MM Review: 2011 Nissan Juke
12-10-10, 02:49 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
MM Review: 2011 Nissan Juke
By CL Member Request, a Review of the 2011 Nissan Juke.
http://www.nissanusa.com/juke/?next=...ture.thumbnail.
In a Nutshell: Circus-clown styling at its best, but underneath, a versatile, solid, well-built small SUV.
I received a request from a well-respected CL member for a Nissan Juke review, and, not having any others on the list right now with available vehicles (the all-new Ford Explorer and Focus, on the CL-requested list, are both debuting sometime within the next month) decided to go ahead and check out a Juke.
The Juke, all-new and introduced for 2011, is derived from the same Nissan small-car platform that also underpins the compact Versa model....currently, except for the smaller all-electric Nissan Leaf, the smallest gas-powered car Nissan markets in the U.S. The Juke is the smallest SUV in Nissan's line-up, which includes the compact car-based Rogue, the mid-sized truck-based Pathfinder and car-based Murano, and the full-size truck-based Armada (the compact, rugged, truck-based off-road XTerra remains in production, but will soon be discontinued).
There is no question that the Juke has controversial styling. Some people (and auto-pundits) are saying "Joke" instead of "Juke. I myself think the styling is one of the most automotive circus-clown things I've seen since the Isuzu VehiCross and Pontiac Aztek. But, of course, styling is subjective, and opinons differ from person to person. In fact, the review request came because one of this person's relatives was interested in a Juke and seemed to like the styling (or, at least, not mind it). So, let's look underneath the controversial sheet metal, and get on with the review.
For 2011, its initial year, the Juke, in the American market, competes with a number of small other car-based, unibody SUVs, from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Korea, with similiar layouts and a choice of FWD or AWD....I won't list all of them here, as they number in the dozens, and most of you are already famliar with them. Three basic trim lines of the Juke are offered.....a base S model starting at $18,960, an SV model starting at $20,960, and the top-line SL model at $22,550. All versions of the Juke offer a choice between Front-Wheel-Drive and All-Wheel-Drive. All versions come with the same 1.6L, Turbo, in-line, Direct-Injected, four-cylinder with 188 HP and 177 Ft-lbs. of torque. No optional engines are offered....and, for most of the basic uses this vehicle was designed for, none are probably needed. However, it should be noted that the standard turbo-4 needs Premium fuel, which will add some to operating costs. FWD models have a choice of a 6-speed manual transmission or Sport-Mode CVT (continuously-variable-transmission). AWD models come only with the CVT. (The Nissan website, for some reason, shows that the 6MT is not available on the base S model, even with FWD, but that appears to me to be a misprint). Many potential buyers, of course, have reliability concerns with CVT transmissions, and Nissan's powertrain warranty is 5/60, with 3/36 on the rest of the vehicle. The salespeople at the dealership said that the Juke's CVT was factory-covered for 12/120, but I couldn't find a verification for that on the Nissan web site.
Right now, in the Washington, D.C. area, some Jukes are available, but are not readily in stock. Most local Nissan shops have only one or two on the lot. The shop I was at this morning had two in stock...a black SV AWD CVT with cloth, and a silver FWD SL 6MT model with leather seats. For the review, I chose the black AWD automatic, figuring that more of them would be sold that way (automatic, AWD, and cloth interior) than with manual transmisson, FWD, or leather.
There were some things about the Juke that I didn't like, and some of the interior/trim parts were cheap, but, overall, I was impressed with the Juke's build-quality, especially in the body sheet metal and doors. Details coming up.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2011 Nissan Juke SV AWD CVT
BASE PRICE: $22,260
OPTIONS:
Splash Guards: $120
Carpeted Floor/Trunk Mat: $170
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $750
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $23,300
DRIVETRAIN: AWD, Transversely-mounted, 1.6L Turbocharged, DI, DOHC in-line 4, 188 HP @ 5600 RPM, Torque 177 Ft-lbs. @ 5200 RPM, CVT (Continuously-Variable-Transmission) with Sport-Mode.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 25 City / 30 Highway (AWD/CVT)
EXTERIOR COLOR: Sapphire Black
INTERIOR: Black Cloth
PLUSSES:
Turbo 4 has some spunk.
Generally well-done CVT.
Sharp handling.
Fairly quick steering response.
Flat cornering for an SUV.
Good wind-noise control.
Nice push-button engine start on the SV model.
Fairly good underhood layout.
Excellent paint job.
Decent ground clearance for snow.
Solid-feeling body sheet metal.
Solid-closing doors/hood/hatch.
Surround-vehicle black lower-body cladding for road-debris protection.
Well-done steering wheel.
Generally comfortble, supportive seats.
Well-designed side-mirrors.
Good front headroom/legroom.
Well-done primary gauges.
Nice interior smoked-gray trim.
Fairly simple, easy-to-use stereo controls.
Good, but not excellent, stereo sound quality.
Fairly good interior hardware.
12-year (?) warranty on CVT.
MINUSES:
Controversial, Look-at-me styling.
Turbo-engine requires Premium fuel.
A small amount of motorboating action in the CVT.
Noticeable road/tire noise.
Ride comfort a little stiff for my tastes.
Rather numb steering-feel.
Exterior rear-door-handles mounted higher than necessary.
