Browse over 9,000 car reviews

Sorry, there are no cars that match your search


Matt Campbell
Reviewed & driven by
CarsGuide

31 Jul 2020

Got your eye on the new 2020 Nissan Juke? Maybe the Hyundai Kona 2020 is more your style? Or maybe you’re a bit keen on both models, but you aren’t sure which to choose and why?

Well in this comparison test, we’re putting the two top-spec 2WD versions of each of these style-focused small SUVs against one another to help you figure it out.

That’s right - we’ve got the new Nissan Juke Ti 2WD up against the Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD. Both are petrol-powered, both are automatic - but despite that there are lots of differences under the metal.

We’ll cover off the powertrains, practicality, pricing, safety and ownership in this comparison review to help make it clear for you. So, read on to see which of these two ends up the best rated small SUV across a number of criteria that matter to you. 

Pricing and specs

We’re not covering off the entire price list of each of these models, nor every single variant in each range.

Instead, we’re looking at the two flagship versions of each - the Hyundai Kona Highlander and the Nissan Juke Ti.

The Hyundai Kona Highlander. The Hyundai Kona Highlander.

There’s a complicating factor. The cost of the Highlander we’ve got isn’t quite as high as the top-top-top AWD turbo model. Instead, we went for the one closest to the Juke on price, which is the 2WD 2.0-litre auto, and it has a list price of $36,660. Note - that cost is the MSRP or RRP, and doesn’t include rego and on-road costs. For reference, drive-away you’d be looking at $41,075.

The Nissan Juke Ti. The Nissan Juke Ti.

The Juke Ti is fitted with the only powertrain option available - a 1.0-litre three-cylinder turbo-petrol 2WD with dual-clutch auto. Despite its high-tech powertrain, the Juke Ti has a lower list price of $36,490 MSRP. And if you want to know the drive-away deal? You’ll fit it as specified here for $39,490 on the road.

Advantage Nissan, then. What about when it comes to standard equipment inclusions? Here’s a table to make it easy to break down what’s included across these two cars.

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Sat nav with live traffic

Y

Y

Apple CarPlay / Android Auto

Y

Y

Touch screen size

8.0-inch

8.0-inch

USB ports

2 front

1 front, 1 rear

Radio

AM/FM/DAB

AM/FM

CD player

N

N

Sound system speakers

8

Wireless phone charging (Qi)

Y

N

On media inclusions, the Kona is just ahead, with wireless phone charging and DAB radio helping push it ahead. The sound systems both have the same number of speakers but Nissan's system includes front-seat headrest speakers which are excellent. 

What about other interior elements?

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Sunroof

Y

N/A 

Interior trim

Leather appointed

Leather appointed, Alcantara

Front seat adjustment 

Electric

Manual

Leather steering wheel

Y

Y

Heated front seats 

Y

Y

Cooled front seats

Y

N

Heated steering wheel

Y

N

Air conditioning

Single zone climate control

Single zone climate control

Directional rear air vents

N

N

Keyless entry / smart key

Y

Y

Push button start

Y

Y

Cruise control

Adaptive

Adaptive

So the Hyundai has a better arrangement if you value electric seat adjustment, and the driver gets the added benefit of a heated steering wheel which - trust me - is heaven-sent on cold winter mornings. 

The Juke’s material quality and presentation is a touch more luxurious, though, with its quilted stitching and Alcantara trim really lifting the cabin to a different level.

Okay, so what about some other spec differentiators? 

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Alloy wheels

18-inch 

19-inch

Tyres

Hankook Ventus Prime3 235/45/18

Goodyear Eagle F1 225/45/19

Spare wheel

Space saver

Space saver

Roof rails

Y

N

LED headlights 

Y

Y

LED daytime running lights

Y

Y

Fog lights

Halogen

LED

Auto headlights

Y

Y

Auto high-beam lights

N

Y

Auto rain sensing wipers

Y

Y

Auto dimming rear view mirror

Y

Y

All told, these two are close on standard equipment when you consider the price differences and spec inclusions. It's close, but you get a bit more gear for your money in the Kona Highlander. 

Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD8/10
Nissan Juke Ti 2WD7/10

Design

We say it all the time - you’re going to make up your mind as to which of these two models appeals to you most in terms of its styling. It’s our job to help you figure out which has made the best use of its footprint, and what better way to do that then start with the dimensions.

