BMW X4 vs Nissan Juke

What's the difference?

Okay, so the BMW X4 xDrive30i is neither an ass nor an elbow, to be fair, it's more of a bulky shoulder muscle, or two.

I can't say I'll ever love the X4, the idea of it is a bit too weird for me, but I can't help admiring the way it looks and the way it drives.

It's a bit like a sedan on steroids - or an SUV on a diet, depending on your perspective - but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s fun to drive, comfortable and retains just enough coolness, and just enough practicality, to make it worthwhile.

The Juke is a fun little car. It looks cool, it packs most of the important features and safety equipment, but while it can be fun to drive, it’s also a little clunky around town.

It’s so frustrating, because there is a great car in there somewhere, and it would take only small tweaks and enhancements to bring it out.

So here's the thing. Obviously I have a personal beef with the existence of vehicles like this, but my eyes cannot deny the facts - the X4 looks fantastic. It's muscular, imposing and smooth all at once. Unlike the X6, a bigger and less visually successful attempt to play the same styling tricks with an X5, it doesn't have a ridiculous rear view that looks like it shoulders and buttocks have been fused (although it's hard to miss just how small the rear window is).

Even more impressively, there's no denying it looks better than the X3 that gave birth to it, so I can easily see why someone in a BMW showroom could be drawn to it. At least until they sit inside.

If the exterior style and eye-catching Sophisto Grey metallic paint don’t make an immediate impression then your eyes will surely widen at the interior, resplendent with bold Tacora Red seats, Aluminium Rhombicle trim finisher and the kind of sleek, classy styling that BMW excels in. 

Both the adjustable ambient lighting on the doors (we were partial to lilac) and door projectors that shot out what looked like robot wings onto the ground every time we hopped out of the X4 at night walked a fine line between futuristic cool and “parked out the front of a nightclub entrance” chintz, but over time the scales tipped more to the former. 

The big differentiator between the X4 and X3, of course, is the sloped coupé roof, a design feature that may make the X4 look a little cooler, but at the expense of cabin space, but more of that in a moment.

Urban style is clearly what the Juke is about. It’s always been about this, but the original incarnation, while unusual, was a bit bulbous and awkward. The current version is a razor-sharp re-interpretation of the original.

Ugly duckling no more, the Juke blends the elements of Nissan’s current design language with its own unique take, in a clever way.

The roofline and bulbous face of the original car, complete with its ‘eye’ headlights are all maintained, but this time they look more contemporary with a splash of chrome and gunmetal plastic in the face, offset by gloss blacks running down the doorline.

The new light fittings look great and the curviness is also gently off-set with some sharp angles. The massive 19-inch wheels finished in a two-tone gloss black and aluminium brush keep this car looking like a concept come to life. Just don’t crash them into the curb. It would be very easy to.

The cool elements continue inside, with rotary air vents, a blend of textures, including a gloss grey for the vent claddings, with white stitching for the wheel, seat, and into the door cards, too.

There are touches of chrome about the place, and an ambient red LED light surrounding the shifter, which sits on its own little pedestal thing.

It’s quirky and punches above its weight when it comes to soft trims in the doors. Like most higher-grade Nissans the seats are pretty comfy, too, clad in a hard-wearing synthetic leather material.

But it won’t be for everyone, and it’s not without its downsides. The abundance of grey plastic down the centre console is a bit cheap, and the tech offering doesn’t match the youthful style.

The centre screen is adequate, but compared to many rivals it’s a bit small and dull, and the Juke is still missing a digital overhaul for its instrument cluster.

The black headlining, usually reserved for sportier cars, makes the cabin feel smaller than it is.

For a car that is very much a mid-sized SUV on the outside, the interior can feel a bit too snug, like you’re driving a compact car that’s tried on a suit a few sizes too big (for reference, I’m 175cm tall - above-average height drivers may find the snugness soon turns to claustrophobia). 

While comfortable - it is BMW we’re talking about, after all - there’s not an overly abundant amount of headroom available, a feeling that becomes more pronounced should you shut the big moon roof.

My two children felt slightly too close to “you’re annoying me” distance from one another, which is to say this isn’t really the kind of car you should be getting if you plan on regularly ferrying about passengers in the rear who are bigger than a child. But I really don't think many people with kids would choose the X4 over the X3.

Boot space also takes a hit when compared to the X3 (550 litres versus 525-litres in the X4 - I was surprised the difference wasn't larger - although that expands to 1430-litres with the rear seats folded down. 

The boot opening is also mouth-shaped, which makes packing in wide-load items more of an issue.

Cupholders are plentiful - two in the front, two in the rear, and bottle holders in each door - and there’s a decent-sized storage cubby in between the front two seats. 