No body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
Underhood prop-rod instead of struts.
Cheap hard-plastic interior door panels....but with some nicer inserts.
Hard-plastic dash.
Smallish glove-compartment.
Cheap, hard sun-visor/headliner materials.
Tight rear headroom/legroom for adults.
Yellow-bar-graph fuel and temperature gauges hard to read or scan quickly.
Quirky, video-screen climate-control (in the SV model).
Brake pedal not ideally-located.
Flimsy-feeling, silver-painted climate-control *****.
No (?) separate fan switch for climte-control.
OK but not excellent rear-vision.
Carpeted but flimsy-feeling trunk-floor panel.
Temporary spare tire in the trunk, instead of a real one.
Rear cargo-space somewhat compromised by rear roof/deck styling.
EXTERIOR:
Well, of course, walking up to the Juke, for the first time, is an experience. It looks like no other Nissan product on the market.....and, for that matter, like few other vehicles, period. The front end, especially, is radically different from virtually anything else in the American market, and, like the now-discontinued Isuzu VehiCross and Pontiac Aztek, will certainly not let you get lost in a traffic-crowd. The rear-styling is somewhat more conventional, not as radical as up front, and less-likely to turn heads as it rolls down the street, but the rear roofline and rear-deck angle impede somewhat on the rear cargo-space.....more on that later.
Styling, of course, is subjective, and I won't comment any further on it, as some people seem to like the Juke's looks. So, having said that, there were several other things on the exterior that I liked or found impressive. First, the sheet metal seems solid-feeling and well-done. Shutting the two front doors produces a precise, almost tank-like "thunk"....the two rear doors only slightly less-so. Likewise for both the hood and rear-deck-hatch. The paint jobs on both the black and silver models I looked at were very well-done (in fact, I'd rate them both excellent)...I couldn't check the other colors, as none were in stock. Eight exterior colors, though, are actually offered, with most of them, IMO, on the dull side, except for the blue and red. The ground-clearance was not quite Jeep-like, but decent enough for most typical snowstorms (most buyers, of course, will probably choose the AWD models). There was a nice black lower-body cladding that surrounded the entire vehicle (front, sides, and rear) and also extended in and out of all four wheel-wells to help prevent damage/corrosion from road salt/debris. But, like many newer vehicles, there are no body-side mouldings to help prevent parking-lot damage. Like on other Nissan SUVs, the two outside rear-door handles are mounted somewhat higher on the door-frame than necessary for small children and short adults. The two exterior side-mirrors were well-designed/shaped from a visibility standpoint (this is a problem in some vehicles), and snap/swivel/lock smoothly and firmly (also a problem in some vehicles). And, of course, the exterior trim/hardware was well-done and well-attached/mounted. Seated in the drivers'seat, looking out ahead, you see the two frog-like front headlights sticking up on the hood in front of you. Controversial styling, yes, but the exterior, IMO, shows commendable sheet metal/paint/trim workmanship. One thing, though, that stuck me was the fairly small size of the Juke's exterior. While classified as a small SUV, this is one of the smallest SUVs I've seen...smaller than most of its rivals.
UNDERHOOD:
The underhood layout is generally well-done, like most lower/line/entry-level vehicles. Open up the solid-feeling hood (I forgot to check to see if there was a sound-insulation pad underhood...not every vehicle in this class has one), and a manual prop-rod holds up the hood, instead of more-convienent gas-struts. The 1.6L Turbo four fits in nicely, but a little on the tight side. There is some room, but not a not, to reach things down on the sides of the block. The plastic cover on top of the engine hides some components, but not as much as many of them do. The battery, just to the right of the engine, is generally free and open. All of the dipsticks, filler-caps, and reservoirs are accessable and easy to reach. In general, underhood-accessibility is one area where entry-level vehicles are WAY ahead of their more-expensive brothers and sisters.
INTERIOR:
Generally well-done, although there is some cost-cutting here and there. The seats are generally comfortable and supportive (they had manual-controls on my SV model), and both the cloth and leather upholstery felt nice and high-quality for this class of vehicle. There was enough headroom/legroom for tall persons in front, though both headroom and legroom, partly because of the rear-styling, were short in the back seat for adults. The sun-visors were done in El Cheapo hard-plastic, though they had vanity-lights, and the headliner was a hard, cheap-feeling, paper-thin fabric. The dash was mostly black hard-plastic, and so was most of the interior door-panels. But the panels also had some nice, well-done chrome door-handles and smoke-gray trim insets......those smoke-gray inserts carried over to other parts of the interior, too, particularly on the console. Optional red trim is avaiable, if desired, instead of the smoke-gray....but, IMO, looks rather garish. I liked the two large primary gauges, which were clear, easily-read, and well-done, but didn't care for the two small electronic yellow fuel and engine-temperature bar-graphs between them....I found them rather difficult to read or scan at a quick glance. The steering-wheel was well-shaped, comfortable to hold, had a nice leather rim, and had the usual spoke-buttons for the stereo and phone on it. The stereo *****/readouts, on the upper part of the dash, were generally simple, solid-feeling, and easy-to-use, but I didn't care for the quirky electronic video-screen underneath that controlled both the climate functions and Sport/Eco modes for the CVT transmission. The large silver-painted climate-*****, like on some current manual-climate Toyota Camry models, felt somewhat loose and cheap. The glove compartment had good hardware and a strong lock, but was somewhat on the smallish side. The stereo sound quality itself was good...but not in the killer range. The climate-vents, like in many other Nissans, were of the round/twirl-type, with up/down vents in the middle....and had a strong, solid feel.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Not the most impressive-looking cargo area I've seen for this type of vehicle. First, of course, this is a rather small vehicle, in itself, by even small-SUV standards. Second, the dip of the rear-roofline and the down-angle of the rear hatch compromise even more cargo space, particularly in height. Third, the panel covering the trunk floor is thin, cheap/flimsy-feeling, and has very thin, paper-like black fabric on it. The sides of the trunk are hard-plastic, and under the trunk floor is the usual temporary spare-tire instead of a real one. I did not see any pull-devices for covering up the cargo and keeping it hidden, but, with most manufacturers, if they are not standard, they can usually be ordered as accessories.....and sometimes a dealershp will toss one in free or at a reduced-price as part of the deal. On the plus side, it is very easy, even without remote-levers, to reach the rear-seat releases to fold them down for extra cargo space, and, with a trunk like this, one does not have to worry very much about getting it dirty and messing up the trim.
