An article in the Toronto Star - May 13 2011.

Just FYI.

http://www.wheels.ca/article/795610

__________________________________________________ ____

 

Not much of a surprise, money talks. They failed to mention the juke was as ugly as an Pontiac azteck

 

Only problem with the Juke is that someone might see me driving it. But seriously, somewhere Nissan had to make compromises to keep the cost down. If it used the same manufacturing technology, material and engineering as the Mini it would cost almost as much as the Mini. Reading the article it is obvious Nissan did, in steering, handling (although they did like the fact the Juke had a softer suspension) and interior quality. I question the comment about getting 90% for 1/3 the price. The writer seems to like the Quirky look (delivers twice the personality) of the Juke and made the choice on that factor and then wrote the article to justify the conclusion.

 

 

Aside from the Juke being butt ugly, for something claiming to be sporty, it doesn't offer a proper manual transmission in the higher AWD trim, which is a big minus in my books.

 

Don't you have to get the CVT for awd, right there I would never consider the car, CVT's are the worst transmissions ever.

 

I'd buy the CM and maybe leave out a few options. The juke is absolutely hedious to look at.

 

Didn't the author miss the fact that it only has two doors? I'm sure my grown daughters won't mind climbing over my seat, much... I've always been a fan of the body styling of the Murano & the F35. The Juke looks like a kiddie version of it's older brothers. Cute, but I'm interested in an adult driving experience.

 

Actually, the Juke has four doors and a hatch, similar to CM. I just can't fit in the back seat - no headroom.

 

I currently own a Nissan Rogue AWD with CVT. CVT ... don't do it. Hate it and will never own a CVT car again. The Rogue is not the best looking car. The Juke is like Rogue afterbirth. Damn that is one fugly-@ss car.

 

One of the ugliest vehicles I have ever seen. The comparison is offensive.

 

I don't even have to read that article, but thanks for bringing it to our attention again.

No comparison needed....

We were driving around a few days ago and saw our first Juke in the wilds. We tried for a comparison and came up with stunted, butt-ugly bullfrog as to what animal they tried to copy in design.

I think they insulted the frog kingdom.

OMG that is an awful use of materials.

Don

 

Yeah...when my Countryman order was delayed, I looked at the Juke online. Um...no. It just ended up looking weird and chintzy no matter what options I tried.

 

I test drove a Juke. As noted for AWD, you have to get the CVT. I thought, perhaps with time the CVT's have become usable (I disliked the CVT MINI used to have that I test drove a while back). Nope, it feels exactly the same as the CVT's I remember, sluggish and very slow to get moving, like your car was powered by ten thousand rubber-bands.

I also thought the steering was WAY looser than the MINI.

And as someone else mentioned, the back has less headroom - really less storage in general because of the shape of the car.

Unlike a lot of others here I actually like how the Juke looks, but the test drive left me really cold on the car. Try it yourself.

There's no way I'd say the Juke is 90% of the Countryman though, 70% at best just considering room alone never mind handling.

 

To each his own but sales figure will tell... Mini rules

 

Not that I'm interested in them, but I only see two door handles; are the back two suicide doors? Just wondering...

 

On the Juke the rear door handles are up near the rear portion of the window next to the C-pillar.

As rollover/safty tests push car development, pillars are getting bigger and designers are trying to hide that by black masking on windows (which go over the pillars) or added function like handles and latches for doors.

All designs do it, so not a knock on Nissan (Heck look closely on the CM) just a different choice. Motor On.

 

How can anybody even think of comparing a Juke with a Countryman. A Juke is nothing at all like a countryman as a Countryman is not even close to being a Juke. Can nobody notice that they are not even the same size. They do not have the same amount of doors. They are two entirely different cars and they simply can not be compared to one another.

Both are very good cars but for different people. I personaly like the Countryman because the Juke is just to small and way to ugly for my taste. I think the Countryman looks great and it is just the perfect size for a true four passenger car.



PS: Size wise the juke is more like my Mini Hatchback body style. Great size if you do not use the rear seats for adults.

 

I usually make it a point not to buy something that rhymes with puke.

 

We have a Nissan Murano which has the CVT and to me it seems very sluggish. I did a little research on this several years back and it appears the sluggishness is a lot of mind over matter of not feeling the shifting. Nonetheless, I would stay away from the CVT - - -just had the transmission fluid changed in our Murano and most Nissan dealerships were wanting $300+ because of the CVT using a special fluid. Nissan had increased the warranty on the CVT to 10-years 100,000 miles on the Murano's CVT (at least the 2006 or older as we have a 2006) as they had a problem with premature failure.

 

Sheesh, if that's a back door then the egress must be terrible. We looked at the VW Tiguan and it had similar back doors. Very small area down by the footwell which made it feel like you were entering a hobbit hole when you tried to get in. That alone made us put the VW way down the list.
Annette

 

So I found myself in need of another new car, my Audi allroad got flooded in a rain storm, and it took out a $7000 computer, so its been totaled by my insurance.

Have been looking at cars the last few days, and test drove a Juke today, and I have to admit I really liked it, looks much better in person, (although still ugly), CVT was better than any I've ever drove, and overall a very nice car. The wife loved it (and it will be primarily her car). So right now its between the Juke or the new Focus, depending on which I get the better deal on (and right now thats the Juke).

 

I would pick the Juke. over the focus. ( that's me, if i had the choice, ford might be cheaper but in the long run Juke less problems)

 

It's funny you'd think that, but the deal on the Nissan is much better now (I'm going to lease, it has the higher sticker, but the better deal). I tend to agree with you, but Ford quality has really taken a huge step forward with their new models, and the fit and finish on the new Focus really impressed me. The price has jumped up quite a bit as well though. They basically wind up being the same price for me, just the Juke has a few more features (although the Ford sync is nice). It's really coming down to if we want better fuel economy in a very nice looking car vs. AWD in a strange looking, kind of cool car. Plus the Focus has a better rear seat.

 

I saw a Juke at the gas station yesterday. Not as ugly in person as it is in photos, but it really seems to have less interior space. The back seats looked high up and small, and the area behind them is definitely smaller than in the Countryman, mostly because the back of the Juke is much more curved at the top.