Renault Kadjar vs Ford Puma

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. 

If a minimum price and maximum interior space are your priorities, then the Puma is not for you. Especially so in the flagship ST-Line V, which may seem too small and a tad cramped compared to, say, a Seltos, C-HR or ASX.

Where the Ford excels, typically, is in the way it encourages the keen driver while cosseting four occupants (and a surprising amount of their cargo). There's a poise and maturity to the way the Puma moves that puts it on a par with or even beyond some premium compact SUVs. Even the styling is a statement. If the badges (and dashboard) were covered, you might be convinced this cat is actually a Jag.

If all that is more important, then the ST-Line V is for you. The very antithesis, then, of the unassuming and unloved EcoSport the Puma usurps.

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.

If you search for the 1998 Puma coupe, you'll see some vague similarities with its modern SUV namesake, especially in their anthropomorphic face. It's in the eyes. There are also hints of Aston Martin (DBX), Porsche (Macan) and – let's face it – Mazda (CX-3).

Yet the real achievement lies in the way Ford has managed to make a 4.2-metre-long by 1.8m wide by 1.6m high crossover look so svelte, with the resulting balanced proportions, flowing lines and taut surfacing giving the Puma quite an athletic visual presence. After the EcoSport failure, head-turning looks were deemed paramount.

The extra girth gained by widening the Fiesta's platform allowed Ford's designers to create a muscular body that could also accommodate a metre-wide tailgate opening, while beneath the cargo floor is an exceptionally deep storage box, bringing better-than-expected practicality to boot.

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.

Compact yet spacious, the ST-Line V's interior has strong as well as weak points.

Let's start with the latter. The most obvious connection with the Fiesta is in the Puma's dashboard, which is largely shared between the two. After all the effort expended on the design and chassis, this is somewhat disappointing. There's nothing wrong essentially with the fascia's aesthetics or functionality – it's just that the look is humdrum and dated. What's needed is something with the visual wow factor as found in the latest Peugeot 2008, especially at this price point.

Yet Ford has at least tried to put some tinsel inside this most expensive version of its smallest SUV.

Stitched perforated leather seat facings, carbon-fibre-look trim and soft vinyl coverings in key touchpoint areas bring an upmarket look and feel, backed up by a now-familiar digital instrumentation layout, a lovely flat-bottomed three-spoke steering wheel, easy and intuitive multimedia interface and a wireless phone charger. That electronic cluster, by the way, changes colour and markings but doesn't have the scope of multimedia displays of, say, Audi's Virtual Cockpit. It's comparatively rudimentary.

Conversely, there's a solidity and quietness as well, offering a level of refinement that's usually found in more-premium Euro alternatives. We weren't expecting that, though of course this is a German Ford product.

Our test car also boasted a vast glass opening sunroof, adding to the opulence. With all this gear, the ST-Line V's cabin is properly appealing.

On the practicality front, entry and egress is pretty good, the driving position is excellent (thanks in no small part to a big amount of adjustability for both the steering column and seats), the front cushions themselves are sumptuously enveloping, while wide door pockets and a big glovebox obviously come in useful. And there's a USB-C outlet in the centre cubby between the seats. How modern.

However, rear vision out is poor, there are no seat warmers and some of the lower-lying plastics are a bit drab.

The back seat isn't really suitable for people over 175cm, as kneeroom is limited and taller scalps may scrape the ceiling with the twin-pane sunroof in situ. The latter also means no overhead grab handles.

But the backrest angle and cushions themselves are fine, even for longer journeys. Just don't expect to squeeze a third adult in the back unless rubbing shoulders won't bug you. Note, too, that the rear cushion does not slide or tilt forward to allow for a lower load area when the backrest is folded down. Pity.

There is a receptacle in both doors for small bottles but no cupholders whatsoever (how can Ford call itself an American company?), or face-level air vents – though the large dash vent outputs do reach the rear. Amenities such as USBs and cupholders are AWOL; and vision out from back there is limited by the high shoulder line. Tough if you're trying to peer out. Sorry, Fido.

The Puma's overall compact footprint and rear packaging clearly suggest that this is aimed at singles, couples, or couples with smaller kids/pets to transport around.

Still, for a small SUV, the cargo area isn't bad at all. The standard floor depth is fairly generous, with a long and flat loading area, but below that is a narrower yet deeper waterproof area, while under that again is a space-saver spare wheel. Clever. Also intelligent is the luggage cover that lifts automatically with the tailgate, as per Mazda's CX-5.