ON THE ROAD:
On the SV model, start up the small turbo-4 with an engine START/STOP button.....a nice touch for this class of vehicle (though top-line models of the entry-level Ford Fiesta also have a button). The engine fires up with a small amount of noise, but generally smoothly and quietly for an in-line 4. Warm it up a minute, slip it into gear, hit the road, and this little mill, for its size, has a surprising amount of spunk. It's not quite as responsive as the slightly larger (and superb) VW/Audi 2.0 Turbo four (which has long been one of my favorite engines), but it will definitely get out of its own way. Its rated 177 Ft-lbs. of torque peaks at a rather high 5200 RPM, but the torque-curve, in actual operation, doesn't feel that peaky. Of course, it doesn't have the locomotive-like torque at low-RPMs that a Corvette or Dodge Viper does, but when the turbo kicks in, without much lag, you get a noticeable shove in the back. I personally think that, like on the VW/Audi 2.0 Turbo four, the HP/torque-figures on this engine may (?) be underrated a little, perhaps for insurance reasons. Exhaust noise, of course, rises with RPMS, but is not obtrusive. And, like with the 2.0T, you pay for that spunk with premium fuel.
The CVT transmission is generally smooth and quiet, and has programmable Sport/Economy modes which affect its operation and gas-mileage. It has, like other Nissan CVTs, a manual-shift-gate with 6 "gears" or drive-ranges......which, of course, are actually programmed-notches in the drive belt/pulley. Nissan, like on its other CVTs, has done a generally good job of getting the motorboating/rubber-banding/surging motions out of this one, too, though on certain acceleration-cycles, I could still detect a little motorboating (that happens when engine RPM, on initial acceleration, runs ahead of transmission-response).
The chassis engineering/tuning was generally well-done, though the overall ride comfort, with 55-series Goodyear all-season tires, was a little on the firm side for my tastes. The steering response, though lacking in some road feel, was quick and effective....almost, on quick-inputs, to the point of being darty. Cornering, by higher-stance SUV standards, was flat, with little body-roll. Wind noise was generally well-controlled, but some road/tire noise made its way into the cabin, particularly on coarse road surfaces....while some of that is inevitable with wagon/hatch-type vehicles and open-rear ends inside, it also can indicate a lack of wheel/well and rear-area insulation (and remember, I wasn't impressed with the cargo-area trim). The brakes were generally effective and even-reacting.....I don't recall much sponge in the pedal, but the pedal itself, IMO, was mounted a little too high, in relation to the gas pedal. My big size-15 clown shoes had a tendency to catch the right-edge of the brake pedal when going from gas-pedal to brake. But, in this case, because of the exact location of the brake pedal, I think some smaller shoes might also catch it.....so, check this out if/when you test-drive a Juke.
THE VERDICT:
Well, as I see it, what we have with the Juke is a very small SUV, with a clown-face, that is obviously done for its styling shock-effect more than anything else. It is small even by the standards of small SUVs like the Escape, RAV4, CR-V, etc.....and even its own corporate brother, the small Nissan Rogue SUV. But, underneath the rather weird sheet-metal, despite some cost-cutting in the interior and cargo-area, like a pretty well-built vehicle. I was quite impressed with the sheet metal, door/body-panel solidness, hardware/trim, paint-job, and chassis-engineering. The drivetrain, despite some minor motor-boating in the CVT, was quite impressive, too.....the engine will get you moving when you want it, if you are willing to pay the premium-fuel tab for it. But be careful, with some shoes, when you brake, that you don't catch the tip of the brake-pedal with your shoe. And, while the Juke is a nice, versatile vehicle for light-caego loads and all-weather capability, and gets decent mileage for an AWD vehicle, I wouldn't recommend it for a coast-to-coast cruise or a very long trip......its ride-comfort, by my standards, is a little stiff, and it has noticeable road-noise that could get tiring after a while. But, for the money, it is not a bad deal, and, in some ways, compares very favorably with much of its competition, if a little smaller in physical size.
And, as always.........Happy car shopping.