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Length

4165mm

4210mm

Wheelbase

2600mm

2636mm

Height 

1565mm

1595mm

Width 

1800mm

1800mm

As you can see, the Juke is actually a fair bit longer and taller than the Kona, and it has a wheelbase advantage. Typically that means more space in the cabin, and usually in the second row is where you find the most evidence of that. Be sure to find out more in the interior section below. 

Both have the multiple-light bug-eye front end appearance, the squat body look and pert rear-end, while the Hyundai rides on 18-inch wheels and the Juke on 19s. Funnily enough, a straw poll of the motoring community in Australia suggests the 19s on the ST-L model, below the Ti variant we’ve got, are considered a lot more appealing. You’ll decide, no doubt.

The Juke has carried over its hidden, high-mount rear door handle, which makes for a neat rear panel but does mean shorter kids might struggle to let themselves into the back seat. It also impedes over-shoulder vision for the driver, as the C-pillar is thick. Though the Kona’s isn’t much better. Both have rear privacy glass, too.

The Kona has more rugged exterior cladding and plastics to make it look as though it's ready for an adventure in the great outdoors, where the Juke still has dark plastic wheel-arch trims but looks sleeker, more blingy. More for those who prefer urban adventures, perhaps?

Both are urban-friendly in terms of their size, too, with the Nissan just getting the edge with its surround view camera system. Plus, the Juke’s lighting signature is all LED, where the Kona’s has halogen fog lamps but LED everything else.

  • The Kona has more rugged exterior cladding. The Kona has more rugged exterior cladding.
  • The Hyundai rides on 18-inch wheels. The Hyundai rides on 18-inch wheels.
  • The Juke still has dark plastic wheel-arch trims but looks sleeker, more blingy. The Juke still has dark plastic wheel-arch trims but looks sleeker, more blingy.
  • The Juke rides on 19-inch wheels. The Juke rides on 19-inch wheels.
  • The Juke is actually a fair bit longer and taller than the Kona. The Juke is actually a fair bit longer and taller than the Kona.

The Kona hits back with some additional personalisation options, including on the Highlander a ‘Phantom Black’ two-tone roof finish with matching blacked-out side mirrors - though it’s dependent on the Kona colour of your choice. You can’t get that on the Juke in any spec in Australia. 

There’s also an optional ‘Acid Yellow’ interior trim pack, or red leather trim for the interior, too. So if standing out matters to you, that could be something you keep in mind.

On the topic of colours, the Kona has ‘Chalk White’ metallic (the only no cost option), as well as Phantom Black Mica, ‘Dark Knight’ (grey) Mica, ‘Blue Lagoon’ Mica Metallic (that’s the colour of the car you see here), ‘Ceramic Blue’ Mica, ‘Tangerine Comet’ Mica, ‘Pulse Red’ Mica Metallic and Acid Yellow Mica Metallic - all of which add $595 to the price.

For Nissan Juke colours the options include ‘Fuji Sunset Red’ metallic as seen here (a no cost option), as well as ‘Vivid Blue’ premium, ‘Ivory Pearl’ white, ‘Gun Metallic’ grey, ‘Pearl Black’, ‘Burgundy’ premium and ‘Platinum’ silver metallic - each of those options cost $595.

Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD8/10
Nissan Juke Ti 2WD8/10

Interior and practicality

The real story of the design of these cars is found when it comes to packaging. If you want a small SUV and you’re okay with the interior being small too, the Kona is the go for you. The Juke argues a stronger case if practicality matters to you, with a bigger boot and more spacious back seat, too.

The boot capacity difference between the two is marked. If you need boot space, the Juke will be the better bet, with a 422-litre (VDA) cargo capacity easily bettering the 361L (VDA) offered in the Kona. And if you fold the seats down for larger items, you get 1305L in the Juke compared with 1143L in the Kona.

  • If you need boot space, the Juke will be the better bet. If you need boot space, the Juke will be the better bet.
  • The 422-litre (VDA) cargo capacity expands to 1305L with the seats down. The 422-litre (VDA) cargo capacity expands to 1305L with the seats down.
  • The Juke easily fitting our three suitcases. The Juke easily fitting our three suitcases.
  • The Juke had enough space for the pram and small bags either side. The Juke had enough space for the pram and small bags either side.

