ge5239684463965501713
ge5578740900884723874
ge5684402424583352649
ge5379607569904775913
ge4923262588936618459
Adam Davis21 Nov 2014
REVIEW

2014 Light SUV Comparison: Ford EcoSport v Holden Trax v Mitsubishi ASX v Nissan JUKE

Light SUVs are becoming increasingly popular. Here, we compare four of the biggest names in the smallest SUV segment

2014 Light SUV Comparison

Entering the niche
Finding a potentially lucrative gap in the new-car market, then plugging it with fresh new product is something car makers continuously seek to do.

But the act of actually inventing a niche in an already crowded market, then fielding a new vehicle with the potential to cannibalise existing models is something else again.

That is what the Ford EcoSport, Holden Trax and Nissan JUKE seem to be trying as they follow the likes of Mitsubishi’s ASX into the burgeoning light SUV segment.

Sure, sub-small SUVs have been seen before (Holden Cruze /Suzuki Ignis) but their impact on new-car sales has been minimal. The big money has traditionally focussed on small SUVs such as the Mazda CX-5, Toyota RAV4 and Hyundai ix35.

However, the aspirations for the industry’s new range of SUV alternatives are a little more ambitious. The argument seems to be that if a buyer can’t quite stretch to a small SUV, then maybe one of these will fit the bill.

It doesn’t necessarily work out that way. All the light SUVs tested here are capable of encroaching upwards into pricing territory already occupied. Although the entry-level variants are unquestionably more financially accessible than small SUVs, it’s a fact that if you choose a top-spec version of any of the light SUVs here, you’ll be over-stepping at least one model in the class above.

Five-door fanfare
Is the now four-years-old Mitsubishi ASX, which out-sells the Outlander on which it’s based, an indicator of the effect the Ford, Holden and Nissan will have on their larger siblings?

It’s way too early to say, but on current readings the EcoSport, Trax and JUKE represent roughly one-third of Kuga, Captiva and QASHQAI/DUALIS sales.

So exactly what is the rationale behind this suddenly blooming category?

Is it that buyers, as suggested, are persuaded by lower entry-level pricing, or are they attracted to the fact that the smaller the SUV, the more easy it is to live with in tight urban driving conditions?

Or is it a combination of both?

Attempting to answer this conundrum, we lined-up all four of the major players in the segment. With all but the most established contender, the Mitsubishi ASX – where we chose the two-wheel drive XLS as a more relevant competitor to the also two-wheel drive EcoSport and Trax – we went right to the top.

Complicating things just a little, the Nissan JUKE is available with two-wheel drive, but our comparison choice, the top-spec Ti-S, comes only as an all-wheel drive.

Our decisions to go with flagship models was less to do with investigating the blurring of price boundaries than with seeing just how good these tiddlers could possibly be.

On test are automatic transmission versions of the Ford EcoSport Titanium ($27,790 plus ORCs), Holden’s LTZ-spec Trax ($29,990 plus ORCs), the front-wheel drive Mitsubishi ASX XLS ($31,490 plus ORCs), and the Nissan JUKE Ti-S ($32,490 plus ORCs).

After two days on (and off) the road, and an ongoing gabfest between our testers, the results were not exactly as we anticipated...

Execution of Intended Purpose
Whatever their limitations in other areas, Light SUVs will be judged mostly on their ability to carry passengers in comfort, and to tote a reasonable amount of luggage.

Surprisingly, there’s not a lot to separate the four when it comes to quantifying their respective load capacities. Except for the JUKE, that is, which betrays its character as a jumped-up sports hatch by providing by far the smallest load space when all seats are in place.

But although the raw data tells one story, the actual facts in the field tell another: The EcoSport quotes what is easily the smallest all-seats-down load capacity – smaller even than the JUKE – but in the real world it’s arguably one of the best at carrying bulky items.

Our mountain bike ‘test dummy’ fitted into the EcoSport in a way that left surprisingly useful load space for other gear. It was the only SUV here that would accept the bike stored in an almost-upright position (with one wheel removed).

Clearly, the tumble-fold rear seat, and the extra space made available by the tailgate-mounted spare, as well as the relatively non-intrusive wheel arches and the big, space-making indent in the inner trim panel, paid big dividends in vertical height – as did the fact that the Ford stands tallest of all the vehicles tested.

