Kia Seltos vs Mitsubishi ASX vs Toyota C-HR vs Nissan Qashqai Comparison Review

They all have five seats and five doors, but there are differences between them when it comes to cabin practicality and presentation.

First up, let’s consider the size of these models. Below you’ll find the dimensions of each of these compact SUVs - and it’s very, very close. In fact, the difference in length is less than the width of an Australian 50 cent coin: there’s just 29mm splitting shortest to longest when it comes to their length. 

As you can see, the boot space varies greatly between these models, and as we found in our testing, the usable space is still decent across the board. Only the C-HR couldn’t fit all three suitcases in the boot with the cargo cover in place, and it was touch-and-go for all three fitting with the tailgate closed (in fact, it only just fit the two larger ones). All three cases fit them all in without much hassle. 

The trusty (bulky) CarsGuide pram fit in the boot of all four SUVs, too, but in the C-HR and ASX there was a bit less space for the baby-themed extras you might need to take with you. 

All of these SUVs have split-fold rear seats, though only the Kia has a full-size spare wheel under its boot floor. You miss out on a cargo cover in the Kia, however.

As for back seat passenger space, these ‘small’ SUVs have decent room on offer - I set the driver’s seat for myself (182cm) and slotted in behind that spot in each of them to see how they compared.

You might think the ASX having the longest wheelbase would translate to the most second-row space - but you’d be wrong. In fact, the ASX had the worst legroom of this mix, and it also had the least comfortable back seat. The C-HR had the most comfortable back seat.

The C-HR and Qashqai were about on par for back seat space, while the Seltos offered the most space in the second-row. Headroom was good in all models, but the Kia felt the widest and most accommodating overall.

The C-HR suffers a terrible design flaw in the back - the way the rear window scoops up means you’re left with a windows about the same size as an A4 sheet of paper, which could be car sickness-inducing, and certainly made our testers feel claustrophobic. But that may not matter to you - there are plenty of small SUV buyers that are single, or couples without kids.

None of these cars have rear-seat air vents, and the storage on offer differs, too. The ASX doesn’t have door pockets, the C-HR has small bottle holders in the door armrests, while the others have decent storage with bottle holders in the doors. Only the ASX gets a centre armrest with cupholders, the others all miss out, while the map pocket count is as follows: C-HR - 0; Seltos - 0; ASX - 1; Qashqai - 2. 

The front seat spaces are all vastly different in terms of presentation and practicality, too.

The ASX is the plainest and oldest looking inside, but the controls (although budget feeling) are logically placed and the storage options are fine. 

The Qashqai feels the second-most modern inside, with decent storage though the cabin, a few nicer finishes here and there, but seats that feel a little small. We loved the flat-bottom steering wheel, but the media system? We’ll touch on that below.

The Kia Seltos steps things up with the biggest screen here, and it looks considerably more modern in its design too. The storage game is strong, but the materials - aside from the lovely blue-check cloth seats - could be better. There’s hard plastic all over the place, including the door arm rests. Yes, there is a softer plastic on the centre console bin, but I drove this Seltos for six hours during this loan, and it was quite uncomfortable to not have somewhere soft to rest your arm when you’re driving. 

Our pick for front-seat environs was the C-HR. It has a superb look and feel to it, with soft finishes to the dash and doors, and a really modern design. We don’t like how much the dashboard juts into the passenger’s space, but the seats were the most comfortable, and yes - this is one Toyota that now has smartphone mirroring for the media system. 

Let’s take a look at how the media systems of each of these models compare.

We found the Nissan’s screen to be the worst to use in pretty much all aspects - slow and difficult to connect to Bluetooth, bad menu navigation and poxy display graphics. But if you’re reading this after the first quarter of 2020, those may be irrelevant points, because a new media screen is set to be rolled out soon.

The Mitsubishi’s system offered surprisingly good sound quality considering its speaker deficit, but the lack of sat nav may bug some buyers. Its reversing camera could be glitchy and laggy, meaning you mightn’t be seeing a true representation of what was behind you. 

The Toyota’s system was second-best, and while the integration of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto is welcome, the native system built in to the screen is still a bit fidgety. 

Our pick was the Kia Seltos’s screen, which had the crispest display, the most pleasing form factor, and the best integration of menus and controls. It was simply the best here when it came to media. 

