Nissan Qashqai v Mazda CX-5 v Nissan X-TRAIL 2014 Comparison

There's no 'squash' in 'Qashqai'... nor is there any 'squish'.

That was the consensus of the motoring.com.au team after an intensive day running around in the new Nissan, assessing it as a left-field alternative to its stablemate the Nissan X-TRAIL and the current benchmark in the medium SUV segment, Mazda's CX-5.

The Qashqai, a Ti variant with CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission), delivered plenty of room inside – helped in no small amount by its front-wheel drive underpinnings. Put quite simply, there are no drivetrain components under the rear of the Qashqai to foul luggage capacity. That's why the Qashqai is ahead of the Mazda for boot volume, despite the CX-5 selling in the (larger) medium SUV segment.

Pitting the Qashqai against the other two SUVs seems counter-intuitive at first glance. It's supposedly a small SUV, but the tale of the tape suggests it's more than competitive against the two 'larger' SUVs. Qashqai is a car for buyers who want an SUV that delivers all the practical packaging (including the high driving position and ease of entry/exit), but those same buyers don't need any of your actual all-terrain ability.

So this was primarily a test of roominess and functionality... and whether the outsider in the race might offer plenty of inside as well.

Headroom was not an issue in any of the three cars tested – each with a sunroof fitted. Rear-seat legroom was impressive in the smaller Qashqai. Even with the front seats adjusted back to the full extent there was still – barely – enough room for me in the rear of the smaller Nissan. The Mazda's rear-seat accommodation was somewhat better still, but the X-TRAIL had the wood on the CX-5 for legroom.

The X-TRAIL was also roomier in respect of boot space. Even the Qashqai – which admittedly enjoyed the advantage of its front-wheel drive packaging – offered 30 litres more luggage capacity than the CX-5. As for the X-TRAIL, it was nearly 150 litres larger in volume than the Mazda. But the Mazda compensated in part by its clever sun shade attached to the tailgate and the headlining and lifting up – in concert with the tailgate – out of harm's way to load goods.

The tailgate itself was lighter to lift than the X-TRAIL's. And despite the difference in on-paper volumes, the CX-5's luggage space was still pretty handy, whereas the Qashqai's boot space looked shallower.

Seated behind the wheel, I found that all three offered sensible driving positions with a range of adjustment to suit 95 per cent of owners. The Qashqai's seats were more to my liking than those of the CX-5 or the X-TRAIL. There's no doubt to my mind that the X-TRAIL's seats were the least welcoming and the least supportive. One of our testers had a 'submerging' moment under brakes in the X-TRAIL.

All three cars were ergonomically well sorted for switchgear placement and legible instruments, but the two Nissans (with what looked like a shared instrument binnacle) would win awards from the vision impaired for their huge dials and large calibrations. A button started the engine in all three cars, just to make it easy, but each car took a different path for the parking brake. The Qashqai's was actuated through an electric finger pull, the CX-5 had a conventional lever and the X-TRAIL's was operated by a foot pedal.

On the road the three SUVs were equally adept, although there were small but pertinent differences to set each of them apart.

Ride quality was best in the X-TRAIL, and it gave away little in the steering and handling stakes to the other two cars. The CX-5 was firmer riding and the Qashqai slotted in somewhere in between.

The smaller Nissan was more involving than the X-TRAIL in a straight line, revving faster to the redline and feeling – subjectively – like it was faster accelerating up to speed. A diesel engine under the bonnet of the CX-5 provided some traditional SUV torque and effortless driveability, but there was that typical diesel clatter that buyers frequently find disconcerting.

By contrast the X-TRAIL's 2.5-litre petrol engine was quieter, but no more charismatic than the Mazda's diesel. It too had torque on hand, whereas the 2.0-litre petrol engine in the Qashqai was more willing to rev and with the contrived steps in the CVT of the smaller Nissan, it felt sportier to drive. The 'gear changes' occurred fast enough with the Qashqai's engine working higher in the rev range that the CVT might have been a close-ratio automatic.

Otherwise, there was little to pick between the three cars for NVH, although the Mazda's tyres did seem noisier on some stretches of coarse-chip bitumen. The panoramic roof was, I firmly believe, a weak link in the Qashqai's noise suppression line of defence.

And the whole premise for this comparo? The Qashqai proved it was no Trax or EcoSport – in a good way. It offered plenty of space inside and it is a decent drive as well, meaning it's more than capable of rivalling the very best of medium SUVs in the market.