The sloped roof, and big fat A pillars, also result in the X4 being a bit more pinched at the rear, which is not especially great for visibility, with the vehicle’s blind spots taking some getting used to.

The Juke is a small SUV in the true sense of the word, sitting below the Qashqai which is more like a mid-sizer these days in terms of dimensions.

However, it’s quite cleverly packaged on the inside and is more useful than it first appears.

The front seats, for example, offer heaps of headroom and a surprising amount of width, and while the seats are manual, they’re pretty adjustable. I was able to find a great seating position.

There are big pockets in the doors with an integrated bottle holder suitable for even the largest bottles, although the centre console area is a bit less versatile, choosing its funky design over additional storage.

It features two good bottle holders, but a tiny armrest box and a shallow tray with one 12V socket and a USB-A outlet, as well as an auxiliary audio input under the climate controls.

On the topic of climate controls, I love the fact the Juke maintains a dedicated ventilation panel complete with buttons and dials for all the core functions. No touchscreen nonsense here.

The media screen, as mentioned, is a tad small, and falls victim to glare easily.

The stock Nissan software is a massive upgrade on the brand’s previous-generation products, but while it’s functional it’s far from the prettiest or the fastest on the market.

The back seat offers more space than you might assume, but it’s not as well thought-out as the front of the cabin. At 182cm tall I fit behind my own driving position with just enough space for my knees and just enough headroom.

There are decent bottle holders in the doors, and a further two small ones in the drop-down armrest. The backs of the front seats are clad in that synthetic leather material, which is nice, and have soft pockets, too.

The back of the front centre console offers just a single USB-A outlet and a small cubby. There are no adjustable air vents for rear passengers. It also feels a little claustrophobic back there thanks to the black trim on everything and smaller windows.

Boot capacity for the Juke is impressive for an SUV in this class, with 422 litres on offer, which is close to the volume we’d expect from something a size-bracket up, and 1305L with the second row folded down. There is a space-saver spare under the boot floor.

The Juke range kicks off from just $28,390 which gets you into a base ST and reaches to $36,890 for the top-spec Ti.

We’re driving the $34,440 (before on-road costs) ST-L which is the upper mid-grade car.

It scores concept-style 19-inch alloy wheels, synthetic leather interior trim, an 8.0-inch multimedia touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto connectivity, a 7.0-inch digital screen between the analog dials, a surround camera system, single-zone climate, keyless entry and push-start ignition, and LED headlights. 

The quite attractive ‘Magnetic Blue’ paint our car wears is a $700 option. For an additional $1133 you can also step up to the ST-L+ grade which adds alternate two-tone seat trim, chrome and black highlights and a 10-speaker Bose audio system.

While this ST-L grade gets the lion’s share of Juke equipment without the price-hike to the Ti (and is therefore the pick of the range) there are some notable items missing at this price.

For example, there’s no wireless phone charging, no head-up display, no fully digital instrument cluster, and no electrical adjustment for the seats. The 8.0-inch multimedia screen is starting to look a bit dated, too.

Still, it looks trendy and those massive wheels are well above the standard for a car at this size or price. So, if you’re going for style over equipment there is a choice to be made here.

Nissan also hasn’t cheaped out on safety equipment, with most active stuff coming standard, even on the base ST. More on this later.

Pricing is about line-ball with its most direct competitors. It’s a tad cheaper than some like the outgoing similarly-styled Toyota C-HR (Koba 2WD - $35,695), or slightly more expensive than others like the current equivalent Ford Puma (ST-Line - $33,190) or Mazda CX-3 (Touring SP - $34,300) although it is also ever so slightly larger than those last two by width, height, and wheelbase.

Now, prepare to be confused. In the past, the 3.0 in the xDrive3.0i nomenclature might have led you to believe you'd bought a BMW with a 3.0-litre straight six engine. But in this case, you have not, the 3.0 just means you have a more exciting version of the 2.0; a TwinPower turbo 2.0-litre inline four-cylinder engine, making 179kW and 353Nm that the xDrive system delivers to all four wheels. 

The claimed zero to 100km/h time of 4.9 seconds feels completely realistic as this engine has plenty of poke. Put it in the Sport setting and you'll get some serious shove. Indeed, the switch between Comfort and Sport is very noticeable and changes the character of the car entirely.

The transmission is an eight-speed conventional torque converter automatic gearbox that’s both smooth and responsive. 

In the Juke’s messy engine bay lies a 1.0-litre, three-cylinder, turbo-petrol engine which sends 84kW/180Nm to the front wheels.

Nissan has its own 'HR10DET' engine code for this unit but it’s actually a Renault 'H5Dt' engine as evidenced by Renault logos all over the place.

Power is communicated by a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic which has been a source of strife for this car since it arrived. This very European engine and transmission combination is one which the Juke shares with its Renault Captur cousin.

