Renault Kadjar vs Ssangyong Tivoli

What's the difference?

The Renault Kadjar Intens ticks a lot of the urban boxes. It’s small, which is good for navigating narrow city streets and parking in tight spaces, but it’s also spacious and practical. The Kadjar is fuel efficient for a four-cylinder petrol engine and it has that sophisticated French styling.

The Intens is expensive, though, and unless you absolutely have to have leather seats, a glass roof, and the Bose stereo I’d go for the mid-range Zen grade and save yourself $5K but still have all the same safety tech. That said the Intens has auto parking as standard which is a nice convenience for the city.

Safety could be better. The AEB system doesn’t have pedestrian and cyclist detection, rear cross traffic alert, or reverse emergency braking.

Finally, the dual-clutch automatic and 1.3-litre turbo-petrol engine while a fuel efficient combination, isn’t all that easy to live with and can make driving a less-than-smooth experience. The Nissan Qashqai’s combination of CVT auto and four-cylinder naturally aspirated engine is better suited to the urban jungle - something to think about there. 

Now the scores, the Kadjar Intens gets the same mark for daily driving and its urban talents – it could be smoother to drive, but there’s still lots to like. 

I was asked the critical question while I had the Tivoli ELX on test – “Do you think people will buy this car?” After some time in thought, my answer was – “Not many… yet.”

Those who can look past the brand perceptions are getting an SUV which is damn near as good as anything on the market – and likely cheaper to run.

To that, you can say a lot of things: If only it cost slightly less. If only its rear was better looking. If only it had a five-star safety rating.

But here it is – the fact that the Tivoli can even hold a candle to its slick, finely tuned competition says a lot. The Double Dragon is back, and if it can afford to stick around for a while, perhaps it will stand a chance of putting the big players on notice.

People talk about French design being good. Well if you want to see just how good take a look at the Nissan Qashqai, because the Kadjar is fundamentally the same SUV with Renault’s design spin applied.

Yep, as I mentioned about 15 seconds ago, Renault and Nissan are part of an alliance that allows them to share the same cars, but each brand has room to ‘make it their own’ with styling that delivers a very different look, inside and out.

Now, the Qashqai is not an ugly car, but I think the Kadjar is more stylish and premium looking in the same way the larger Renault Koleos SUV is gorgeous compared to the relatively straight-laced Nissan X-Trail it’s based on.

There’s no doubt the Kadjar is a Renault thanks to the giant diamond logo on the plunging grille. I like the way the front bumper rises up into the bonnet like it’s all one piece, but I’m not completely sold on the rear of the car which looks a bit like its shirt is tucked into the back of its pants, which makes no sense unless you look at the images.

Still, the tail-lights have a prestige feel and the Kadjar model name spelled out across the tailgate is a confident statement, also adopted recently by other brands such as Volkswagen (T-Cross) and Ford (Puma).  

Telling the Intens apart from the other two grades is fairly easy, it has 19-inch wheels (the others have 17-inch rims), there’s the enormous glass roof, and it also has a chrome effect on the front and rear bumpers, side skirts, and around the fog lights. It’s a more premium look.

That higher-end feel goes into the cabin as well with the Intens’ black leather upholstery and colourful ambient lighting. The touchscreen is tiny, though, and there isn’t a great deal inside that you don’t get in the entry-grade Kadjar’s cabin, which is also almost as stylish.

The Kadjar is classified as a small SUV, which means nothing really when it comes to wondering if it’s going to fit in your garage or in the tiny parking spaces we’re faced with in the city.

So, I’ve mapped it out for you. The Kadjar’s dimensions are, 4449mm long, 2058 mm across (including the wing mirrors), and 1612mm tall. 

Another interesting thing – each B-pillar is adorned with a little French flag. I’m not sure if they're a sign of Gallic national pride or to remind everybody that meets the Kadjar that Renaults are French.

Either way, you don’t see this type of thing on other cars and for many buyers the appeal of a Renault is having a car that’s not like everybody else’s.