To give you an idea of what that means in the real world, the Kona only just fit the bulky CarsGuide pram, while the Juke had enough space for the pram and small bags either side. If you’re not a parent - maybe you’re single or the car will cater to you as a couple - the Juke also won out on luggage space, easily fitting our three suitcases (124L, 95L and 36L). The Kona didn’t fit all three cases in the boot, meaning you’ll have to pack lighter or use the back seat for luggage. 

  • The Kona didn’t fit all three suitcases in the boot. The Kona didn’t fit all three suitcases in the boot.
  • Both cars have a space-saver spare wheel under the boot floor. Both cars have a space-saver spare wheel under the boot floor.
  • The Kona offers 361L (VDA) boot space. The Kona offers 361L (VDA) boot space.
  • Fold down some rear seats for additional boot space. Fold down some rear seats for additional boot space.
  • Space expands to 1143L in the Kona. Space expands to 1143L in the Kona.
  • The Kona only just fit the bulky CarsGuide pram. The Kona only just fit the bulky CarsGuide pram.

At least both cars have a space-saver spare wheel under the boot floor, and if you do have kids each car has rear outboard ISOFIX child-seat anchor points and three top-tether points for baby seats as well. 

And the space on offer in the second row of the Juke is better than that in the Kona, too. As a 182cm adult (that’s 6’0” in the old money), I’m bigger than the average six-year-old. But I can tell you that the space in the Juke is better in terms of foot room, knee room and head room, all of which are a touch tighter in the Kona. Don’t get me wrong - neither of these models are even close to the Honda HR-V and VW T-Cross for backseat room, but the better of the two is the Juke if you need to prioritise back seat space.

I will say this, though - the exterior door handles on the back doors of the Juke may be too high for smaller kids to reach to let themselves in. And the window line and dark headlining make for a more claustrophobic experience in the back, despite there being physically more space. Plus the Juke’s back seat comfort isn’t nearly as good, with a pokey-outey bit that sticks into your lower back.

  • Foot room, knee room and head room is tighter in the Kona. Foot room, knee room and head room is tighter in the Kona.
  • The space on offer in the second row of the Juke is better than in the Kona. The space on offer in the second row of the Juke is better than in the Kona.

It’s a shame because there’s more interesting stuff in the back of the Juke Ti, including Alcantara trimmed armrests and stitched leather trim, plus there’s a rear USB port to keep the kids’ devices charged up. But compared with the Kona Highlander, it misses out on a centre armrest and rear cup holders. 

The map pocket situation is good - two in each car - but the Kona’s are mesh, while the Nissan’s are actual pockets. There are rear door bottle holders in both cars, too. 

Up front, there are more interesting trim finishes in the Juke, with nice materials and a few talking points like ambient lighting and an intriguing little white stripe that runs under the Alcantara dashboard feature. It’s a more interesting cabin, that’s for sure.

  • The front seats are electric adjustable. The front seats are electric adjustable.
  • The Hyundai’s screen is near faultless. The Hyundai’s screen is near faultless.
  • The Kona has more features, even if it does have less ‘wow factor’ to the front seat area. The Kona has more features, even if it does have less ‘wow factor’ to the front seat area.
  • Up front, there are more interesting trim finishes in the Juke. Up front, there are more interesting trim finishes in the Juke.
  • Nissan’s screen feels more flimsy. Nissan’s screen feels more flimsy.

But the Kona has more features, even if it does have less ‘wow factor’ to the front seat area. Things like a heated steering wheel, and three-stage heating and cooling for the front seats (as opposed to two-stage heating for the Juke’s front seats - and that middle stage, I’m told, makes all the difference). Plus the front seats are electric adjustable, and there’s a sunroof, and there’s a head-up display with clever info including navigation instructions and blind-spot monitoring icons… there’s just more content in the Kona’s cabin.

Both cars have an 8.0-inch touchscreen media system, and both have the smartphone mirroring tech you’d expect - Android Auto and Apple CarPlay

But weirdly, the Nissan’s screen feels more flimsy - it creaks when you use the touchscreen, and the responses can be slow and laggy, too. The Hyundai’s screen is near faultless - it's quick, feels solid and has good graphics. If you can wait until 2021, the facelifted Kona will bring an even better display (and it’ll be bigger at 10.25 inches, too).