On balance, we ranked the Kia the best for practicality (biggest boot, biggest back seat), then the Nissan (second-biggest boot and good practical elements) followed by the ASX (not as good for space, but not the worst). The C-HR - despite its pretty cabin - ran last here, because the back seat passenger experience is unpleasant. As stated earlier, that might matter to you, or it might not. If that’s the case, take this score with a grain of salt. 

If you’re expecting thrills under the bonnet of any of these four cars, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

None of them have huge power and torque outputs, as you’ll see in the engine specs breakdown below. And all four of them have continuously variable transmission (CVT) automatics, and all are front-wheel drive.

At the very least, the Toyota’s tiny engine is turbocharged, which does add some zest to the equation even if its grunt numbers are modest. 

We’ll discuss the merits and pitfalls of each of the powertrains in the driving section below. 

I’ve come to the realisation there are a lot of people who don’t really care how their car drives. Those people tend to drive cars like the ASX.

In other words, the ASX doesn’t drive great. Its clumsy suspension stumbled over big or small bumps, and its steering was inconsistent and fidgety. It’s also the only one of these models that exhibited steering wheel kickback over mid corner bumps.

Its engine and CVT will get you away from a standing start okay, but mid-range acceleration isn’t its forte. It felt sluggish and slow to respond at times, lacking refinement across the board when it came to driving.

The Qashqai got the job done on the road, but it’s certainly not the sort of car you get out of and think, “Well, that was fun!”

It has a more refined powertrain than the ASX, even though it’s sluggish from a standstill - it builds pace reasonably once you hit about 20 km/h or higher. It was considerably quieter than the ASX when accelerating, too.

Its steering was generally light but lacked consistency - depending how fast you were going, you could be left second-guessing how much you needed to turn the wheel. 

The suspension lacked composure, though - it almost felt like there was too much air in the tyres, with a wooden nature to the ride over bumps at lower speeds. It was also pretty restless at higher speeds, too. 

There was a big gap between the Qashqai and the Seltos, which was considerably better to drive in all aspects. 

It instantly felt more refined, quieter and more responsive, with the suspension offering up a ride that was more composed and controlled, though it could be a little firm at lower speeds - but not to the point of being annoying or uncomfortable.

The steering lacks consistency to its weighting, feeling too heavy at higher speeds but light enough at parking pace. 

But it was the powertrain that impressed us most in the Kia, with its engine and CVT proving adequately powerful and nicely refined. 

It was a considerably more enjoyable drive than the Mitsubishi and Nissan, but it wasn’t the best of these four when it came to driving manners. That accolade went to the Toyota.

The C-HR just felt sweeter than its rivals in every aspect when it came to the drive experience. 

Its steering was light, accurate and nicely weighted, and it gripped really well in the twisty bits, too. It was easily the most fun to drive.

The suspension is a big part of that - it’s on the firm side, but is very compliant and controlled, yet also very comfortable. It doesn’t roll around much in the corners, but its soft and pliant in the way it changes direction.

The engine isn’t a powerhouse - it has less power than its rivals, but it is turbocharged, and that gives it a more willing feel in the mid-range, and it pulls pretty hard for a little tacker. 

It’s not fast - don’t get me wrong - but it felt more refined and smooth-revving than its rivals, and its CVT was more responsive to changes in throttle application. 

Overall, the C-HR was the most refined, most pleasant and most enjoyable to drive.

Your ideal ownership plan could just be cheap servicing. Or it could be a long warranty. Or free roadside assist. 

Well, you might rank these models differently to us, but we’ve taken a broad look and considered all the elements in the table below when we scored these models for their ownership promise.

The Kia stands out for warranty cover, but its servicing costs are comparatively high. The Nissan suffers shorter service intervals than its rivals, which could be annoying if you do a lot of driving. The Toyota is cheap to service and its warranty plan runs at five years but extends to seven years for the powertrain if you have logbook service history. And the Mitsubishi is cheap to service but has only three years of capped-price service cover.

It’s close, but we think the seven-year offering from Kia still pegs it top spot even if it is more expensive to service, while the Mitsubishi doesn’t quite stack up as well as it could due to its shorter capped-price cover period.