Nissan QASHQAI v Renault Kadjar 2019 Comparison

Until November 2019 the Renault Kadjar was not a presence in Australia’s mid-size SUV sector.

A product of the Nissan-Renault alliance, the new French SUV is near-as-dammit to a re-skinned Nissan QASHQAI and has been billed as a competitor for mid-size SUVs such as Mazda CX-5, Hyundai Tucson, Mitsubishi Outlander and Toyota RAV4, among others.

But wait. Isn’t the Kadjar’s Nissan donor a small-class SUV, more aligned to Mitsubishi ASX, Mazda CX-3 and Hyundai Kona than a mid-sizer?

By all calculations, rating the Kadjar otherwise is a fanciful stretch. Whatever Renault thinks, or whatever the industry statistician VFACTS says, the Kadjar is no mid-size SUV.

It might nudge ahead, in some dimensions, of both the donor QASHQAI and the odd mid-sizer but, in terms of bulk, it falls notably short of the likes of Mazda CX-5, Nissan X-TRAIL and Mitsubishi Outlander.

Does this matter?

Probably not a great deal… Buyers are free to make their own decisions on what their needs actually are and the rapidly-expanding small SUV segment tends to blur boundaries anyway.

Here we have decided to ignore Renault’s hopes for a spot in the mid-size SUV class and instead take a look at what it has managed to achieve with the French-built Kadjar – not so much in imbuing the new SUV with its own distinct character, but also deciding how it actually measures up to the strong-selling QASHQAI, which is built in the UK and is Nissan’s second-biggest selling model after the (dinkum mid-size) X-TRAIL.

While the Nissan sneaks ahead on entry-grade pricing, both the top-spec QASHQAI Ti and Kadjar Intens are priced identically, at $37,990 (plus on-road costs), chopping and changing a bit in terms of equipment levels, chassis configuration and drivelines.

The newly-released QASHQAI ST+ tested here, at $30,790 (plus ORCs), is $2200 less expensive than the mid-range $32,990 Kadjar Zen, but the French car adds extra safety technology, more standard equipment and upgraded interior trim to help level the playing field.

Despite their carefully contrived differences, there remains in both SUVs an over-arching sense of familiarity. This comes not so much from the aesthetics – they are unavoidably similar to look at, a fact compounded during our comparison test because both SUVs were red – but from inside the cabin and, in many ways, how they behave on the road.

But one does a better overall job, and that’s what we are delving into here.

Clearly, what Renault hopes to do with the Kadjar is sell a different message to that promoted by the Nissan QASHQAI.

Maybe unfortunately, the Kadjar – Australia gets the newly-updated model just launched in Europe after four years with the original model dating back to 2015 – as a result of its co-development with Nissan, is lacking in the French quirkiness you’ll find in some other Renaults.

Undoubtedly in both cases there’s a youthful demographic in mind here but, despite some signs of familiar signatures including the Renault’s scalloping of the lower door panels and the Nissan’s corporate front end design, there are the unavoidable similarities you’d expect when two vehicles share the same basic structure and, essentially, overall dimensions.

If you thought you might find some measurable variances you would be struggling to find anything meaningful. Although the Kadjar can claim to be a bit wider and longer overall than the QASHQAI, it’s so minimal that it barely matters.

And the boot volumes, though the quoted figures favour the Nissan, are microscopically close, the Renault actually proving to offer more real-world space.

That said, both offer ample cabin and boot room for a small SUV. Though the tape measure reveals minimal differences favouring the Renault in the front of the cabin, the back seats in both cases are a virtually identical, realistic proposition for at least two adult passengers – and there’s good headroom into the bargain.

The manually-adjusted front seats, cloth-trimmed in the QASHQAI ST+ and showing off a bit of faux leather in the Kadjar Zen, offer lever-actuated fine tuning of lumbar support and prove comfortable enough for at least two hours on the freeway (any more than that and a quick roadside stop for a bit of spinal stretching would be recommended).

The QASHQAI’s boot, expanding from a claimed 430 litres (exceptionally good for a small SUV) to a maximum, seats-folded 1598 litres sounds better than the Renault and gives some credence to the proposition that both nudge the mid-size class. But when you whip out the tape measure and compare actualities, the Kadjar’s quoted 408/1478-litre load areas suggest Renault is employing a bit of humility here.

Our measurements defied the specifications and gave it the overall lead in terms of seats-up cargo space.

And as well as providing a bit more room to stash away an extra bag or two, there was also the Kadjar’s clever shelving array that enabled various storage configurations including a divided, three-compartment boot that wouldn’t be out of place in a simply-clever Skoda.

The Kadjar also offers two floor levels, as well as a choice between a solid rear parcel shelf or a roll-up blind, where the more simplistic QASHQAI is totally familiar with its roll-out luggage cover and a low-set boot floor encumbered by a loading lip at the tailgate end and a step up to the forward, seats-folded load area.

The QASHQAI’s tailgate opens a bit higher than the Kadjar’s and both have temporary spare wheels located underneath the boot floor.

If you have a need to tow something behind your small SUV, the Nissan QASHQAI and Renault Kadjar might seem a little wanting. The former quotes a braked-trailer capability of 1200kg and the latter a slightly more useful 1500kg. You would do better – but not a lot – with a Mitsubishi Outlander (1600kg) or a Mazda CX-5 (1800kg).

If there were any really discernible differences between the front-drive-only Nissan QASHQAI and Renault Kadjar, they become evident once you’re inside, out and about.

The Nissan’s 106kW/200Nm normally-aspirated 2.0-litre petrol engine doesn’t let the team down with its punchy step-off acceleration and a general sense of responsiveness, but the constantly-variable transmission is not the best of its ilk.

