2003 Subaru R2 vs. 2012 Nissan X-Trail
To start off, 2012 Nissan X-Trail is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Subaru R2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Subaru R2 would be higher. At 1,997 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Nissan X-Trail is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Nissan X-Trail (137 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 93 more horse power than 2003 Subaru R2. (44 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Nissan X-Trail should accelerate faster than 2003 Subaru R2.
Because 2012 Nissan X-Trail is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2003 Subaru R2. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Nissan X-Trail will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2012 Nissan X-Trail (198 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 140 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Subaru R2. (58 Nm @ 5200 RPM). This means 2012 Nissan X-Trail will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Subaru R2.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Subaru R2 | 2012 Nissan X-Trail | |
Make | Subaru | Nissan |
Model | R2 | X-Trail |
Year Released | 2003 | 2012 |
Body Type | Hatchback | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 658 cc | 1997 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 44 HP | 137 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 58 Nm | 198 Nm |
Torque RPM | 5200 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 10.0:1 |
Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 3400 mm | 4640 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1480 mm | 1790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1530 mm | 1690 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2370 mm | 2640 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 30 L | 65 L |