SsangYong is hardly a brand known for its consistent or good-looking design. In the past, the brand has floundered between the squared-off lines of the Musso and the unresolved bulbous curves of the last-gen Korando.

The brand’s re-launch has finally brought it up to speed, with every car across its range featuring a consistent design language. It’s improved out of sight, but still isn’t without its flaws.

Up front, there’s an angry-looking, squared-off horizontally slotted grille, with angles galore wrapping around the small SUV’s sides.

The angles continue up the A-pillar and across the roof for a squared-off, European-influenced roofline.

Then, around the back things get… strange. A pronounced curvy ridge makes its way over the rear wheels and into a rounded-out boot. It seems at odds with the angular rear glass and lower garnish.

There’s just way too much going on around the back; it’s overly styled. The chintzy chrome finish around the lower reflectors doesn’t help, nor do the big round SsangYong badge and bold ‘T I V O L I’ typeface.

The 16-inch alloys on the EX and ELX grade are a simple 10-spoke matte-silver. They’re nothing special, but at least they're easy to clean.

Inside, things are also mixed. There’s plenty of good and bad. The seats are clad in a robust cloth with plenty of sponge for comfort, and there are sensibly placed soft surfaces in the doors and on the centre console for your elbows.

The dash has an aesthetically pleasing symmetrical theme to it and is finished mostly in decent plastics. The 7.0-inch media screen is pretty good, too, but the rest of the centre stack is a bit nasty and old fashioned.

There’s the mix of gloss plastic and silver surfaces, a giant climate control dial and the so-so buttons that litter its surface. It reminds me of Korean car designs past, like the Holden (Daewoo) Captiva and generations-old Hyundais. Credit where credit is due, though - it all feels much better built.

I’m actually a big fan of the Tivoli’s steering wheel, it has a ridged, chunky shape and is finished in a pleasing artificial-leather material. The function stalks behind it are solid, with rotary dials on them to control lights and wipers. As the primary touch-points for the driver it’s neat that they have a unique, SsangYong personality to them.

The Kadjar is a big-small SUV, in that it’s longer than many in the same segment at 4.4m with a wheelbase of more than 2.6m, which means more space inside for people and their stuff.

That said, don’t expect limousine legroom, but at 191cm (6'3") tall, I can sit behind my driving position with my knees only just touching the front seat back, which is pretty darn good for a small SUV.

Making life a bit more comfortable back there, too, are directional air vents, two USB charging ports and a 12V power outlet. There are another two USB ports and a 12V up front, too.

Cabin storage is okay. The door pockets in the back are big enough for a 500ml bottle, while there are larger ones in the front, along with two cupholders and another circular hole, which looks like it’s for coins, if anybody still uses those?

The centre console bin is pretty decent in size and so too is the boot which has a cargo capacity of 408 litres with all seats up and 1478 litres with the second row folded flat.

The Tivoli might be a small SUV but it has a cavernous cabin. It’s seriously impressive and rivals some of the best players in this segment, like the Honda HR-V.

The front seat offers huge amounts of headroom, leagues of legroom, great space for your arms on either side and a fully telescopically adjustable steering wheel.

Storage is comprised of a shallow trench under the climate-control stack, decently sized cupholders in the centre console and doors, as well as a deep console box and a glovebox, which seems to disappear forever into the dash.

There’s also a rather odd trench cut out of the dash above the console box. It’s ridged and has a rubbery surface but seems useless for storing things, which will simply topple out when you accelerate.

As previously mentioned, there are comfortable surfaces for resting your elbows on for front occupants.

Room for back-seat dwellers is also excellent, with awesome legroom for the segment and leagues of airspace even for taller folk. There are the same padded elbow-rests in the doors and deep cupholders, but no air-conditioning vents or USB ports.

There are also weird elastic ropes on the back of the front seats for storing things (with mixed success) and a pull-down armrest.

The boot is rated at 423-litres (VDA), which is deceptively large (size-wise not far off the HR-V’s 437-litre space). The problem here is the shape of the boot itself. It’s deep from the floor to the retractable screen, and SsangYong says it will hold three golf bags, but it’s the narrow width and length which limit  its potential.