MM
http://www.nissanusa.com/juke/?next=...ture.thumbnail.
In a Nutshell: Circus-clown styling at its best, but underneath, a versatile, solid, well-built small SUV.
I received a request from a well-respected CL member for a Nissan Juke review, and, not having any others on the list right now with available vehicles (the all-new Ford Explorer and Focus, on the CL-requested list, are both debuting sometime within the next month) decided to go ahead and check out a Juke.
The Juke, all-new and introduced for 2011, is derived from the same Nissan small-car platform that also underpins the compact Versa model....currently, except for the smaller all-electric Nissan Leaf, the smallest gas-powered car Nissan markets in the U.S. The Juke is the smallest SUV in Nissan's line-up, which includes the compact car-based Rogue, the mid-sized truck-based Pathfinder and car-based Murano, and the full-size truck-based Armada (the compact, rugged, truck-based off-road XTerra remains in production, but will soon be discontinued).
There is no question that the Juke has controversial styling. Some people (and auto-pundits) are saying "Joke" instead of "Juke. I myself think the styling is one of the most automotive circus-clown things I've seen since the Isuzu VehiCross and Pontiac Aztek. But, of course, styling is subjective, and opinons differ from person to person. In fact, the review request came because one of this person's relatives was interested in a Juke and seemed to like the styling (or, at least, not mind it). So, let's look underneath the controversial sheet metal, and get on with the review.
For 2011, its initial year, the Juke, in the American market, competes with a number of small other car-based, unibody SUVs, from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Korea, with similiar layouts and a choice of FWD or AWD....I won't list all of them here, as they number in the dozens, and most of you are already famliar with them. Three basic trim lines of the Juke are offered.....a base S model starting at $18,960, an SV model starting at $20,960, and the top-line SL model at $22,550. All versions of the Juke offer a choice between Front-Wheel-Drive and All-Wheel-Drive. All versions come with the same 1.6L, Turbo, in-line, Direct-Injected, four-cylinder with 188 HP and 177 Ft-lbs. of torque. No optional engines are offered....and, for most of the basic uses this vehicle was designed for, none are probably needed. However, it should be noted that the standard turbo-4 needs Premium fuel, which will add some to operating costs. FWD models have a choice of a 6-speed manual transmission or Sport-Mode CVT (continuously-variable-transmission). AWD models come only with the CVT. (The Nissan website, for some reason, shows that the 6MT is not available on the base S model, even with FWD, but that appears to me to be a misprint). Many potential buyers, of course, have reliability concerns with CVT transmissions, and Nissan's powertrain warranty is 5/60, with 3/36 on the rest of the vehicle. The salespeople at the dealership said that the Juke's CVT was factory-covered for 12/120, but I couldn't find a verification for that on the Nissan web site.
Right now, in the Washington, D.C. area, some Jukes are available, but are not readily in stock. Most local Nissan shops have only one or two on the lot. The shop I was at this morning had two in stock...a black SV AWD CVT with cloth, and a silver FWD SL 6MT model with leather seats. For the review, I chose the black AWD automatic, figuring that more of them would be sold that way (automatic, AWD, and cloth interior) than with manual transmisson, FWD, or leather.
There were some things about the Juke that I didn't like, and some of the interior/trim parts were cheap, but, overall, I was impressed with the Juke's build-quality, especially in the body sheet metal and doors. Details coming up.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2011 Nissan Juke SV AWD CVT
BASE PRICE: $22,260
OPTIONS:
Splash Guards: $120
Carpeted Floor/Trunk Mat: $170
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $750
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $23,300
DRIVETRAIN: AWD, Transversely-mounted, 1.6L Turbocharged, DI, DOHC in-line 4, 188 HP @ 5600 RPM, Torque 177 Ft-lbs. @ 5200 RPM, CVT (Continuously-Variable-Transmission) with Sport-Mode.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 25 City / 30 Highway (AWD/CVT)
EXTERIOR COLOR: Sapphire Black
INTERIOR: Black Cloth
PLUSSES:
Turbo 4 has some spunk.
Generally well-done CVT.
Sharp handling.
Fairly quick steering response.
Flat cornering for an SUV.
Good wind-noise control.
Nice push-button engine start on the SV model.
Fairly good underhood layout.
Excellent paint job.
Decent ground clearance for snow.
Solid-feeling body sheet metal.
Solid-closing doors/hood/hatch.
Surround-vehicle black lower-body cladding for road-debris protection.
Well-done steering wheel.
Generally comfortble, supportive seats.
Well-designed side-mirrors.
Good front headroom/legroom.
Well-done primary gauges.
Nice interior smoked-gray trim.
Fairly simple, easy-to-use stereo controls.
Good, but not excellent, stereo sound quality.
Fairly good interior hardware.
12-year (?) warranty on CVT.
MINUSES:
Controversial, Look-at-me styling.
Turbo-engine requires Premium fuel.
A small amount of motorboating action in the CVT.
Noticeable road/tire noise.
Ride comfort a little stiff for my tastes.
Rather numb steering-feel.
Exterior rear-door-handles mounted higher than necessary.
No body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
Underhood prop-rod instead of struts.
Cheap hard-plastic interior door panels....but with some nicer inserts.
Hard-plastic dash.
Smallish glove-compartment.
