Jun 26 2015, 10:55 AM
QUOTE(adriankhoo153 @ Jun 19 2015, 04:36 PM)
Well I think X-Trail have more bell and whistle. 5+2 seater. Cheaper too than cx5
But the biggest let down on xtrail is a mere 2 airbags! TC give us more airbags lahhhhh!!
Here is a good read on Xtrail vs CX-5 vs CRV
http://www.carlist.my/news/2015-nissan-x-t...aim-throne/3881
Not a very good comparison article. There's hardly a comparison to begin with.But the biggest let down on xtrail is a mere 2 airbags! TC give us more airbags lahhhhh!!
Here is a good read on Xtrail vs CX-5 vs CRV
http://www.carlist.my/news/2015-nissan-x-t...aim-throne/3881
Some more, any competent reviewer will not get confused between L/100km which is clearly shown on the odometer and km/L figures that they achieved.
QUOTE
The brochures quoted a fuel economy figure of 12 km/L for the 2.5L 4WD and 14.1 km/L for the 2.0L 2WD. We can’t guarantee a solid figure for the 2.0L 2WD because we didn’t spend much time driving it.
However, we did spend a solid amount of time driving the 2.5L 4WD variant on the return leg of the journey, opting for the Kuala Selangor-Teluk Intan route that were basically B-roads all the way back instead of the main highway. Upon arrival back at ETCM’s new 3S centre at Glenmarie, the fuel economy figure we obtained was 12.3 km/L.
However, we did spend a solid amount of time driving the 2.5L 4WD variant on the return leg of the journey, opting for the Kuala Selangor-Teluk Intan route that were basically B-roads all the way back instead of the main highway. Upon arrival back at ETCM’s new 3S centre at Glenmarie, the fuel economy figure we obtained was 12.3 km/L.
From a casual read, people might get the impression that the reviewer's got pretty close to the claimed figures on the brochures which is incorrect. So what they achieve as 12.3L/100km actually translates to a poor 8.13 km/L. Very far from brochure figures.
Quote
0.0174sec
0.51
7 queries
GZIP Disabled