Kia Stonic vs Nissan Juke

What's the difference?

Once over the little thrill of driving a car we weren't supposed to get (okay, it wasn't that thrilling), a few things became clear. You can now buy a compact SUV with a good long warranty, a bit of Kia flair and a roomy cabin, at least for its size.

It drives really well even if the transmission was a bit reluctant to do what I wanted. It's easy to park and will live very happily in the city while carrying reasonable numbers of people and their things. It may not be as bang up to date as some of its competitors, and the GT-Line's value is borderline, but it delivers plenty in its small package to a rapacious SUV market.

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.

The Stonic clearly looks like it is related to the Rio, but also bears a strong resemblance to the Seltos. Underneath is the very familiar small hatch Rio but Kia says every panel is different. 

The panels might be, but have a look at the rear door and the way the glass meets the C-pillar and you can tell it's a Rio. 

Which is fine, of course, because I think the Stonic looks really good in GT-Line form, with the bigger wheels, some well-judged cladding and some nice sculpting on the body. 

If you plump for the two-tone paint job (which I think looks great), you will go without the sunroof. Also the sun-safe option, but I know some are fans of a hole in the roof.

The cabin is by-the-numbers Kia, which is to say it's well laid-out and looks good, but won't be troubling a beret-sporting art critic for superlatives. 

Unlike the exterior, it's straight out of the Rio, which does have its downsides, which we'll discuss further.

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 this size, it's reasonably roomy. I can sit behind my driving position in the rear seat and while violin playing is off the agenda, it's not claustrophobic.

Front seat passengers have plenty of storage to play with, including a split storage box underneath the console for phone and wallet-chucking. 

You also get two cupholders, even with the space-robbing conventional handbrake (I like a standard handbrake, though, so I didn't mind too much).

Each front door has a pocket for a decent-sized bottle, but not so rears. And your back seat passengers won't have an armrest or cupholders, either.

Boot space is an impressive 352 litres (VDA) with the seats up and 1155 litres with the seats down, although you don't get a flat floor with the seats folded and you do have a drop to the boot floor over the loading lip. Nothing terrifying, but the more you know...

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.

The GT-Line is the only one of the three in the range to score Kia's rorty 1.0-litre, three-cylinder turbo, good for 74kW and 172Nm to haul its 1200kg weight. 

A seven-speed dual-clutch transmission drives the front wheels and you'll hit 100km/h in about 10 seconds.

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

Kia's government-mandated fuel economy testing yielded an official combined-cycle figure of 5.4L/100km. 

As I have found over the years with this engine, that's a fairly optimistic number, my week with the Stonic delivering 8.4L/100km in an almost even mix of highway and suburban running.

The Stonic has that rarest of things in a Korean car - stop-start, which helps rein in fuel usage around town. Happily, you'll be filling the 45 litre tank with standard unleaded.

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.

I must admit to being slightly puzzled by the Stonic. I've already driven the Rio GT-Line and there is one thing that is the same between the two cars and that's the seven-speed dual clutch's awkward behaviour in traffic. 

The car I had was not at all keen to respond to the movement of my right foot on the accelerator, with my wife and I developing an in-joke about having to make a verbal suggestion about which gear to choose. 

It also rolled back more than I'd like on slopes when starting from a standstill.

The other things I didn't like were the front seats. Straight out of the Rio, they are wide but not very supportive on longer trips, such as the one we took up into the Blue Mountains (a roughly 250km round trip from our home in Sydney). 

Complaints about the seats are certainly mine, but I checked in with colleague Richard Berry, who didn't have the same hesitant transmission struggle, so it could just have been a drama with the car I drove. 

The rest of the Stonic experience is really good. The 1.0-litre turbo is definitely the one to go for if you can stretch to it. The numbers don't seem big, but it's got decent punch in the gears and cheerfully climbed the Blue Mountains quietly and without hunting up and down the gears. 

Around the city it also means it's easy to thread through the traffic, with good response from low revs when the transmission is playing well.

The steering is really nice, too, with just the right weight and speed to make city-wrangling easy. The extra ride height and softer suspension also make for a very comfortable ride around town without taking away from the body control. In fact, it's quite a bit of fun.

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.

Kia offers a seven-year/unlimited kilometre warranty, which is only shaded by Mitsubishi's caveat-filled, 10-year/200,000km warranty. 

The Stonic demands a return to the dealer ever 12 months or 10,000km, which is kind of irritating as the non-turbo models are 12 months/15,000km. 

As ever, Kia offers a capped-price servicing regime but the numbers aren't yet available on the website (yet).

Lucky for you, we've got them. Prices bounce around a bit and are as low as $283 and as high as $704 with the first seven years/seven services costing $3299, averaging out at $471 per visit. 

Over the five years, it's $260 more than the 1.4-litre but you're servicing more often if you drive more than 10,000km per year.

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.