We liked the EcoSport’s seating, too, as well as the relatively high hip point that made it easy to climb in and out of. It’s not the roomiest in the back, but then again it’s not bad either, while the tall roof allows good headroom in both front and rear. Unlike the others, the EcoSport’s rear-seat backrest could be adjusted for rake angle.

The silly left-hinged tailgate still leaves us bemused. It might open easily and provide unobstructed luggage access, but it makes no sense at all when it comes to loading up from the kerbside. And the detents holding the (weighty, with the spare-wheel) door open are easily overcome on a cross-slope, slamming it shut just when you may not want it.

And that brings us the Holden Trax which, unsurprisingly, closely mimics the EcoSport’s basic dimensions.

The vehicles are separated by very little in terms of footprint (the Holden has a wider 10.9-metre turning circle) and their quoted load capacities, even if they slightly favour the Holden, are similar.

As is the case with the Ford, the Trax quotes a relatively unimpressive maximum load capacity that doesn’t tell the real story. The load area seems more than the quoted, fully-folded 785 litres.

Unlike the full-tumble arrangement in the EcoSport, the back seat of the Trax double-folds to help maximise load space, but the load area height is nonetheless a bit more restricted and the trusty mountain bike, front wheel removed, needed to be laid flat and took up every centimetre of longitudinal space.

The Holden’s rear seat backrest, in passenger-carrying configuration, was fixed, too, although we preferred the release buttons on the top of the seats to the pull-straps located at the bottom of the seat backrests in the Ford.

Trax passengers get a slightly better all-round deal than in the EcoSport, with rear-seat kneeroom comparable to the relatively commodious Mitsubishi – although the hip point seemed a little lower than that of either the EcoSport or ASX – and acceptably comfortable cushioning.

Turning to the ASX, which is essentially a shrunken version of the Mitsubishi Outlander (the ASX is 360mm shorter overall, although the 2670mm wheelbase is the same), we found that generally good use was made of its slightly longer body and significantly lengthier wheelbase. These didn’t affect the turning circle which, at 10.6 metres, was equal best with the Ford EcoSport.

ASX passengers get more legroom, in both front and rear, with a hip point well-suited to easy entry and exit, and a comfortable seating position. In the XLS model tested, there are centre armrests for passengers travelling in both front and rear, and the seats are comfortable – with the caveat that there’s some lack of side support.

And, although there’s absolutely nothing fancy or clever in the way the rear seats fold to open up the luggage area – in fact the backrest release buttons are a bit awkward and fiddly to use – the bottom line is that the quoted 1193-litre total load area is the best in the group.

But the split-fold rear backrest liberates less additional space than you might expect and the load area doesn’t impress or surprise the way the EcoSport does. It’s big enough, but in the mountain bike test fared no better than the Trax and wasn’t as handy as the EcoSport with its near-vertical bike storage capability.

Compounded by things like the low-ish roof height and the relatively narrow gap between the boot area and the passenger area, the ASX’s extra litres of load space aren’t used all that cleverly.

That said, the ASX has a nice airy feeling inside that contrasts with the EcoSport and Trax – and, in particular, with the squat, low-slung and generally slightly smaller (though heavier in all-wheel drive Ti-S configuration) JUKE.

Quirky more than funky, the audaciously-styled Nissan deliberately follows a different SUV path to the Ford, Holden or Mitsubishi with its clearly obvious crossover orientations and unexpected bumps, bulges and unconventional front-end lighting arrangements.

The JUKE’s obsession with looking different has taken its toll on practicality with not just a tight back seat and a less bright interior, but also with a smaller load capacity. The quoted maximum 786 litres might be better than the EcoSport and equal to the Trax, but the reality is the Nissan would not be the recommended choice for customers seeking a maximally useful light SUV.

That said, the stylistically obsessed Nissan still accepted our full-size mountain bike, laid flat and taking up all the longitudinal space with (like the others) the front wheel removed. The split-fold back seat dropped down via handy buttons atop the rear-seat backrest and, even if the cargo area was less than cavernous, the load height was nice and low.

As far as passengers are concerned, the JUKE, although it doesn’t fare well in the provision of rear-seat legroom, does offer comfortable seats and there’s a cosiness about the interior that will certainly appeal to some – even if the glasshouse is less generous and there are no centre armrests provided, in either front or rear.

