2004 Toyota MR2 vs. 2012 Nissan X-Trail
To start off, 2012 Nissan X-Trail is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Toyota MR2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Toyota MR2 would be higher. At 1,995 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Nissan X-Trail is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Nissan X-Trail (148 HP) has 6 more horse power than 2004 Toyota MR2. (142 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Nissan X-Trail should accelerate faster than 2004 Toyota MR2.
Because 2012 Nissan X-Trail is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2004 Toyota MR2. 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Toyota MR2 | 2012 Nissan X-Trail | |
| Make | Toyota | Nissan |
| Model | MR2 | X-Trail |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Convertible | SUV |
| Engine Position | Middle | Front |
| Engine Size | 1793 cc | 1995 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 142 HP | 148 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Diesel |
| Acceleration 0-100mph | 9.3 seconds | 10 seconds |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 3900 mm | 4640 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1790 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1250 mm | 1690 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2460 mm | 2640 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.4 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 48 L | 65 L |