I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but I would prefer a continuously variable transmission (CVT) which Nissan uses elsewhere in its range. It would solve maybe the main issue with this car, which we’ll explore up next in the driving section of this review

The X4’s 65-litre tank needs to be 95-octane at a minimum, and BMW’s claimed combined fuel consumption is 7.9 litres per 100km. The temptation to use its rorty little engine is going to push you higher, though - you chose the one with the 3.0 badge on it after all - and we averaged 10.9 litres per 100km in our week together, which was mainly city driving, to be fair. 

One of the reasons this car comes equipped with a dual-clutch automatic is to chase fuel efficiency as well as emissions output. On paper DCT autos don’t suffer the inherent losses of a traditional torque converter transmission.

The official combined cycle fuel consumption figure is 5.8L/100km. My week of driving, weighted slightly more towards freeway conditions, produced a marginally higher average of 6.8L/100km. It’s not the claim, but it’s pretty good.

This little engine requires mid-shelf 95RON unleaded fuel, and the Juke has a 46-litre fuel tank, suggesting a driving range of 793km using the official fuel consumption number.

The impressive trick that BMW continually pulls off with its SUVs is giving them the same sensual, muscular steering as its sedans, and an impressively similar ride and handling balance.

The steering is the highlight here, but it's also noticeable how planted to the road it feels.

The X4 speaks to its looks, in fact, by feeling sportier and more alive to drive than you'd expect an X3 to be.  

This is less an SUV for soccer mums and dads, and more a bastard love-child that’s into loud leather and bright neon - a CEO who dressed punk rock-lite on weekends, if you will. 

If those weekends are bereft of child taxiing and loading up the boot with several tons of kid stuff, then you’ll have a blast in the X4. 

The Juke can be fun to drive, and I wanted to like it more, but the transmission its peppy little engine is paired with is frustrating.

Outputs of 84kW/180Nm doesn’t sound like a lot, but power isn’t the problem. The little engine has a fun turbo-surge which pairs with the Juke's light frame to make for a car which is quite athletic when you push it.

The issue is a mountain of turbo-lag conspires with the clunky dual-clutch automatic to make it far too sluggish off the line.

There’s a full second (or two, at times) to wait for any power to arrive, which simply isn’t good enough at T-junctions and roundabouts, the kind of situations a little urban SUV like this will constantly be encountering.

Nissan says the transmission software was even updated after the Juke’s launch, but it’s still not where it should be.

It has good traits, too. When you’re out on the open road, it has quick, snappy and well-defined shifts, and the engine is much better when it’s being properly pushed, too.

It has a gruff, entertaining tone, and the Juke’s light frame, firm ride, and comparatively heavy steering make it a joy to throw into some corners.

The long wheelbase for such a small SUV, paired with a decent set of tyres, also keeps it confident when its predecessor was a little clumsy.

Again, though, the reasonably hard ride, not helped by the very large wheels, isn't its best trait in an urban environment. The Juke is by no means uncomfortable, it just seems like the priorities for this little SUV aren’t in the right place.

I’ve said this before but there’s a great car in here somewhere. The Juke is fun to drive in the right environment, it’s just this environment is not where most prospective buyers will primarily be looking to use it.

What could fix this issue? A different transmission perhaps. Better yet, an e-Power hybrid powertrain.

The Juke's standard active safety features include freeway-speed auto emergency braking, lane departure warning with lane keep assist, blind-spot monitoring with rear cross-traffic alert, adaptive cruise control and traffic sign recognition.

Last time I reviewed this car I complained about the way it vibrates the steering wheel when the lane keep function decides you’re going out of your lane. But having since experienced so many more invasive lane keep systems, this one seems comparatively low-key.

Elsewhere, the Juke gets the standard array of six airbags (dual front, side, and curtain) and wears a maximum five-star ANCAP safety rating to the 2019 standards.

Despite all the brouhaha about other car manufacturers offering more generous warranty periods - seven years for Kia, for example - BMW has not shifted its stance, still offering its standard three-year unlimited-kilometre warranty. Frankly, it's just not good enough.

BMW also offer a Service Inclusive package for $2010 that covers owners for five years, or 80,000km.

Nissan offers the Juke with a five-year, unlimited km warranty, with five-years of roadside assist included.

It requires servicing every 12 months or 20,000km and the cost is subject to a capped price servicing program for the first six years.

This averages $651.33 annually, which is not cheap for a small SUV in this class.

However, there is also the option of a pre-paid five-year service plan which brings the annual cost over five years down to a more reasonable $429.60.

But, notably, it does not include the pricy $1521 sixth-year interval. It’s worth asking yourself how long you’ll own the car for before splurging on it.