For the record, cargo capacity is rated at 410 litres with the 60/40 split-fold rear seats erect – or 1170L with them folded down flat. These figures far outstrip the CX-3.

To sum the cabin experience… it's far-better than its Fiesta-sourced dashboard may suggest, while the ST-Line V treatment goes a long way in helping justify the premium. That's a win.

In Australia, the Puma plays in the burgeoning 'Light SUV' segment, so goes up against the ageing yet athletic Mazda CX-3 as well as Honda's HR-V, along with more recent challengers like the Hyundai Venue, Kia Stonic, Nissan Juke II, Toyota Yaris Cross and Volkswagen T-Cross. All are ready to pounce on the bestselling Hiroshima crossover.

What every one of these baby SUVs have in common is that they're based on B-segment – or supermini – platforms. However, prices and sizes do blur in this corner of the class, with larger small-car-derived rivals from the 'Small SUV' segment above, led by the Mitsubishi ASX, Kia Seltos, Mazda CX-30 and Hyundai Kona, also in the Ford's crosshairs.

Formidable opponents indeed, and just like that, the first big hurdle appears for the Blue Oval hopeful. Puma is Light SUV-sized but Small SUV-priced, with the entry-level grade kicking off from a tenner under $30,000, and before on-road costs. That's even more expensive than the VW.

This instantly eliminates it from many buyers' radars.

In contrast, a CX-3 Neo Sport starts from just $22,890. But that's with a manual gearbox, plain interior and steel wheels, whereas the Puma includes a ripper turbo engine/auto combo, climate control, a smartphone app that allows for remote vehicle location/ locking/unlocking/starting, voice-activated sat nav, wireless smartphone charging, lane-departure warning and assist, traffic-sign recognition, driver impairment monitor, 17-inch alloys and a leather steering wheel.

Along with other goodies like AEB with pedestrian alert, reverse camera, Bluetooth audio and telephony, Apple CarPlay/Android auto, digital radio, live traffic updates, fuel-saving engine stop/start, auto headlights, rain-sensing wipers, adaptive cornering fog lights, powered folding mirrors, push-button start and puddle lamps, the Puma looks and feels up-spec inside. To match most of that stuff in the CX-3 you'll need a Maxx Sport auto from $26,890.

Rising to the $32,340 ST-Line drops the Puma's ride height by just 2mm (to 164mm), but adds firmer suspension, a body kit, glitzier alloys, sports seats, a 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster, flat-bottomed steering wheel, paddle shifters and racier trim for a racier experience, though it loses the climate control for a manual air-con set-up. Strange. This grade might just be the sweet spot in the Ford's range, though it does sit about $1300 higher than the CX-3 sTouring equivalent.

Finally, the subject of this test, the ST-Line V, scores privacy glass, lashings of chrome, keyless entry/start, leather upholstery, climate control, premium audio, a powered tailgate and 18-inch alloys. All for $35,540, it's about on a par with CX-3 Akari, but lacks the latter's powered driver's seat and heated front cushions, among other items. The Mazda also goes one better with a $2000 AWD option from all mid-level grades up, as well as manual availability.

We recommend the $1500 Park Package, which ushers in adaptive cruise control with full stop/go and lane-centring tech, as well as blind-spot detection and auto parking. Premium paint adds $650, a panoramic roof $2000, roof rails $250 and a black roof $500.

Against compelling alternatives costing less, like the high-flying Seltos Sport+, CX-30 G20 Touring and Toyota C-HR Koba, the ST-Line V struggles to make sense on paper. Can the Puma's cabin and driving experience claw back its obvious price disadvantage?

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.

A multiple international engine-of-the-year winner, the compact and lightweight, 999cc 1.0-litre twin-cam three-cylinder turbo petrol unit is the sole choice for now. Driving the front wheels via a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission (DCT), it delivers 92kW of power and 170Nm of torque.

With no all-wheel drive option, there are instead five driving modes – Normal, Sport, Slippery (for snow) and Trail (gravel) applications, working on the traction, stability and transmission algorithms to mimic some of the benefits of AWD. In the ST-Line V, a set of paddle shifters are fitted in lieu of the sadly-absent manual gearbox.

Owners of the previous-shape Fiesta S and EcoSport would be familiar with the 1.0T's smooth and strident performance, though these 2010s models used a completely different type of DCT. This was the highly-publicised Powershift, which consisted of a dry-clutch system, and was prone to a multitude of problems and failures in the petrol-powered auto versions.

In contrast, the Puma adopts a next-generation transmission dubbed 7DCT300; related to the item found in some smaller Mercedes-Benz, Renault and Nissan models, it instead employs a more-robust wet-clutch system with a higher torque threshold, so promises to be far more durable and reliable than the problematic old dry-clutch unit.