I found it awkward to move some odd-shaped objects, like a heater and some boxes, and the high entry-point to the bootlid makes things a little difficult when moving heavier items.

Our ELX has significantly more room thanks to a space-saver spare under the boot floor. The Ultimate, which sits above has a full-size spare, further limiting boot space.

There are the same odd elastic ropes in the edges of the boot wall for smaller loose objects or cables.

If SsangYong wants to roar back onto the market and challenge people’s perceptions of the brand, it’ll first need to get them in the door. After all, this low-ball strategy worked for Hyundai and Kia, who infiltrated Australia with models like the Excel and Rio, which offered all the features of more established brands at a cut price.

The challenge is not tarnishing your brand while you’re at it. Has SsangYong pulled it off with the Tivoli?

Our ELX is the mid-spec car, sitting above the entry-level EX and below the all-wheel-drive and diesel-only Ultimate.

The $29,990 ticket price for our front-wheel-drive diesel would be about right if the Tivoli was from any mainstream brand. For roughly the same money you can get a top-spec Mitsubishi ASX Exceed ($30,990), Honda HR-V RS ($31,990), fellow Korean Hyundai Kona Elite ($29,500), or a diesel-powered Mazda CX-3 Maxx Sport ($29,990).

Oh, and despite it looking quite large in the pictures, the Tivoli is most definitely a small SUV, being narrower than a Hyundai Kona and not as long as a CX-3.

Feature-wise, our ELX gets 16-inch alloy wheels, a 7-inch multimedia touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto support, front & rear parking sensors with reversing camera, auto-dimming rear-view mirror, leather trim on the steering wheel, standard faire cloth seats (which weirdly remind me of Hyundai’s seats from about a generation ago), roof-rails, luggage screen in the boot, dual-zone climate control, privacy glass and halogen headlamps with LED DRLs.

Not bad. The safety offering is not only good but available across the range, so check the Safety section of this review out for more on that.

Missing at this price are leather trim (available on the Kona Elite and ASX), active cruise, LED front lighting and powered front seats. It’s not crazy value, but it’s also not bad at $29,990.

While the Renault Kadjar and Nissan Qashqai are essentially the same car, they don’t share the same powertrain. The Kadjar has a smaller but more powerful engine – a 1.3-litre turbo-petrol four-cylinder making 117kW/260Nm.

Shifting gears is a seven-speed dual-clutch auto. There’s no manual available, and all Kadjars are front-wheel drive.

Frankly, the Qashqai four cylinder with less grunt and CVT are a smoother combination. The dual-clutch auto and turbo lag means power delivery and acceleration are delayed, while low-speed gear shifts can be jerky.

Our Tivoli is powered by a 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbo diesel engine producing 84kW and 300Nm of torque.

That seems a little low on the power front compared to petrol competitors, but the strong torque figure available from an almost instantaneous 1500rpm gives this engine a solid amount of get up and go.

If you aren’t opposed to diesel, I would strongly suggest this engine over its underpowered 1.6-litre petrol equivalent, as it has almost twice the available torque.

It might seem risky for SsangYong to be offering diesel in a segment where the fuel type is unpopular, but it makes sense from a global supply point of view, as diesel is largely the fuel of choice in the Tivoli’s home country of South Korea.

The ELX is front-wheel drive and can only be had with a six-speed torque converter auto transmission manufactured by Aisin.

Renault says after a combination of open and urban roads the Kadjar will have used 6.3L/100km. In my own testing I measured 6.5L/100km at the fuel pump. That’s outstanding.

Over my week of mainly urban driving I scored a fuel-consumption figure of 7.8L/100km against a claimed urban figure of 7.4L/100km which is not too bad, but also not stellar.

The official claimed/combined usage figure is at a bold-sounding 5.5L/100km.

The Tivoli has a 47-litre fuel tank.

Renault’s Kadjar may be a better-looking version of Nissan’s Qashqai, but it doesn’t drive as well. This comes down to the engine and transmission Renault has gone with.