Like we said, the JUKE is better described as a crossover than an SUV.

ge5307408289721213175

Fit, Finish and Finesse
Our four vehicles on test brought vastly different design aesthetics to the table. But once you scratched the surface, so to speak, it became clear that beyond looks, there’s actually not a great deal to separate these rivals when it comes to fit, finish and finesse.

The JUKE was the standout in this company, despite its affection for hard plastics. It delivered the best balance, combining piano black finishes with chrome highlights and leather accents. Inside and out, the JUKE presented a high quality build execution, with materials that were nice to touch and were robust enough to cope with a lively passenger load.

The JUKE’s steering wheel was the nicest in hand, with quality materials and thoughtful contours. The leather upholstery in our JUKE Ti-S and the colour-coded trim details set the benchmark for this comparison. The cloth trim inserts in the doors worked to soften the cabin. The overall feel inside the JUKE was superior to all rivals on test, with the Ford EcoSport a close second.

Ford’s small SUV used a variety of colours and textures to create a more subtle and layered interior palette than others on test – while not quite pulling off the superior level of finesse experienced in the JUKE. The EcoSport’s disjointed design did it no favours in creating a cohesive interior – its fussy design comes at the expense of any real finesse. When compared to both the top scoring Nissan JUKE and the Mitsubishi ASX, it felt like Ford’s design was already due for an update.

On the upside, simple things such as the EcoSport’s upholstery, in-cabin carpets and cargo space, were of a nice quality and the interior joinery and uniformity of panel gaps and the like supported a quality build. The EcoSport’s controls were pleasantly tactile and easy to use, while the quality of plastics used was of a good standard.

Outside the car, the plastic trims also appeared fit for a more rugged life than this vehicle may actually experience. Not much separated the JUKE and EcoSport, noting things that your average buyer may not detect…

So too was the case with the third-placed Mitsubishi ASX. Just three points separated first, second and third places in this comparison which is truly indicative of just how close all of these vehicles are.

At first impression, the feeling was that the ASX would rank a touch above the Ford EcoSport but, as is often the case, closer inspection revealed something different.

What let the ASX down predominantly was its cheap plastic trim – and lots of it. After some time spent behind the wheel, the large span of plastic across the dash just felt a bit drab. The buttons and levers felt cheap – but not nasty. And cheap doesn’t mean flimsy, just lacklustre compared to the competition. The steering wheel controls, indicator stalks and paddle shifts suffered in this regard, too.

The ASX did gain some valuable points in its more cohesive design execution. There was a nice flow to the cabin that, in time, softened the glare of multiple plastics.

Last but not least, was the Holden Trax, which lost points for quality of materials more than anything. In this company, jumping into the Trax felt like a step down in both style and substance – with interior panel gaps and closing mechanisms well under par.

A large, sparse dash highlighted the lifeless plastics – all a bit underwhelming. There was a distinct lack of flow to the design elements and the quality of plastics used was sub standard – and clearly noticeable when viewed back to back against its rivals.

By contrast, the tactility of the controls and apparent quality felt good – dials roll freely and buttons were nice to touch.

And the upholstery in the Trax also won it points, with nice contrast stitching as a welcome focus point.


On the road

Mechanical and dynamic differences grow the chasm between these four rivals

For this section, we decided to put the ‘U’ into SUV, with combined freeway, suburb and country road driving, all topped off with a gravel road component to truly test these elevated machines in the real world.

Climbing aboard the EcoSport, the first thing you notice is the power; or lack thereof.

Its 1.5-litre, naturally-aspirated four-cylinder petrol engine produces a weedy 82kW at a high 6300rpm along with 140Nm of torque at 4400rpm.

In context it’s fair to say the EcoSport, despite its quick-shifting six-speed dual-clutch transmission, struggles to keep up with the others in sheer acceleration out of corners. As a result, you work it hard, and despite a claimed combined fuel consumption of 5.8L/100km – a figure it all-but matched on the initial freeway drive – by the end of the test a recorded 8.1L/100km average indicates that the EcoSport requires more throttle, more often.

Exacerbating this is an engine that sounds harsh under load, making this an even less comfortable task. If considering an EcoSport, we’d recommend sampling the characterful three-cylinder turbo-petrol and manual transmission combination.

Speaking of gearboxes, the dual-clutch transmission (DCT), though being snappy on the shifts, is fiddly when being manually-shifted, requiring the use of unintuitive ‘plus/minus’ controls mounted on the side of the gear lever. Its function is so inaccessible that you’re better off leaving the shifter in ‘D’.