Storage is similar between the two, with cupholders between the seats and bottle holders in the doors, a small covered centre bin and a section in front of the gear selector. But the latter is more copious in the Kona (and that’s where you find the Qi wireless charging pad), while the Nissan’s spot for your phone is actually too small to fit even a modest smartphone like mine, the iPhone XS. Larger ones just will not fit. 

We have to give the Juke the win for its interior presentation and practicality advantages, but there’s something to be said for Hyundai’s approach of focusing on substance over style.

Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD7/10
Nissan Juke Ti 2WD8/10

 

Drivetrains

One of these engines is not like the other. That’s because the Juke runs a Euro-spec powertrain with a downsized three-cylinder turbo engine and a dual-clutch auto transmission.

Despite having a turbo, it’s no horsepower hero. In fact, the Kona - with its traditional naturally aspirated (non-turbo) engine has more power (31 per cent more!) but equal torque. And it has a regular six-speed auto that offers a different driving character, which we’ll get to below.

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Engine

2.0-litre four-cylinder

1.0-litre three-cylinder turbo

Power output 

110kW at 6200rpm

84kW at 5250rpm

Torque output 

180Nm at 4500rpm

180Nm at 2400rpm

Transmission

Six-speed automatic

Seven-speed dual-clutch automatic

Drivetrain

FWD

FWD

You’d hardly want to consider either of these as an option for a caravan holiday around Australia, but both should be able to hitch up a small camper trailer or box trailer, based on the towing capacity figures:

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Towing capacity - unbraked

600kg

648kg

Towing capacity - braked

1300kg

1250kg

And while we all need to watch our weight, the Kona is definitely a little porkier than the Juke:

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Kerb weight

1383kg

1274kg

Gross vehicle weight / gross vehicle mass (GVM)

1830kg

1730kg

The Hyundai’s slight power advantage on paper is one thing, but when it comes to driving, there’s a bit more between these two models.

  • The Kona has a 2.0-litre four-cylinder engine. The Kona has a 2.0-litre four-cylinder engine.
  • The Juke has a 1.0-litre three-cylinder turbo engine. The Juke has a 1.0-litre three-cylinder turbo engine.
Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD7/10
Nissan Juke Ti 2WD7/10

 

Fuel consumption

Running a downsized turbocharged engine it’s no surprise the fuel economy claim for the Juke is considerably lower than that of the Kona, which has a non-turbo, larger capacity engine. 

Add to that the fact the Juke has engine start-stop technology and a dual-clutch auto - and it weighs almost 10 per cent less than the Kona - and it’s no wonder we’re seeing a claimed figure that’s among the best in the small SUV segment.

In the real world? It’s a bit closer than you might think.

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Official combined cycle fuel consumption

7.2L/100km

5.8L/100km

Actual fuel use on test 

7.6L/100km

7.3L/100km

Difference between claim and actual

0.4L/100km (or 5.5 per cent)

1.5L/100km (or 25.9 per cent)

Fuel tank size

50L

46L

Theoretical driving range

657km

630km

Are you surprised to see the two so close in real-world fuel consumption? The Juke’s start-stop system might give it some handy help in heavy traffic, but for open road, country and anything else, the Juke wasn’t close to its claim. Still marginally more efficient than the Kona, though.

  • The Kona had a fuel figure of 7.6L/100km for testing. The Kona had a fuel figure of 7.6L/100km for testing.
  • The Juke had a fuel figure of 7.3L/100km. The Juke had a fuel figure of 7.3L/100km.
Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD7/10
Nissan Juke Ti 2WD7/10

Driving

For this test we covered a lot of ground in these two cars, including urban driving with stop-start traffic, roundabouts, speed humps and potholes, to highway motoring and country road cruising. And the results were pretty surprising.

Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD

The Hyundai Kona 2.0-litre might not be your pick. You might prefer the extra power and torque of the 1.6-litre turbo, and the fact it adds all-wheel drive and a pretty snappy dual-clutch auto to the mix, too.

But the 2.0-litre engine and six-speed auto in the less expensive Konas is still pretty decent, especially when it comes to driving in the urban setting. It gets away from a standstill without much fuss - in fact, compared with the Juke, it’s peppy from a stop.