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.

The Puma's official combined average fuel consumption figure is just 5.3 litres per 100km, which works out to 121 grams per kilometre. Fitted with a 42-litre fuel tank, the potential range averages out to almost 800km between refills.

Out in the real world, we managed an exceptional 6.2L/100km, no doubt helped by an ever-eager stop/start system (which, annoyingly, kills the air-con when it extinguishes the engine; we found ourselves constantly pressing that 'off' button as the days wore on). This figure was achieved in motorway-heavy driving scenarios, albeit loaded with holiday gear and with the air-con blaring.

So, we took another, urban-focused test, in lots of slow-moving traffic situations, and averaged a still-solid 8.0L/100km.

Note, that while the Puma requires 95 RON premium unleaded, it's also perfectly happy on – and is even recommended by Ford for – the cheapest petrol currently offered in Australia, 94 RON E10 unleaded. Either way, the ST-Line V is a frugal small SUV.

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.

If the Puma's pricing is complicated, its cabin surprising accommodating and its real-world efficiency particularly parsimonious, then the upward trajectory of pros over cons continues with performance that's downright spirited.

Around town first. A small-displacement engine plus a turbo plus a DCT usually spell interminable spells of lag when all the driver longs for is an instant and measured response to a right foot flexing down onto the throttle.

But the Ford largely sidesteps such pitfalls. Though momentarily hesitant at take-off, the three-pot turbo does then get down to business in no time, with a sustained and satisfying surge of thrust as the revs grow, accompanied by a lusty and raspy thrum that's entirely in keeping with the Puma's track-pants appearance. And it doesn't let up either, with speed building up strongly through the gears, and much more so than the mere 999ccs suggest. Great for overtaking, or taking over a rapidly diminishing gap in the peak-hour derby.

Selecting Sport (a fiddly action that's located too far from the driver for safe eyes-on-the-road operation) lights an even bigger fire in the Puma's belly, with punchier acceleration and a very attentive transmission tune, slicing seamlessly through the seven ratios, leaving you in awe that a heart so small can possess such deep lungs.

Where the Ford really leaves an indelible mark is its enthusiasm to corner just as keenly, armed with brilliantly slick steering and a planted chassis that is set up to both encourage and interact with the driver. Minimal body roll and lots of grip from a quality quartet of Continental tyres ensure the Puma can be punted about like a sporty little hatchback, while the electronic safety tech allowing just enough leeway for lots of fun before they gently reel everything back into line.

We cannot think of a more enjoyable small SUV. And, by the way, those same driver-assist systems provide exceptionally nuanced lane-keep and adaptive cruise-control intervention – certainly they're right up there with the premium SUV brigade.

Given that our Puma wore 215/50R18 rubber, on a 'sports' suspension tune, the ride around town is commendable, with ample cushioning from the rough stuff. There is some tautness to the ride, but it isn't hard or rough; the ST-Line V walks a fine line between urban-agility and surface-decay isolation. In other words, it's commendably relaxing to travel in.

At higher speeds, some road and tyre noises do permeate through inside, and those Dumbo door mirrors do create some wind whoosh, but overall, given how dynamic the chassis is, the Puma feels grown up and sophisticated.

Tested under the 2019 Euro NCAP crash-test regime, the Puma scores a top five-star ANCAP rating.

However, this means it does not meet the more stringent frontal offset crash, side impact crash and far-side impact crash-test criteria introduced by ANCAP for 2020 model-year vehicles – despite launching in September of that year.

Safety items include dual front, front-seat side and side curtain airbags (six in total), AEB with pedestrian and cyclist detection (working between 7km/h and 80km/h), lane-departure warning, lane-keep assist, traffic-sign recognition, driver fatigue alert, rear parking sensors, tyre pressure monitors and emergency assistance. These come on top of anti-lock brakes with electronic brake-force distribution and brake assist, stability control and traction control.

As mentioned earlier, adaptive cruise control, active park assistance, front parking sensors and blind-spot detection are part of the $1500 'Park Package'. Do it.

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.

Ford offers the industry-average warranty of five-years/unlimited kilometres. Services intervals are every 12 months or 15,000km.

There is also a capped-price servicing scheme under the 'Ford Service Benefits' banner, with the first four years/60,000km of 'A and B' logbook services pegged at $299 per visit, and then between $320 and $560, for up to 12 years.

There is also a Ford loan car program, SYNC 3 map updates and Motoring Club Membership included during that time frame.