Cheap, hard sun-visor/headliner materials.
Tight rear headroom/legroom for adults.
Yellow-bar-graph fuel and temperature gauges hard to read or scan quickly.
Quirky, video-screen climate-control (in the SV model).
Brake pedal not ideally-located.
Flimsy-feeling, silver-painted climate-control *****.
No (?) separate fan switch for climte-control.
OK but not excellent rear-vision.
Carpeted but flimsy-feeling trunk-floor panel.
Temporary spare tire in the trunk, instead of a real one.
Rear cargo-space somewhat compromised by rear roof/deck styling.
EXTERIOR:
Well, of course, walking up to the Juke, for the first time, is an experience. It looks like no other Nissan product on the market.....and, for that matter, like few other vehicles, period. The front end, especially, is radically different from virtually anything else in the American market, and, like the now-discontinued Isuzu VehiCross and Pontiac Aztek, will certainly not let you get lost in a traffic-crowd. The rear-styling is somewhat more conventional, not as radical as up front, and less-likely to turn heads as it rolls down the street, but the rear roofline and rear-deck angle impede somewhat on the rear cargo-space.....more on that later.
Styling, of course, is subjective, and I won't comment any further on it, as some people seem to like the Juke's looks. So, having said that, there were several other things on the exterior that I liked or found impressive. First, the sheet metal seems solid-feeling and well-done. Shutting the two front doors produces a precise, almost tank-like "thunk"....the two rear doors only slightly less-so. Likewise for both the hood and rear-deck-hatch. The paint jobs on both the black and silver models I looked at were very well-done (in fact, I'd rate them both excellent)...I couldn't check the other colors, as none were in stock. Eight exterior colors, though, are actually offered, with most of them, IMO, on the dull side, except for the blue and red. The ground-clearance was not quite Jeep-like, but decent enough for most typical snowstorms (most buyers, of course, will probably choose the AWD models). There was a nice black lower-body cladding that surrounded the entire vehicle (front, sides, and rear) and also extended in and out of all four wheel-wells to help prevent damage/corrosion from road salt/debris. But, like many newer vehicles, there are no body-side mouldings to help prevent parking-lot damage. Like on other Nissan SUVs, the two outside rear-door handles are mounted somewhat higher on the door-frame than necessary for small children and short adults. The two exterior side-mirrors were well-designed/shaped from a visibility standpoint (this is a problem in some vehicles), and snap/swivel/lock smoothly and firmly (also a problem in some vehicles). And, of course, the exterior trim/hardware was well-done and well-attached/mounted. Seated in the drivers'seat, looking out ahead, you see the two frog-like front headlights sticking up on the hood in front of you. Controversial styling, yes, but the exterior, IMO, shows commendable sheet metal/paint/trim workmanship. One thing, though, that stuck me was the fairly small size of the Juke's exterior. While classified as a small SUV, this is one of the smallest SUVs I've seen...smaller than most of its rivals.
UNDERHOOD:
The underhood layout is generally well-done, like most lower/line/entry-level vehicles. Open up the solid-feeling hood (I forgot to check to see if there was a sound-insulation pad underhood...not every vehicle in this class has one), and a manual prop-rod holds up the hood, instead of more-convienent gas-struts. The 1.6L Turbo four fits in nicely, but a little on the tight side. There is some room, but not a not, to reach things down on the sides of the block. The plastic cover on top of the engine hides some components, but not as much as many of them do. The battery, just to the right of the engine, is generally free and open. All of the dipsticks, filler-caps, and reservoirs are accessable and easy to reach. In general, underhood-accessibility is one area where entry-level vehicles are WAY ahead of their more-expensive brothers and sisters.
INTERIOR:
Generally well-done, although there is some cost-cutting here and there. The seats are generally comfortable and supportive (they had manual-controls on my SV model), and both the cloth and leather upholstery felt nice and high-quality for this class of vehicle. There was enough headroom/legroom for tall persons in front, though both headroom and legroom, partly because of the rear-styling, were short in the back seat for adults. The sun-visors were done in El Cheapo hard-plastic, though they had vanity-lights, and the headliner was a hard, cheap-feeling, paper-thin fabric. The dash was mostly black hard-plastic, and so was most of the interior door-panels. But the panels also had some nice, well-done chrome door-handles and smoke-gray trim insets......those smoke-gray inserts carried over to other parts of the interior, too, particularly on the console. Optional red trim is avaiable, if desired, instead of the smoke-gray....but, IMO, looks rather garish. I liked the two large primary gauges, which were clear, easily-read, and well-done, but didn't care for the two small electronic yellow fuel and engine-temperature bar-graphs between them....I found them rather difficult to read or scan at a quick glance. The steering-wheel was well-shaped, comfortable to hold, had a nice leather rim, and had the usual spoke-buttons for the stereo and phone on it. The stereo *****/readouts, on the upper part of the dash, were generally simple, solid-feeling, and easy-to-use, but I didn't care for the quirky electronic video-screen underneath that controlled both the climate functions and Sport/Eco modes for the CVT transmission. The large silver-painted climate-*****, like on some current manual-climate Toyota Camry models, felt somewhat loose and cheap. The glove compartment had good hardware and a strong lock, but was somewhat on the smallish side. The stereo sound quality itself was good...but not in the killer range. The climate-vents, like in many other Nissans, were of the round/twirl-type, with up/down vents in the middle....and had a strong, solid feel.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Not the most impressive-looking cargo area I've seen for this type of vehicle. First, of course, this is a rather small vehicle, in itself, by even small-SUV standards. Second, the dip of the rear-roofline and the down-angle of the rear hatch compromise even more cargo space, particularly in height. Third, the panel covering the trunk floor is thin, cheap/flimsy-feeling, and has very thin, paper-like black fabric on it. The sides of the trunk are hard-plastic, and under the trunk floor is the usual temporary spare-tire instead of a real one. I did not see any pull-devices for covering up the cargo and keeping it hidden, but, with most manufacturers, if they are not standard, they can usually be ordered as accessories.....and sometimes a dealershp will toss one in free or at a reduced-price as part of the deal. On the plus side, it is very easy, even without remote-levers, to reach the rear-seat releases to fold them down for extra cargo space, and, with a trunk like this, one does not have to worry very much about getting it dirty and messing up the trim.
