The sound insulation was disappointing. The engine noise too came in a fair bit; quite a bit at higher RPMs, I thought later.
BHPian Poitive recently shared this with other enthusiasts.
Nissan Kicks – Turbo petrol MT:
(It was a pretty compromised TD; has some comparisons with the others tested till now – XUV700, Harrier, Hector, Compass).
Background:
This was another hurried one, largely due to it being a last minute one, being done late evening, my getting late, phone batteries being on the edge and other uninteresting stuff. It was a shortest TD of the lot by far. Started with some tension in the air due to the delays and confusions. Went to the extent that on reaching home, I could not really recollect the colour of the car I had just driven! I really didn’t focus on the looks at all. Please bear in mind that I am less certain than usual of the comments I make below due to the compromised nature of this test drive; I could not even check the tyre pressure and there was no onboard monitor. The bare minimum I wanted to achieve was if another one was needed.
Main I – Cabin experience:
Parked amidst many stationary vehicles in a disorganized parking, I enter the vehicle, with the SA being all eager to get going and more so to end the drive so that he can make it home (understandable considering it was late). Ingress was quite good; it is rarely prefect for me, and happily it was about as comfortable as the bigger ones. The passenger side too was fine, unlike the big XUV700. Nice! Seat height wasn’t low (unlike the Optra). Even at it’s lowest, it was quite high. Can’t understand this fascination with raising seats, if even 6’ people want it a bit lower and can’t get it. Why I wanted it to be lower was to have the top of the windscreen felt kind of low in the field of view from my position. This was the point discussed earlier in the thread based on which the Kicks was all but rejected on ‘paper’ itself (latter part of this post). Though not as airy as the bigger ones in this aspect (Harrier, Hector, XUV700) or I think even the Seltos, it was just about acceptable. If everything else works well I could live with this, I thought. The reason I had almost dismissed it before wasn’t bad enough. A good start!
Thankfully the legs sat quite okay and there was no issue of the knee hitting the console. In that respect, it was quite like the XUV700. The armrest in the XUV700 was way better though. This one didn’t feel wide enough in comparison, but to be fair, it was a smaller car. Elbows often brushed with the SA. Not really ideal elbow room if you are two wide adults in front, but surely manageable. Ergonomically, nothing felt too off right away. The footwell too didn’t feel off. Surprisingly I can’t recollect with certainty, but I don’t think it had a dead pedal; yet it felt okay. Tried to see the interiors with the lights available and couldn’t assess much as the light wasn’t too bright. The interior lights themselves didn’t seem high quality. The interiors’ finishing appeared moderate overall, but don’t take my word on it, as I didn’t really focus on it and the light was insufficient.
The rear seat was checked for a short part towards the end. The seats were a bit firmer than I’d like, however on the important aspect of headroom – something which is enough to rule out a car for me – it was excellent. More than some of the bigger ones. Surely way more than the Compass. The top of the window line too was perceptibly higher and it did not feel cramped from that point of view. The base of the window line getting raised did block the outside a bit, but it wasn’t as bad as I had imagined. It felt more spacious than the Compass overall. Unlike the Hector, the ride on the back seat too wasn’t too different than the front in that short run.
Main II: The drive – Suspension, steering, control, NVH:
(As mentioned before, please bear in mind that the tyre-pressure was unknown, and my guess is that it was about 4-7 psi lower and will comment based on that, but I could easily be way off with that guess as it was my first time with this vehicle).
Taking it out of the cramped space wasn’t an issue. Almost felt at home. Into traffic, and as expected for a petrol the clutch feels lighter than the diesels tested till now. The clutch would engage quite far, and the release happened fairly quickly. Made me stall the car a couple of times. Gear shifts felt okay. The uneven roads on the way are handled rather well. Not the potholed kinds, but the regular broken city-roads we often get. A composed feeling without a needlessly hard suspension, I thought. Quite impressed. Now on a freer road for a bit, the suspension reveals itself differently. The road is wavy – the gradual up and down shift many roads have. The waviness can be felt a fair bit, and unlike most of the others. I don’t recollect feeling it in the Compass on the same road either. While not really bothersome, might be unwelcome for someone looking for pure comfort, where the Hector shone at city speeds.
We end up in the rush hour traffic; almost a jam. Easy to manage this one. Not too big, not too small, not too high, not too low – the size felt right for the city. What was revealing during the same was the traffic noise. The XUV700 felt a segment below the others. This felt a segment or more below the XUV700. The sound insulation was disappointing. The engine noise too came in a fair bit; quite a bit at higher RPMs, I thought later. Far from any sense of luxury. Though engine at high RPMs and traffic noise was much, it didn’t have harshness or an unrefined feel overall.
