Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. Both the engines are Nissan-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 130hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 140hp one.

The first thing to look into here would be the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests performed on the two cars. Good thing is that both vehicles got tested, with the Nissan displaying significantly better structural stability. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 4% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Nissan does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Dacia with an average rating of 4.1, and models under the Nissan badge with 4.3 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Duster as average reliability-wise, and Qashqai is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Romanian car rank it on average as 4.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.0 out of 5.

Dacia is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.1 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 191 kilometers per hour, 2km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Japanese car, averaging around 5.3 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (53 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 13% difference compared to the Romanian car.

Nissan appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the Japanese car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. When it comes to performance, both vehicles provide similar experience, so I wouldn't point any of them out. the Japanese car , on the other hand, consumps significantly less fuel, and that's a big plus. All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Nissan. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.