There’s turbo lag with that small four-cylinder and this delay is made more pronounced by a dual-clutch transmission that causes the vehicle to lurch during shifts.

This type of shemozzle is not uncommon, the Ford Puma and Nissan Juke behave in the same way with their similar powertrains.

There’s nothing wrong with them, it’s just that for a car that’s probably going to spend its life mainly in the city, the Kadjar won’t provide the smoothest driving experience.

The Qashqai has a CVT automatic and while these transmission aren’t as sporty feeling as a dual-clutch, they’re smooth and good for easy city driving.

The Kadjar does have a comfortable ride and good handling, so if you’re able to get used to the antics of the engine and transmission there’s more to like than not about the way this Renault drives.

We never recommend that you drive blindfolded, but if you could and you drove the Tivoli, I honestly believe you’d have trouble telling it apart from any other small SUV on sale today. 

The diesel engine feels strong from the get-go and pushes the 1390kg SUV along with a reasonable urgency. It’s no performance drivetrain, but it's as good as, if not better than, most of the petrol competitors.

The six-speed torque converter auto is mostly great around town but is old-school in that you can definitely feel each ratio. It also had the unfortunate habit of occasionally grabbing the wrong gear.

I once caught it out altogether under heavy acceleration and it spent a whole second fishing for the ratio it wanted. It’s still better than a continuously variable transmission (CVT) for driver engagement, though.

Steering is on the light side but is direct and offers decent feedback. The ELX offers three steering modes - 'Comfort', 'Normal', and 'Sport', which artificially alter the weight behind the steering. 'Normal' is by far the best.

The suspension was also notably impressive. Fellow Korean brands, Hyundai and Kia, have harked on for a long time about local tuning efforts, but I found the Tivoli’s suspension tune almost as good. It’s a slightly more spongey, comfort-focused tune, but I was impressed at how composed it felt in the corners.

The ELX has a cheap torsion-bar rear suspension setup, which could only really be noticed over rough road conditions.

Behind the wheel, the Tivoli was also surprisingly quiet at lower speeds. This makes for a nice, quiet drive around town, despite the diesel engine, but at speeds above 80km/h and engine rpms above 3000 the noise became significantly worse.

I’d say the Tivoli drives just as well as most Hyundais and Kias from just a few years ago. There’s room for improvement in the little details, but for the brand’s first effort since its international re-boot, it does a darned good job.

The Tivoli comes with a reasonably comprehensive safety offering, but there’s room to improve here, too.

On the active-safety front our ELX has auto emergency braking (AEB – works up to 180km/h), lane-departure warning (LDW), lane-keep assist (LKAS) and high-beam assist.

There’s no active cruise, blind-spot monitoring (BSM), traffic-sign recognition (TSR), or driver-attention alert (DAA) available on even the top-spec Ultimate.

The Tivoli has seven airbags, two ISOFIX child-seat mounting points on the rear outboard seats and top-tether anchorages across the second row, as well as the expected brake and stability controls (but no torque vectoring).

The Tivoli has received a four-star ANCAP safety rating as of 2016, however this is based on a EuroNCAP score and now-available lane-assist technologies were not factored into this test.

The Kadjar is covered by Renault’s five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty.

Service intervals are every 12 months or 30,000km and capped at $399 for the first three services, followed by $789 for the fourth then back to $399.

There’s also up to five years roadside assistance, if you service your Kadjar with Renault.

The SsangYong Tivoli now leads the small SUV segment with a seven-year/unlimited-kilometre warranty, which is miles ahead of the acceptable industry standard of five years/unlimited kilometres offered by most competitors.

Service pricing comes in at a completely fixed and impressive-for-a-diesel $322 per yearly 15,000km service for the life of the warranty.

Extra service items are tidily laid out in a chart breaking down parts cost, labour, and total price, with the most notably expensive item being transmission fluid ($577), which, at worst, is recommended to be changed at 100,000km.

From this we can tell SsangYong intends to target Kia’s audience and use this part of the business to categorically beat its competition.