Thankfully, the EcoSport continues the trend of Ford making its vehicles dynamic to drive. The EcoSport blends a reasonable ride with accurate steering and little slackness in responding to driver input. Even on gravel, the Ford is balanced at speed, demonstrating a nicely-calibrated stability control system, though its dynamic performance isn’t enough to overcome its mechanical shortcomings. This leaves the EcoSport last in this category.

In contrast, the move to a 1.4-litre turbocharged petrol four-cylinder has given fresh life to the Holden Trax.

Coupled to a slow-witted but smooth six-speed automatic transmission (with a similarly frustrating manual mode to the EcoSport), the 103kW generated at a low 4900rpm only tells part of the story; it’s the 200Nm at 1850rpm that defines the experience.

As a result, the Trax pulls keenly out of corners and doesn’t need a massive thrashing to overtake. It’s also reasonable enough on fuel, returning 8.1L/100km on-test to match the EcoSport, despite the on-paper differences.

Where the Trax is less convincing is in its steering. Like all the others it’s electrically-assisted, but you sit high and the front-end lacks initial response to your inputs, requiring some driver adjustment to get in-tune. Clear this hurdle, and the Holden displays competitive on-road manners, the local chassis tuning no doubt assisting.

Ride quality is good, NVH is acceptable, and the chassis is balanced on gravel roads with the stability control working (though quite abruptly) to trim any excesses.

Objectively, the Trax is the fastest decelerator of the group – however, the over-servoed pedal reduces feel and therefore confidence, especially when the surface is less than perfect. Conversely, the anti-lock braking calibration is the best here, only pulsing at full pedal travel.

Despite some limitations it’s an impressive overall performance from the Holden, netting it second place on the road.

Like the EcoSport, the Mitsubishi ASX is naturally-aspirated, though with a 2.0-litre displacement the petrol-fuelled ASX is a full half-a-litre larger – and feels it.

Power is set at 110kW at 6000rpm with 197Nm of torque at a high 4200rpm. The four-pot drives the front wheels via a continuously variable transmission, complete with paddle shifters – the only one here to offer them.

Performance is broadly similar to the Trax, though the ASX needs to be revved harder to achieve it. Interestingly, though, it consumed the least of all on-test, returning a figure of 7.8L/100km – very close to its 7.4L/100km claim.

Where the Mitsubishi loses out is in its chassis. The ASX is soft to the point of excess, rolling and lurching through corners – a feeling exacerbated by the high-set driving position. For all that softness, and making it more perplexing, the ride itself isn’t markedly superior to the others on test.

Steering (though more responsive than in the Trax) and brake controls feel over-damped, removing any sense of feel for the driver with regard to the car’s contact with the road. This feeling is exacerbated on gravel, where the stability control cuts in early to manage the limitations of the chassis – though its arrival is actually quite smooth, without the abruptness found in the Trax.

With its 30kW and 40Nm advantage over next-best on-test, it’s perhaps inevitable that the JUKE would feel a league above the others in terms of performance.

A stout 140kW is produced at 5600rpm but a whole 240Nm is on tap all the way from 2000-5200rpm. Couple that with all-wheel drive and a CVT, and the JUKE trumps the others. It’s also 2.1sec faster to 100km/h than the Trax, its nearest accelerative rival.

On the road, this translates into instant punch throughout the rev range, with good NVH and ample overtaking ability that leaves the Ford and Mitsubishi feeling particularly breathless. The CVT can be controlled via a sequential-style shift gate, though paddles would top off the experience.

The Nissan’s ride is tauter and more hunkered down than the rest, without markedly affecting the ride comfort. The steering isn’t as crisp as the EcoSport’s, but it nevertheless points accurately.

Braking is smooth and consistent through the pedal’s travel, though there is a tendency to briefly lock the front wheels under hard applications.

The JUKE is also a star on the gravel, its all-wheel drive system coming to the fore and providing incredible cornering and accelerative traction, with a fine balance between agility and stability as the torque vectoring shuffles drive. The chassis is competent enough not to trouble the stability programs too much.

The JUKE is the deserving victor in this category.


