Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by diesel engines and utilizing the 5-door suv body style within the same 'SUV' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Dacia and front in the case of the Nissan). Both the engines are Renault-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 107hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 110hp one.

A starting point here would be to take a look at the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests which were performed on both of the cars, with the Nissan displaying significantly better structural stability. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Japanese car offers a considerable difference of 11% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Nissan does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. 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. The same official information place 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 4.1, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.3 out of 5.

Dacia is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.7 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 168 kilometers per hour, 6km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (52 mpg), in combined cycle.

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 still consumps less fuel, which needs to be taken into consideration. All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Nissan. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.