Now on freer roads again, yet again thankfully that the turn I like to test on is free. We pick pace. Rather urgently for what is only a 1.3 litre engine and hit the undulation and turn. It felt composed. Though I didn’t get the confidence I got in the XUV700 (on which I guess I was at higher speeds), but felt good enough and I was quite happy. The XUV700 felt more planted, I suppose due to the weight, and to it’s credit felt nimble enough. Where this one was a whole lot better than the XUV700 was the steering feel. Yes, the HPS (Hydraulic Power Steering)! It didn’t give me the game-like feel one got on the 700. Didn’t feel heavy to me at all (remember, I am used to a HPS from the Optra Magnum). It might have been more direct and sharper with proper tyre pressure. In the tested state, it surely wasn’t as sharp as the Compass. Like all the others test driven, this too didn’t really inform one of the road surface like a Linea might, but for practical daily driving I’d say that is a plus. Though very different from the excellent EPS on the Compass, it would be comparable in overall presentation.
Further in the drive, it is driven on a highly truncated route, further shortened with road blocks. One which allowed me to test it on a vacant small roundabout. While turning hard, I realize that this one didn’t understeer when pushed, and the tyres remained silent. Good? Probably not, as at a point, it felt that if really pushed it might not give enough warning before toppling over! (no, I didn’t push is anywhere close to that and kept well within normal safety limits). Very grippy. Low tyre pressure might have helped with better girp. The saving grace was the steering feel, which made one know when to ease off the accelerator and when it was getting closer to it’s limit. Felt like a sedan with a much raised centre of gravity. Could be dicey in a novice’s boy-racer’s hand, is thought which did cross my mind then.
The suspension overall, was a good balance of comfort and control, but also varied as explained in the wavy road part above. At no point did the car feel less controlled and one felt confident and at ease, except roundabout part mentioned above. It went though speed breakers with proper composure and acceptable comfort, even when the steering was a bit turned. Took bad roads and sharp corners well. The bodyroll was never bothersome. The ride though not plush, was generally fairly comfortable. Not particular agile (possibly due to low TP) but not slow to react either. The chassis-suspension combo was practical, and impressive with it’s balancing the two. Combined with the steering feel, as compared to the Optra Magnum: it felt a bit sharper in steering response, comparably composed at moderate speeds (though for an emergency, the Magnum scores way more due to it’s low centre of gravity), not as plush a ride, but almost a fair trade-off with the sharpness and quicker steering response it brought (am partly guessing it would be better with due tyre pressure). The ingress-egress too was fine. Had I found my mate? Had this thought with the XUV700 too, so I headed for the very same roads the suspension of the XUV700 was found wanting.
The same pothole, the very same colony poor roads with those 2”-4” unevenness, similar speeds – how does the Kicks perform? Superb! Totally composed. Took the unevenness with ease, as it had most that was thrown it’s way. The surprise, if at all, was how well they were handled (might be a bit different had the tyre pressure been higher). It made the XUV700 look bad. This also felt the kind which would be well suited to the highway, as for the hills and the city – comfort and control. Overall the suspension-chassis-steering felt closest to the Harrier; a bit like that in a smaller package. Based on the TDs, for highways alone, Harrier remains my pick; for city and hills, this would likely be more practical, quite like the Compass.
So, you might ask me: have you finally found your elusive ride, Poitive? Read on.
Main III : The engine and a bit more:
(A chance that the TD vehicle had issues, as the SA said that the service was overdue)
What I didn’t mention above to compartmentalize the drive experience was how the engine felt. Though I didn’t get the chance to really go flat out, it did much seem the kind to take a full straight acceleration run well quite like the YouTube video shared in the post before (link). It seemed pretty free revving too (wouldn’t compare it to the XUV700’s magic). Sounds good, eh? Sound! Well, it could be heard a lot more than one would want it to be. If one really revved it often, would be bothersome. Some just might enjoy it. To me, it didn’t have the somewhat enjoyable sound and feel of the Compass (diesel). Livable, but not appreciated. Though not tested properly, the brakes too felt about okay. Not impressive, but enough for the job. Possibly like the Harrier (both have front disc and rear drum setup).