The engine revs easily, the auto gearbox has no hesitation, and there’s no start-stop system to interrupt your progress either. I know, I know - the fuel saving and emissions reductions that start-stop can bring is important, but gee-whizz can it be annoying.

The engine revs easily in the Kona and the auto gearbox has no hesitation. The engine revs easily in the Kona and the auto gearbox has no hesitation.

At higher speeds the Kona’s engine isn’t quite as impressive, as it can feel a little lethargic and breathless up hills - that’s mainly down to the transmission logic, which aims for efficiency in that situation. I found myself occasionally running in ‘Sport’ mode to keep the revs up and the gears lower during prolonged hill climbs on the highway. 

The Kona has other positive attributes, such as its handling. It has more natural and direct steering with a nice amount of weight to it - it’s more fun to drive than the Juke, by some margin. I don’t like how heavy the steering is in ‘Sport’ mode, but you might. 

The ride is a bit firm. There are 18-inch wheels with low profile tyres, and Australian tuning done by people that seemingly like a hard suspension set-up - it’s not what you’d call subtle in the way it deals with bumps, especially at the rear axle. But it is more resolved in the way it copes with smaller inconsistencies in the road surface than the Juke, and it never feels wobbly during direction changes or offset lumpy bits.

Funny, you know. The Kona is better than the Juke at lower speeds, and not quite as good when it comes to highway driving - especially if there are lots of hills. If you’re an urban buyer, that could mean the world to you.

The Kona is better than the Juke at lower speeds. The Kona is better than the Juke at lower speeds.

Nissan Juke Ti 2WD

If you’ve seen the comparison test I did with the Honda HR-V and the VW T-Cross, you’ll know the latter got the win, and it was equipped with a downsized turbo engine and dual-clutch transmission, just like the Nissan.

The difference is that the VW’s powertrain is really quite good. Whereas the Nissan Juke’s is quite the opposite.

It has been a while since I’ve driven a car with a dual-clutch automatic transmission as bad as the Nissan Juke’s. It’s laggy, lurchy, clunky, noisy, and slow to react - all the things that early examples of this type of transmission have almost ironed out over years (or decades) of development.

The Juke's transmission is laggy, lurchy, clunky, noisy, and slow to react. The Juke's transmission is laggy, lurchy, clunky, noisy, and slow to react.

That makes things rather unpleasant when it comes to urban driving. It’s hard to manage your acceleration from a standstill when you take off from a traffic light: the engine start-stop system has to fire up the motor, then the transmission has to choose first gear, then the turbo has to spool up as you accelerate - and it all has to happen within the blink of an eye. Instead, it’s like being poked in the eye.

There’s a lack of refinement that is frankly disappointing when it comes to low-speed driving. And that’s a shame, because at higher speeds - on the open road, major arterial commuter belts or country back roads - the powertrain is mostly pretty good. It is more thoughtful with its gear selection at pace, and while the engine isn’t overly powerful, it pulls along nicely.

The Nissan Juke’s drive experience was disappointing. The Nissan Juke’s drive experience was disappointing.

And I will say this - the Sport mode of the Juke is pretty enticing. It adds snappier shifts and sharper acceleration to the mix, almost getting to a point where you’d call it fun… but not quite, and you will pay a penalty when it comes to fuel consumption.

Other elements of the drive experience are likewise good at higher speed, but confounding at lower pace. The ride, for instance, is better the faster you go - but in urban driving situations the 19-inch wheels and wobbly suspension tune make for a pretty unpleasant experience. 

The steering isn’t great at any speed. As a colleague put it, it’s kind of like when you use a video game steering wheel - it just doesn’t have the predictable response you want. On centre, it feels vague and a bit doughy, but once you apply some steering lock it starts to react more rapidly - it’s very hard to judge. And the lane-keeping assistance system - which will buzz the steering wheel and apply the car’s brakes to help pull you back into your lane - is not the finest example of the tech by a long margin.

All told, the Nissan Juke’s drive experience was disappointing in comparison to the Hyundai Kona’s, which is just more polished and enjoyable in almost every aspect. 

Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD8/10
Nissan Juke Ti 2WD6/10

Safety

If you’re after a small SUV with plenty of safety technology, these two will serve you well. Both are comprehensively equipped when it comes to safety systems. Here’s a rundown.

