 in |
| Width | 1,795 mm 70.7 in | 1,765 mm 69.5 in |
| Height | 1,730 mm 68.1 in | No data |
| Wheelbase | 2,630 mm 103.5 in | 2,625 mm 103.3 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 1,537 kg 3,389 lb | No data |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 540 l 19.1 cu ft Better | 410 l 14.5 cu ft |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 65 l 17.2 gal US † | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 9.2 l/100 km 25.6 mpg US |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €2,280/year estimated |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★☆ (2006) | ★★★★☆ (2002) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (2): Body, 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 €1.65/l diesel. † from another version of this generation.