The engine is one co-developed with Mercedes – 1330cc, 154bhp@5500 RPM, 254Nm@1600. (Jeep Compass petrol is 162bhp@5500, 250Nm@2500-4000 and heavier). Haven’t got proper figures but this is on a roughly 1.3 tonne vehicle. Sounds pretty good with ~118bhp/tonne. Optra Magnum was only ~88bhp/tonne. A good 30% higher (torque comparison is totally different story though). A figure comparison isn’t really fair, but this was just to give some context.
It was a big let-down, as I half expected, but was convincing myself that it would not be so after hearing such good words about turbo-petrols, the said video, and paper figures. Yes, certainly way better than what a 1.3NA engine would be, but the power is too peaky/spiked. That it’s peak torque was from 1600 rpm had raised expectations, but it felt quite dead under 2000 rpm. Somewhat picking up at 2500, and only really comfortable and enjoyable at 3000; or should I say 3500. It does pull cleanly thereon and pulls well for a 1.3 litre engine. 3500 is when the fun started, however what also happens at such rpms is that the car reacts sharply to any change in throttle even while reducing it, as engine braking has a bigger effect. Makes it tedious to drive around town. Might be good for that odd spin, or the avoidable boy-race between traffic which some enjoy, but not practical for daily runs. I’d have to constantly be too focused on the throttle to have an easy drive – a far cry from the 2 litre and above diesel engines it was being (unfairly) being compared to. Was it a whole lot of fun post 3000? Fun, yes; whole lot, no. Not after the Optra Magnum; not at all, in comparison. This was also a lot more noisy too. It might have been better if the engine had a lower peak power figure and maybe even a lower peak torque figure, but a better spread of torque across a wider range.
So, it was either too dull, lifeless, boring at lower rpms, or too peaky/spiked and always kept one a bit too alert and focused on the throttle management while being noisy and only moderately fun (for my case). Would give extremely poor FE at enjoyable RPMs too. At no point was it making a case for itself. Reminded me of the old adage: no replacement for displacement (though turbo petrols do certainly change that to an extent).
I got the answer I sought at the beginning: I didn’t need another TD. Alas, this one too was not for me.
Closing remarks:
With a chassis-suspension-steering steup like this, I think this could easily handle (with fine-tuning and some reinforcements, of course) a way bigger engine. A 1.6-2.0 diesel on this one would be good fun. Something like the Fiat 2.0 MJD could do magic for this setup. But with the increased price I doubt it would find enough takers, so one can somewhat understand Nissan not going for such. However, Nissan also seems to be rather confused as to whom the car is targeted towards. Makes half a case for many, but not enough of a case for most – the comfort driven buyer, the neighbour’s envy driven buyer, the gizmo and features driven buyer or the enthusiast. Or maybe, I am wrong about the last one. Like I said before, anyone wanting the Compass Petrol MT for it’s driving manners should at least TD this one. Similar engine specs, longer wheelbase and more space, well balanced ride and handling, way cheaper to own and maintain. If the engine makes you happy, there is much for an enthusiast to appreciate in this one; and yes, it has an HPS!
Nissan Kicks 1.3 turbo petrol – Summary:
(Please bear in mind the compromised nature of the test drive as elaborated in the full report)
- Well worked out practical cabin setup. Decent ergonomics. Impressive headroom on the rear bench.
- Practical size for the city. More spacious than Compass etc. Lowish top of windscreen height. High enough top of window, especially at the rear.
- Enjoyable Hydraulic steering. Good feel. Enthusiasts could appreciate this dying tribe; typical buyer might find it ‘heavy’, especially if used to a light EPS.
- Excellent suspension-chassis setup. Appears good enough to take a way more powerful engine.
- Suspension-chassis-steering setup should feel very good for city, highway drives and even hills. Good comfort and control.
- Engine, a big let-down for me. Doesn’t do justice to the overall enthusiast setup. Didn’t feel practical either (for sheer practicality the 1.5NA just might be better).
- The immensely peaky spread of torque (power) and it coming at a high rpm was bothersome for regular use. Suitable power came late for a turbo (around 3-3.5k RPM), and it was noisy then. The engine and it’s tuning didn’t agree with me.
- The high rpm engine noise and traffic noise was bothersome, however it didn’t feel harsh.
- If you find the engine to your taste, it just might be the car you missed out considering, especially if you enjoyed the Jeep Compass Petrol for it’s driving manners and didn’t want to spend for it. (Note: I make the Jeep Compass remarks based on paper specs of the petrol model and having tried out the Compass Diesel on long test drives, so please consider opinions accordingly).
Keyword: Thoughts & driving impression: Nissan Kicks turbo petrol MT