Performance figures (as tested):

Ford EcoSport

Holden Trax Mitsubishi ASX Nissan JUKE
0-60km/h: 5.9sec 0-60km/h: 4.6sec 0-60km/h: 5.2sec 0-60km/h: 4.4sec
0-100km/h: 13.3sec 0-100km/h: 10.8sec 0-100km/h: 11.0sec 0-100km/h: 8.7sec
50-70km/h: 2.7sec 50-70km/h: 2.1sec 50-70km/h: 2.2sec 50-70km/h: 1.7sec
80-100km/h: 4.1sec 80-100km/h: 3.4sec 80-100km/h: 3.4sec 80-100km/h: 2.4sec
Fuel Consumption: 8.1L/100km Fuel Consumption: 8.1L/100km Fuel Consumption: 7.8L/100km Fuel Consumption: 8.7L/100km

Safety First
As safety isn’t subjective, motoring.com.au utilises the ratings of the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) and the European New Car Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) in offering you an insight into which vehicles performed best.

Here, we list our rivals in alphabetical order:

Holden Trax (five-star ANCAP safety rating)
The Holden Trax scored 15.18 points out of 16 in the 64km/h frontal offset crash test and 16 out of 16 for the side impact crash test.

It gained an additional two bonus points in the (optional) pole test and two points for the fitment of seatbelt reminders for both the driver and front-seat passenger.

In total, the Holden Trax was awarded 35.18 from a possible 37 points for a five-star ANCAP safety rating.

Standard safety equipment for the Trax includes dual front, side and curtain airbags, anti-lock brakes, electronic brake-force distribution, emergency brake assist and stability control.

Seatbelt reminders and pretensioners are fitted for front passengers and three-point seatbelts for all occupants.

Ford EcoSport (five-star ANCAP safety rating)
The Ford EcoSport scored 15.14 points out of 16 in the 64km/h frontal offset crash test and 16 out of 16 for the side impact crash test.

It gained an additional two bonus points in the (optional) pole test and two points for the fitment of seatbelt reminders for both the driver and front-seat passenger.

In total, the Ford EcoSport was awarded 35.14 from a possible 37 points for a five-star ANCAP safety rating.

Standard safety equipment for the EcoSport includes dual front, side and curtain airbags, a driver's knee airbag, anti-lock brakes, electronic brake-force distribution, emergency brake assist and stability control.

Seatbelt reminders and pretensioners are fitted for front passengers and three-point seatbelts for all occupants.

Mitsubishi ASX (five-star ANCAP safety rating)
The Mitsubishi ASX scored 14.13 points out of 16 in the 64km/h frontal offset crash test and 16 out of 16 for the side impact crash test.

It gained an additional two bonus points in the (optional) pole test and two points for the fitment of seatbelt reminders for both the driver and front-seat passenger.

In total, the ASX was awarded 34.13 from a possible 37 points for a five-star ANCAP safety rating.

Standard safety equipment for the Mitsubishi includes dual front, side and curtain airbags, a driver's knee airbag, anti-lock brakes, electronic brake-force distribution, emergency brake assist and stability control.

Seatbelt reminders and pretensioners are fitted for front passengers and three-point seatbelts for all occupants.

Nissan JUKE (five-star ANCAP safety rating)
The Nissan JUKE scored 13.69 points out of 16 in the 64km/h frontal offset crash test and 15.34 out of 16 for the side impact crash test.

It gained an additional two bonus points in the (optional) pole test and two points for the fitment of seatbelt reminders for both the driver and front-seat passenger.

In total, the Nissan JUKE was awarded 33.03 from a possible 37 points for a five-star ANCAP safety rating.

Standard safety equipment for the JUKE includes dual front, side and curtain airbags, anti-lock brakes, electronic brake-force distribution, emergency brake assist and stability control.

Seatbelt reminders and pretensioners are fitted for front passengers and three-point seatbelts for all occupants.

Suitable Integration of Technology
As technology continues to play a greater role in establishing the overall value equation, getting the package right has never been more important.

The vehicles on test basically shared specification levels across their respective ranges, even if their technology offerings didn’t always reflect this. Some significant omissions on the scoreboard, such as sat-nav and reversing cameras, see scores dive where the vehicles were consistently high across other areas.

And so we get back to the overall packages on offer…

All four vehicles offered Bluetooth connectivity for hands free telephony and audio streaming – it’s almost considered a baseline technology feature these days.

Where the rivals started to differ were some big-ticket items such as sat-nav, reversing cameras and heated seats to name a few.

The Nissan JUKE emerged victorious, thanks to its extensive and seamless technology offering, rivalled only by the Mitsubishi ASX which was pipped for line honours by a mere point.