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Parking camera

Reverse

360 degree surround view

Park assist sensors

Front and rear

Front and rear

Airbags

Six

Six

Auto emergency braking (AEB)

Y (8km/h-160km/h)

Y (5km/h-200km/h)

Pedestrian detection

Y (8km/h-64km/h)

Y (10km/h-60km/h)

Cyclist detection

N

Y (10km/h-60km/h)

Auto high-beam lights

N

Y

Adaptive cruise control

Y

Y

Lane departure warning

Y

Y

Lane keep assist

Y (active lane keep assist - 60km/h and above)

Y (55km/h-120km/h)

Blind spot monitoring

Y

Y

Rear cross traffic

Y

Y

ANCAP safety rating (year tested)

5 star (2017)

5 star (2019)

As you can see, it’s pretty close. The Kona misses a few things - cyclist detection, a 360 degree camera and auto high beam lights, but I have to say that it has a more impressive lane keeping system than the Juke - by some margin.

The Juke’s system does gently nudge you into your lane if the car is wandering by braking the wheels it needs to, while the lane departure system vibrates the wheel to the point of annoyance.

The Kona misses a few things when it comes to safety. The Kona misses a few things when it comes to safety.

In the Hyundai, the lane keeping system will centre you in your lane without the ‘ping-pong’ effect of braking the wheels. It instead monitors the road and steers to suit, and it does a really good job, too. That can’t overcome its shortfalls in terms of the other missing items, but it might be something you want to keep in mind.

The Juke is built in the UK. The Juke is built in the UK.

Both adaptive cruise control systems are decent, though each can fall for false positives - braking for parked cars, for instance.

Where is the Hyundai Kona built? Korea is the answer. Where is the Nissan Juke built? You may be surprised to learn the answer is the UK.

Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD7/10
Nissan Juke Ti 2WD8/10

Ownership

These two are pretty evenly matched on a lot of the ownership questions you might want answered - things like warranty, capped price servicing and roadside assistance. Here are the details you need to know.

 

Kona Highlander 2WD

Juke Ti 2WD

Service interval

12 month/15,000km

12 months/20,000km

Annual service cost (avg over six years)

$290.83

$382.67

Capped price servicing plan

Lifetime capped price

Six years/120,000km

Prepay servicing available?

Y

N

Warranty cover

Five years/unlimited kilometres

Five years/unlimited kilometres

Roadside assist included?

Up to 10 years if serviced with Hyundai

Five years

While both have a decent warranty plan, the Hyundai has a few advantages here: a lower annual service fee, lifetime capped price servicing, and double the length of roadside assist - provided you remain loyal to Hyundai and have your car serviced with the brand.

But one thing that mightn’t occur to you straight off the bat is that Hyundai allows you to pre-purchase your servicing plan in the following packages: three-year/45,000km - $792; four-year/60,000km - $1156; or five year/75,000km - $1420. That means you can roll the ownership cost into your finance. You can’t do that with Nissan.

Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD9/10
Nissan Juke Ti 2WD7/10

Verdict

This was a mighty close test, and the decision you make might be based on your desires, requirements, expectations or - more simply - just based on which you like the look of more. We get it!

But in this test our aim was to find out which was the better all-rounder, and the winner is the Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD - only just. It may be a little older, and its powertrain isn’t as high-tech, but it has more of the inclusions you’d expect at this price point, and it’s simply a more polished offering in round terms. Plus it has the advantage of a better potential ownership experience, based on the details put forward by the respective brands.

The new-generation Nissan Juke Ti 2WD, then, finishes a close second. It lacks polish when it comes to the drive experience, with a hard-to-live-with powertrain and harsh ride combining to pull it back from its otherwise impressive packaging and interior. If you’re not fussed about how your car drives - and you’re more into the look and the wow-factor of a classy interior - then the Juke could be your pick, and we’d totally understand why.

Here's the overall scoring table for these two models against our criteria, which should help you narrow down which might be better for you based on your preferences.

 

Hyundai Kona Highlander 2WD 

Nissan Juke Ti 2WD 

Pricing and specs

8/10

7/10

Design

8/10

8/10

Interior and practicality

7/10

8/10

Drivetrains

7/10

7/10

Fuel consumption

7/10

7/10

Driving

8/10

6/10

Safety

7/10

8/10

Ownership

9/10

7/10

Overall (average of the above)

7.6/10

7.3/10

 



Comments