Partly as a result of a seeming mismatch between the engine’s torque delivery (the 200Nm maximum comes in at 4400rpm) and the X-tronic CVT’s decisions on how to best distribute the power, there’s a reliance on rpm, rather than torque, to deliver meaningful acceleration. The familiar, constant-rpm droning is dominant.

The Renault’s seven-speed dual-clutch transmission, though a bit reluctant off the mark, feels generally more efficient and comfortable within itself. It works well with the punchy 117kW/260Nm 1.3-litre turbo-petrol engine to deliver both good accelerator response and fuel economy.

In neither case did we come near matching the official consumption claims, but the Renault did better on test with an overall average of 7.7L/100km (official claim is 6.3L/100km) while the Nissan ran a consistent 8.1L/100km, short of the ADR-quoted 6.9/100km.

The QASHQAI runs on regular 91 RON unleaded fuel, but the Kadjar needs 95 RON (or higher) premium unleaded. On paper, the Nissan’s 65-litre tank delivers a better cruising range than the Renault’s, which takes just 55 litres.

As for ride quality, neither Nissan nor Renault are happy with deep, sharp-edged road ruts and emit quite a clamour when asked to negotiate them. The Kadjar copes a little better in masking the discomfort and also sounds a bit quieter at cruising speeds than the somewhat road-noisy QASHQAI.

In the case of the Nissan QASHQAI and Renault Kadjar, the familiar argument about the advantages of an independent multi-link rear suspension over a simple torsion-beam arrangement rears its head… The Nissan gets the former, while the Renault gets the latter and, to be honest, the question is far from being resolved here.

In fact the general feeling is that – though neither SUV really fulfils the “Sports” aspect of the SUV (Sports Utility Vehicle) acronym – the Renault is marginally more composed on the road, steers a tad better than the slightly more ponderous Nissan and, as mentioned earlier, is more quiescent cruising on the open road. The Kadjar also sits a little higher than the Nissan, and has more ground clearance (200 v 186mm).

Speed-dependent steering (adjustable between Normal and Sport modes in the QASHQAI) is common to both and, if anything, is a little too low-geared, at 3.2 turns lock-to-lock, to encourage a playful back-road fling in either.

Although the $32,990 (plus ORCs) Renault doesn’t make a song and dance about its superior equipment levels, who is going to argue with standard air vents to the rear seat, climate-control, Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, auto headlights and rain-sensing wipers?

At $30,790 (plus ORCs), the $2200 cheaper QASHQAI ST+ has none of those, although it does come with multi-camera 360-degree camera monitoring which works wonders when you’re parking; as well as single-touch operation for all four windows where the Kadjar offers this on the driver’s side only. Handy if you’ve left the car and found one or more windows to have been inadvertently left down, the Nissan also has key-actuated remote window operation.

Both SUVs come with autonomous emergency braking (AEB, high and low-speed in the Kadjar), front and rear parking sensors and lane-departure warning. The Nissan adds “lane-tracing” to keep track on marked roadways and the Renault has blind-spot monitoring. Proprietary sat-nav is common to both.

Warranty deals are similar too, at five years and unlimited kilometres, but Nissan is a bit more generous with its full warranty-term roadside assist programme. The Kadjar’s can extend to five years, but only if it’s Renault dealer-serviced. Capped-price servicing, in the Renault’s case, applies for the first five workshop visits, while Nissan’s applies for five years. Obviously, for high mileage drivers, the Kadjar will need to visit the service department less often.

If the QASHQAI ST+ falls short in one particular area, it’s the mismatched CVT drivetrain.

While in itself the aspirated 2.0-litre four-cylinder is willing and efficient, its charm is masked by the transmission’s raucousness which, no matter how effective it is at providing power when you need it, is often downright irritating. CVTs don’t necessarily need to be this way.

The X-tronic Nissan system is simply not as developed as some others which sidestep the annoying, constant-rpm belt-and-pulley characteristics by emulating regular torque-converter gearbox behaviour with a chosen number of “fixed” ratios.

The Renault Kadjar, If anything, is hampered by the French company’s seeming obsessiveness in doing things its own way. This can be a good or a bad thing, and sometimes requires a little time for the user to adjust to doing things differently.

What you grapple with include the controls for the radio/Bluetooth on the wand sited to the right of the steering wheel (the indicator lever, unlike the QASHQAI, is on the left-hand side). In themselves, the control buttons are tactile and easy to operate – or would be if they weren’t concealed out of sight.

Less of an issue, but also initially unsettling, is the location for the cruise control/speed limiter master switch on the centre console, next to the park-brake switch.

Though the similarities at times were all too apparent, there was no difficulty deciding that although both SUVs are impressive for their use of space and general driveability, the Renault Kadjar ends up being more appealing in just about every way.

True, it may be a bit more expensive, but the buyer picks up worthwhile safety (high and low-speed AEB), comfort (rear cabin air vents) and packaging advantages (the very clever boot) over the Nissan, as well as improvements to driveability and better fuel economy.

In the Kadjar, Renault has done just what was needed to field a highly-relevant competitor in the small SUV class.

And it is a small SUV, not a mid-sizer.

Price: $30,790 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol
Output: 106kW/200Nm
Transmission: Continuously variable
Fuel: 6.9L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 159g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star ANCAP (2017)

Price: $32,990 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 1.3-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol
Output: 117kW/260Nm
Transmission: Seven-speed dual-clutch
Fuel: 6.3L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 143g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star EuroNCAP (2015)