The JUKE offered the most extensive equipment list on test, amid a seamless design execution that achieves ultra-modern conveniences without losing its user-friendliness.

The Nissan’s 5.0-inch colour touch screen – not the largest on test – sits at the heart of the JUKE’s infotainment system. It’s surrounded by clearly labelled buttons that allow for intuitive navigation of a fairly sophisticated arrangement.

The camera can be engaged by one button, and the screen can switch on/off with the same simplicity. The single-zone climate control – the norm across the competition – sits below this.

Steering-wheel mounted controls – standard on all test vehicles – connect you with audio, telephony and cruise control functions. A reversing camera, a button to retract wing mirrors and a push button ignition were also standard.

Despite its extensive kit list, the JUKE misses out on electric-adjust seats, however.

The Mitsubishi ASX gained points on the JUKE for its electrically-adjustable heated seats and paddle shifts, which set the tone for a similarly well-specified technology line-up. The ASX houses its technology hub in a 7.0-inch colour touch screen that’s simple to navigate and perfectly touch sensitive. Screen graphics and instrumentation illumination is not quite as good as the JUKE, but still deliver a modern cabin atmosphere.

The reversing camera in the ASX offers excellent resolution and is coupled with audible rear sensors. The cruise control and sat-nav worked without fault.

Both the Holden Trax and Ford EcoSport fell short of the pack with the absence of sat-nav. This saw the Trax settle in third position. Keeping up appearances, the small Holden did feature heated front seats, but just the one temperature setting – whereas the JUKE and ASX offered both low and high settings.

The Trax also offers a 7.0-inch touch screen for its infotainment functions, differing from the competition with its touch pad style buttons – which you’ll either love or loathe.

This sparse aesthetic, by comparison, seems a little lacking at first glance, but it’s not. The Trax is very well equipped, with cruise control, reversing camera and Holden’s MyLink infotainment software at the ready. Dual-light vanity mirrors show good attention to detail too.

The digital speedo is well positioned and clear to read, and the simple ‘info’ button to the right of the steering column allows the driver to easily scroll through trip and fuel information.

The Trax was the only vehicle on test to use a key-operated ignition – all others featured push button ignition for a more premium feel.

The Ford EcoSport fell short of its rivals in a few areas, across both kit and execution. The absence of sat-nav and a reversing camera lost the small Ford valuable points early in the piece. In the absence of a reversing camera, the park assist visual and audible warnings are a welcome substitute and are a valuable guide.

The EcoSport’s 3.5-inch screen sits deep in the dash, above the relevant controls for audio, phone and the like. While the EcoSport did have many of the features found in its three rivals, the Ford infotainment arrangement was noted as being one of the least intuitive to navigate, as well as for its lack of design flow.

Buttons are small and poorly labelled (sometimes not at all), leaving some of the navigation to guesswork. But it’s not all bad news for the Blue Oval’s micro SUV – at the end of the day, Ford’s SYNC software platform works well, including reasonable voice control software.

It also featured a cooled glove box, front and rear fog lights and rain sensing wipers.

ge4616276926173266865

Value for Money
Although the EcoSport range starts from $20,790 – the cheapest of all on test – the variant sampled here is the top-spec Titanium grade, priced from $27,790 (plus on-road costs). That still makes it the cheapest here, but around 25 per cent up on the entry specification.

The Ford is reasonably well equipped for the money with highlights including seven airbags, reverse parking sensors, Bluetooth with voice control, an electrochromic rear-view mirror, 3.5-inch multi-function display and six-speed dual-clutch transmission.

There’s also the convenience of a matching, full-size 16-inch alloy spare-wheel hung off the tailgate. As an indication of option pricing, metallic paint is an additional $385.

Of the group, the EcoSport is covered by the longest capped-price servicing plan. It’s set at 84 months/135,000km, whichever comes first, with service intervals set annually, or 15,000km (again, whichever comes first). At $220 the price of the first service trails only the Holden Trax.

An industry standard 36-month/100,000km warranty is also offered and there’s complimentary roadside assistance for the first 12 months, with unlimited kilometres. This can be extended at each service.

In terms of future value, redbook.com.au indicates the EcoSport Titanium should have a three-year retained value of 65 per cent; this equates to an approximate value of $18,100.

The EcoSport’s best-in-class list price, solid aftersales and best-in-group resale sees it take the points in the value category.