ON THE ROAD:
On the SV model, start up the small turbo-4 with an engine START/STOP button.....a nice touch for this class of vehicle (though top-line models of the entry-level Ford Fiesta also have a button). The engine fires up with a small amount of noise, but generally smoothly and quietly for an in-line 4. Warm it up a minute, slip it into gear, hit the road, and this little mill, for its size, has a surprising amount of spunk. It's not quite as responsive as the slightly larger (and superb) VW/Audi 2.0 Turbo four (which has long been one of my favorite engines), but it will definitely get out of its own way. Its rated 177 Ft-lbs. of torque peaks at a rather high 5200 RPM, but the torque-curve, in actual operation, doesn't feel that peaky. Of course, it doesn't have the locomotive-like torque at low-RPMs that a Corvette or Dodge Viper does, but when the turbo kicks in, without much lag, you get a noticeable shove in the back. I personally think that, like on the VW/Audi 2.0 Turbo four, the HP/torque-figures on this engine may (?) be underrated a little, perhaps for insurance reasons. Exhaust noise, of course, rises with RPMS, but is not obtrusive. And, like with the 2.0T, you pay for that spunk with premium fuel.
The CVT transmission is generally smooth and quiet, and has programmable Sport/Economy modes which affect its operation and gas-mileage. It has, like other Nissan CVTs, a manual-shift-gate with 6 "gears" or drive-ranges......which, of course, are actually programmed-notches in the drive belt/pulley. Nissan, like on its other CVTs, has done a generally good job of getting the motorboating/rubber-banding/surging motions out of this one, too, though on certain acceleration-cycles, I could still detect a little motorboating (that happens when engine RPM, on initial acceleration, runs ahead of transmission-response).
The chassis engineering/tuning was generally well-done, though the overall ride comfort, with 55-series Goodyear all-season tires, was a little on the firm side for my tastes. The steering response, though lacking in some road feel, was quick and effective....almost, on quick-inputs, to the point of being darty. Cornering, by higher-stance SUV standards, was flat, with little body-roll. Wind noise was generally well-controlled, but some road/tire noise made its way into the cabin, particularly on coarse road surfaces....while some of that is inevitable with wagon/hatch-type vehicles and open-rear ends inside, it also can indicate a lack of wheel/well and rear-area insulation (and remember, I wasn't impressed with the cargo-area trim). The brakes were generally effective and even-reacting.....I don't recall much sponge in the pedal, but the pedal itself, IMO, was mounted a little too high, in relation to the gas pedal. My big size-15 clown shoes had a tendency to catch the right-edge of the brake pedal when going from gas-pedal to brake. But, in this case, because of the exact location of the brake pedal, I think some smaller shoes might also catch it.....so, check this out if/when you test-drive a Juke.
THE VERDICT:
Well, as I see it, what we have with the Juke is a very small SUV, with a clown-face, that is obviously done for its styling shock-effect more than anything else. It is small even by the standards of small SUVs like the Escape, RAV4, CR-V, etc.....and even its own corporate brother, the small Nissan Rogue SUV. But, underneath the rather weird sheet-metal, despite some cost-cutting in the interior and cargo-area, like a pretty well-built vehicle. I was quite impressed with the sheet metal, door/body-panel solidness, hardware/trim, paint-job, and chassis-engineering. The drivetrain, despite some minor motor-boating in the CVT, was quite impressive, too.....the engine will get you moving when you want it, if you are willing to pay the premium-fuel tab for it. But be careful, with some shoes, when you brake, that you don't catch the tip of the brake-pedal with your shoe. And, while the Juke is a nice, versatile vehicle for light-caego loads and all-weather capability, and gets decent mileage for an AWD vehicle, I wouldn't recommend it for a coast-to-coast cruise or a very long trip......its ride-comfort, by my standards, is a little stiff, and it has noticeable road-noise that could get tiring after a while. But, for the money, it is not a bad deal, and, in some ways, compares very favorably with much of its competition, if a little smaller in physical size.
And, as always.........Happy car shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-10-10 at 03:49 PM.
12-10-10, 03:24 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
It doesn't drive bad at all, though somewhat devoid of road-feel, and with a slightly stiffer ride than I'd prefer. And it's generally well-built, despite some cost-cutting.
