Overview

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 diesel engine choice they offer. Both the engines are Renault-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 110hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 107hp one.

Safety

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), 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. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Japanese car offers a considerable difference of 11% more metal.

Reliability

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Nissan does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Nissan with an average rating of 4.3, and models under the Dacia badge with 4.1 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Qashqai 19% above average, and Duster those same 19% below the first one. Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.3, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.1 out of 5.

Performance & Fuel economy

Dacia is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.6 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 171 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 5.2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (54 mpg), in combined cycle.

Verdict

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. 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. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.