Over in the arch-rival Holden camp, the newly-turbocharged Trax LTZ also scores well on list price. At $29,990 (plus ORCs) it’s the only other top-spec vehicle on-test that lists under $30,000. This automatic version sits at the top of a model range that commences at $23,990 (plus ORCs).

The Trax also scores well in standard equipment. Inside there’s six airbags (one less than the Ford), but equipment is more expansive with a 7.0-inch colour touchscreen, heated front seats, Bluetooth audio, rear parking sensors and electrochromatic rear-view camera.

Exterior highlights include 18-inch alloys, auto headlights with daytime running lights and an optional full-size spare. Metallic paint is an expensive $550 option, and the Trax’s turbocharged engine does require the use of 95-octane premium unleaded fuel as a minimum.

Despite recent improvements, the Trax suffers somewhat from its aftersales program. There’s capped-price servicing available, but it’s only for 36 months/60,000km. Compounding this is the listed service intervals of nine months/15,000km, whichever falls first.

This adds up to an additional service every three years over the Ford and Mitsubishi, though the first service cost of only $185 compensates somewhat.

There’s a 12-month/unlimited kilometre renewable roadside assistance programme and the industry standard 36-month / 100,000km warranty is applied.

redbook.com.au predicts the Trax LTZ’s three-year retained value is 57 per cent of the purchase price, or $17,100.

With its solid but unspectacular value performance all-round, the Trax finishes third for the category.

Opting for the Mitsubishi ASX sees a step-up in price, with this example listing for $31,490 (plus ORCs) as-tested, trailing only the Nissan JUKE. This 2WD XLS CVT auto variant sits right in the middle of a model range that spans $24,990 - $36,490.

The price hike is felt when standard equipment is considered. Keyless entry and ignition, 17-inch alloys, paddle shifters for the CVT (the only vehicle so-equipped), disc brakes all-round (where the Ford and Holden make do with drums at the rear), sat-nav via a 7.0-inch touchscreen, panoramic roof, leather seat facings with heating function for front row and electric adjustment for driver, six airbags and Bluetooth audio streaming highlight a comprehensive equipment package.

At $495, the Mitsubishi’s any-colour-other-than-white exterior paint policy is middle-of-the-road as a cost-option example.

The ASX stands out by offering a 60-month/100,000km warranty with matched roadside assistance package included, though of course the warranty is of the ‘whichever comes first’ variety, meaning it only rewards limited kilometres.

A capped-price servicing program is available and includes 48 months/60,000km coverage, with the initial service costing no more than $265. Services are spaced at 12-month/15,000km intervals, matching the Ford EcoSport.

According to redbook.com.au the three-year retained value of the ASX XLS is a reasonable 60 per cent. At the tested vehicle price, that equates to around $18,900.

Overall the ASX’s consistent performance across our categories means it takes the runner-up value gong.

Finally (both alphabetically and in terms of list price), the tested Nissan JUKE Ti-S 1.6T AWD sits at the top of the JUKE range at $32,490 (plus ORCS). Although with the model spread starting at $22,090, the potential Light SUV purchaser should be able to find a JUKE that fits their budget.

As befits its top-range status, the JUKE comes well equipped with switchable  all-wheel drive system (that includes a sophisticated torque vectoring program), CVT, an electrochromatic rear-view camera, sat-nav accessed via a 5.0-inch colour screen, keyless entry and igntion, leather accented and heated front pews, auto headlights, six airbags, Bluetooth and disc brakes all-round.

The turbocharged petrol engine does require 95-octane premium unleaded fuel as a minimum, adding cost over time. Metallic paint is a middling $495 option.

As well as its list price, the JUKE lags behind in servicing. It requires the most regular check-up, with service intervals set at just six months/10,000km – and the price of the first service is the most-expensive here at $263.11.

Nissan does, however, offer a comprehensive capped-price plan, with 72 months or 120,000km of coverage. And although the warranty may be the standard 36-months/100,000km offering, there’s the bonus of complimentary roadside assist for the entirety of that timeframe.

redbook.com.au predicts a three-year retained value of 54 per cent for the JUKE, which equates to a resale value of $17,550. In percentage terms, that’s the lowest resale of the group, and contributes to the JUKE’s fourth position in the value category.

The Verdict and Specifications
If democracy wasn’t a cornerstone of our way of doing things at motoring.com.au the outcome of this comparison might have been somewhat different.