Style-wise, I agree.....probably not many adults are going to like it. But, of course, you never know.......the one I drove this morning had just been test-driven by a (roughly) 40-year-old guy who almost bought it, then decided that he wanted one with different options. That left it available, of course, for my review. 
Somehow I like the car.
Maybe it's the unique styling but I would never buy it.
It's a young kid's car to me.
Great for my son.
It's a young kid's car to me.
Great for my son.
12-10-10, 03:33 PM
#4
Pole Position
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the review as always.
I do believe the car is geared towards the 20-something crowd, for those who want some spunk in engine and some utility. It's weird looking, but imo certainly not as appalling as the Aztek.
I do believe the car is geared towards the 20-something crowd, for those who want some spunk in engine and some utility. It's weird looking, but imo certainly not as appalling as the Aztek.
12-10-10, 03:43 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure....glad to help.
Scion, another classic 20-something brand, will (probably) need to introduce an AWD product (which they have not had, up to now), if they want to compete. If not, they will probably lose some sales to the Juke.
It also seems to have better build-quality then the Aztek, which was, of course, an older Pontiac/GM product. Few GM products back then impressed me.
I do believe the car is geared towards the 20-something crowd, for those who want some spunk in engine and some utility.
It's weird looking, but imo certainly not as appalling as the Aztek.
12-10-10, 03:51 PM
#6
I have a general question about how you get hold of cars to review.
It seems like you spend a good amount of time test driving each car; do you tell the car dealership in advance that you want to test drive the car in order to write about it and have no intention of buying it?
Are dealerships accommodating of such requests?
It seems like you spend a good amount of time test driving each car; do you tell the car dealership in advance that you want to test drive the car in order to write about it and have no intention of buying it?
Are dealerships accommodating of such requests?
12-10-10, 04:13 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
In most, but not all, cases, they are typical new-car models just sitting on the lot. They have to be unsold, of course, or otherwise not-spoken for. I'll sometimes do a static-review, but not a test-drive, on any car that is already committed to a customer. I wouldn't want someone else driving a new car I myelf had just signed for, so I show them the same courtesy.
The actual test drive time can vary, but it usually averages 20-30 minutes....that's usually long enough to get a good feel for what the car is like over some varying road-surfaces and driving conditions. I spend at least that amount of time (usually more) checking out the exterior, interior, controls, cargo area, underhood, etc....
Occasionally, if a hot new model is in very short supply (say, one or two on the lot) or in very high demand, with a line of people waiting to look at it or drive it, I may not get as long a review or test-drive as I want. When that happens, I note it.
Yes and no. Some of those vehicles I review I do so not only for others (by their request) but also for my own curiosity. I, of course, get a new vehicle periodically myself.
Usually, yes....but, in most cases, I don't have to make a prior request or appointment. Some of them already know me because I advise/shop with other people (friends, co-workers, relatives, aquaintances, etc...) and help them find and buy their own cars. I also used to have a number of my comments, several years ago, posted regularly in Autoweek magazine, and some of them (those who read the publication) knew me from that. Some of them, of course, also look at Club Lexus.
So, in effect, if you are wondering if my reviews are a waste of dealer time, without a committed purchase, the answer is both yes and no....it depends on the circumstances. But, you gotta remember.........often, I'm doing it for YOU guys, not myself.
There also is a big difference between my reviews and those of, say, auto-test magazines. They often test from a sport/enthusiast point of view, with max-performance/handling/braking figures. I deal with mostly brand-new cars off the lot, and, unlike typical magazine-tests, I'm more concerned with a thorough, complete, and acurate description of the car from bumper-to-bumper. I try and give you a complete description, not necessarily of the car's 0-60 or skidpad figures, but exactly what you get for your money, and what the car will be like in day-to-day driving. That, of course, is what most people are concerned about when they plunk down money for a car.
It seems like you spend a good amount of time test driving each car;
Occasionally, if a hot new model is in very short supply (say, one or two on the lot) or in very high demand, with a line of people waiting to look at it or drive it, I may not get as long a review or test-drive as I want. When that happens, I note it.
do you tell the car dealership in advance that you want to test drive the car in order to write about it and have no intention of buying it?
Are dealerships accommodating of such requests?
So, in effect, if you are wondering if my reviews are a waste of dealer time, without a committed purchase, the answer is both yes and no....it depends on the circumstances. But, you gotta remember.........often, I'm doing it for YOU guys, not myself.
There also is a big difference between my reviews and those of, say, auto-test magazines. They often test from a sport/enthusiast point of view, with max-performance/handling/braking figures. I deal with mostly brand-new cars off the lot, and, unlike typical magazine-tests, I'm more concerned with a thorough, complete, and acurate description of the car from bumper-to-bumper. I try and give you a complete description, not necessarily of the car's 0-60 or skidpad figures, but exactly what you get for your money, and what the car will be like in day-to-day driving. That, of course, is what most people are concerned about when they plunk down money for a car.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-10-10 at 04:24 PM.
Trending Topics
12-10-10, 05:45 PM
#10
Driver
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the review, MM!
I gave the styling of this car the benefit of the doubt, but having seen one in the dealership a couple weeks ago, it still looks horrendous. But other than the styling, I hear its actually a good car and your review suggests so too. How did you like the torque vectoring AWD featured in the Juke, MM?
I gave the styling of this car the benefit of the doubt, but having seen one in the dealership a couple weeks ago, it still looks horrendous. But other than the styling, I hear its actually a good car and your review suggests so too. How did you like the torque vectoring AWD featured in the Juke, MM?
12-10-10, 05:51 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great review Mike! Nissan/Infiniti can't design a SUV if their life depended on it so don't beat them up too much 
Price seems solid.
I know cargo room is not why people will buy this but do you think its too small ala Infiniti EX? It seems very tiny.
Would love to see this drivetrain/engine in a Sentra SE-R or Altima coupe or something.
Price seems solid. I know cargo room is not why people will buy this but do you think its too small ala Infiniti EX? It seems very tiny.
Would love to see this drivetrain/engine in a Sentra SE-R or Altima coupe or something.
12-10-10, 07:12 PM
#12
Any insight on the quality of Nissan paint jobs nowadays?
One of my favorite nissan cars is the older Maxima (97-00), I've driven many of them, they are fantastic cars, but every single one had unacceptable amounts of rust... on the wheel wells, roof, inside every door, inside the trunk, hood, side skirt.... basically every panel, every bolt, underneath the car, you name it; it's everywhere.
Here, in Illinois, where salt is used during winter, I can expect a bit of rust on a 10+ year old daily driven car, but in my opinion the amounts of rust I have seen on these Maximas is simply excessive in every way. It's what's kept me from buying one.
How are the paintjobs on newer nissans? Are they also inferior?
One of my favorite nissan cars is the older Maxima (97-00), I've driven many of them, they are fantastic cars, but every single one had unacceptable amounts of rust... on the wheel wells, roof, inside every door, inside the trunk, hood, side skirt.... basically every panel, every bolt, underneath the car, you name it; it's everywhere.
Here, in Illinois, where salt is used during winter, I can expect a bit of rust on a 10+ year old daily driven car, but in my opinion the amounts of rust I have seen on these Maximas is simply excessive in every way. It's what's kept me from buying one.
How are the paintjobs on newer nissans? Are they also inferior?
12-10-10, 07:24 PM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure. Glad you enjoyed it.
Some automakers seem to think that outlandish designs cater to the young.....witness the Scion xB and xA, for example. Scion, though, found out that their products, with the exception of the tC, were as popular with older buyers as with younger ones.
Even the Juke may have its share of older buyers, although I agreed with ekc, in post #4, that I didn't think a lot of adults would be drawn to it. Still, as I mentioned to him in that post, the very Juke I reviewed today was almost bought right out from under me by a (roughly) 40-year-old guy.
I really think this geared for the younger crowd because i can't imagine that having a car with such a ugly front.
Even the Juke may have its share of older buyers, although I agreed with ekc, in post #4, that I didn't think a lot of adults would be drawn to it. Still, as I mentioned to him in that post, the very Juke I reviewed today was almost bought right out from under me by a (roughly) 40-year-old guy.
12-10-10, 07:29 PM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure. Anytime.
I know wat you are referring to, in this class of vehicle, but, somehow, I don't think that the word "cute" is the proper term to describe the Juke's front-end.
I agree. It would probably make a good powerplant for a Sentra SE-R, if they bring that model back....or possibly a Versa SE-R, which would be even lighter.
I actually really like this cute-ute, at least more than its older brother Rogue.
I hope this engine finds it's way into more nissan products like the Sentra
12-10-10, 07:43 PM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure...anytime.
Yes, under the toad-like styling, it's a solid and (seemingly) well-built vehicle. And even the skin is not so bad, if you consider the quality of the sheet metal, body-panels, and paint-job. There are some cheap cost-cutting touches inside, though, and in the cargo area.......I covered those in the review.
Like virtually every other car-based AWD system on the market nowadays (including Acura's torque-vectoring SH-AWD), the Juke's system is pretty much seamless. Given normal driving and handling conditions on the street, it's hard to tell AWD vehicles today from FWD or RWD competitors. It is sometimes easier, though, to tell FWD handling from that of RWD.....FWD, for obvious reasons, ends to be more nose-heavy and give more understeer.
Sometimes, though, drivetrain engineers can, (as you note) through torque vectoring, cause an AWD system to simulate the handling/weight-balance of FWD or AWD. This is often done with AWD sports-sedans, like the BMW 335xi or Audi S-models, to try and keep as much of the neutral RWD handling as possible. Only when the rear wheels start spinning on a slippery-surface does the center-differential then route some (or some more) of the torque up front to get the car moving.
I gave the styling of this car the benefit of the doubt, but having seen one in the dealership a couple weeks ago, it still looks horrendous. But other than the styling, I hear its actually a good car and your review suggests so too.
How did you like the torque vectoring AWD featured in the Juke, MM?
Sometimes, though, drivetrain engineers can, (as you note) through torque vectoring, cause an AWD system to simulate the handling/weight-balance of FWD or AWD. This is often done with AWD sports-sedans, like the BMW 335xi or Audi S-models, to try and keep as much of the neutral RWD handling as possible. Only when the rear wheels start spinning on a slippery-surface does the center-differential then route some (or some more) of the torque up front to get the car moving.