Our testers were anything but uniform in their ideas about what makes a good light SUV. Some of us tended to favour on-road aspects; others thought efficient packaging for passengers and their cargo was most vital, while others tended to direct most of their attention to the aesthetics and technology within the cabin.

None of these, in isolation, a good light SUV makes.

Our scoring system, which embraces all the important aspects of a vehicle – including those mentioned above – then weights the results accordingly, aims to give a final, balanced judgement of how a particular car relates within its peer group. It’s the best way of arriving at a fair judgement.

So, with the total scores achieved by all contenders tallied, it was the numbers that were the final arbiters.

And the winner is: Mitsubishi’s 2WD ASX XLS.

Judged against the impressive performance and road-holding of the Nissan JUKE, this might have come as something of a surprise. But when weighing the overall qualities of the ASX against the Nissan’s role as a sort of one-trick pony, the Mitsubishi’s pipping of all others in cargo and passenger capacity – and its consistent scoring in areas such as value for money and standard technology -- gave it a comfortable lead over the second-placed JUKE Ti-S.

The Nissan lost points for its relative lack of versatility, and its less-favourable value package, although it out-scored all the others in terms of quality and standard technology.

Third in line was Ford’s (mostly) cleverly packaged and agile Titanium EcoSport. It lost big points for its gormless 1.5-litre engine and its poor technology line-up and was only one point ahead of the Holden Trax LTZ. The Trax, like the Mitsubishi ASX, rated consistently across all areas – except that it was at the lower end of the scoreboard.

In fact the scoring separated the vehicles into two levels: The ASX and JUKE, despite representing disparate approaches to SUV design, were grouped closely together at the top of the score sheets, while there was a gap to the EcoSport and Trax – which were so close together in the final judgment as to be virtually inseparable.

Resisting the temptation to make an individual judgment, let’s just say that if you’re after an SUV that will delight your senses on a winding country road, then you’ll love the second-placed JUKE Ti-S.

But if you’re seeking a light SUV that will deliver a good balance of all the elements you’d expect of the genre, then you’d find it hard to go past the Mitsubishi ASX.

On the other hand, if that final dollar is all-important, the Ford EcoSport is the best value of all, while the Holden Trax is a pretty mean all-rounder that’s short of any real flaws – which in fact is not something you could say of any of the others...

2014 Ford EcoSport Titanium pricing and specifications:

2014 Holden Trax LTZ pricing and specifications:
Price: $27,790 (plus on-road costs) Price: $29,990 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 1.5-litre four-cylinder petrol Engine: 1.4-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol
Output: 82kW/140Nm Output: 103kW/200Nm
Transmission: Six-speed dual-clutch Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Fuel consumption: 6.5L /100km (ADR Combined) Fuel consumption: 6.9L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 154g /km (ADR Combined) CO2: 163g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star ANCAP Safety Rating: Five-star ANCAP
2014 Mitsubishi ASX XLS 2WD pricing and specifications: 2014 Nissan JUKE Ti-S pricing and specifications:
Price: $31,490 (plus on-road costs) Price: $32,490 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol Engine: 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbo petrol
Output: 110kW/197Nm Output: 140kW/240Nm
Transmission: Six-speed automatic Transmission: Continuously variable
Fuel consumption: 7.4L/100km (ADR Combined) Fuel consumption: 7.4L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 176g/km (ADR Combined) CO2: 169g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star ANCAP Safety Rating: Five-star ANCAP

Words by Nadine Armstrong, Tim Britten and Adam Davis
Photos and video: John Wilson and Rene Mitchell-Pitman

Share this article
Written byAdam Davis
See all articles
Our team of independent expert car reviewers and journalistsMeet the team
Stay up to dateBecome a carsales member and get the latest news, reviews and advice straight to your inbox.
Looking for a family car?Get the latest advice and reviews on family car that's right for you.
Explore the Family Hub
Family
Disclaimer
Please see our Editorial Guidelines & Code of Ethics (including for more information about sponsored content and paid events). The information published on this website is of a general nature only and doesn’t consider your particular circumstances or needs.

If the price does not contain the notation that it is "Drive Away", the price may not include additional costs, such as stamp duty and other government charges.
Download the carsales app
    AppStoreDownloadGooglePlayDownload
    App Store and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc. Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google LLC.
    © CAR Group Ltd 1999-2024
    In the spirit of reconciliation we acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their Elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.