Skip to main content
HOME   |   ABOUT   |   NEWS   |   TECH ARTICLES   |   AT THE TRACK   |   REVIEWS   |   VIDEOS   |   CONTACT ME

Nissan Juke NISMO - A Closer Look




I couldn't help but remember the less than worthy cars Chevy put the SS moniker on in the mid 2000's. The Cobalt SS and Traiblazer SS were great performance cars in their respective classes but the Malibu and Impala simply weren't. Nissan seems to want to cash in on the NISMO name the same way Chevy did with the SS moniker - by making more NISMO models. This is even worse, though, because of fact that the SS had an even longer heritage that is harder to tarnish with a couple of bad models. Here's the first example: the Nissan Juke NISMO. It will start at $23,780 for a FWD with a manual and $26,080 or an AWD with a CVT ($24,998 and $28,478 in Canada).




So what is more sporty about this NISMO model? Well, you get a whopping 9 hp over the run-of-the-mill Jukes. On the outside, you still get the polarizing body but with a racy "aerodynamic body kit" (according to the website) and 18" wheels wrapped in Continental ContiSportContact5 tires that are 10 mm wider than the rest of the Juke trims. The package is available with FWD or AWD and a 6-speed manual or CVT automatic, but it's not that simple. If you want a manual to avoid the fun-killing CVT, you're stuck with FWD and it doesn't have a limited slip differential. If you want to avoid the FWD with an open differential, you're stuck with a CVT. You do get NISMO shocks and springs that are 10% stiffer and the body kit is supposed to be good for a 37% increase in downforce, although owners probably won't be going fast enough to take advantage of that.




I'm not sure what the point of this car is. The Juke isn't a sales success because the exterior has a love-it-or-hate-it design and (unfortunately for Nissan) it's a hate-it for most people. The ground clearance isn't enough to make it a useful off-roader and the NISMO is even lower. The body style makes it less useful than a sub-compact hatchback like the Chevy Sonic, with both the seats up or down. The Chevy Sonic has 19.0 cu.ft. behind the second row of seats and 47.7 cu.ft of cargo space with the seats folded down vs 10.5 cu.ft and 35.9 cu.ft. for the Juke. It's stuck somewhere between a crossover and a hatchback that makes it less useful than either (i.e. taking the cons of each class and leaving the pros). The NISMO treatment is far from sporty enough to attract new customers to the Juke or build more credibility for the NISMO name, which will be applied to more models in the future. What purpose does it serve?

When Motor Trend reviewed it, they also struggled to find a purpose for it. They suggested that for "those buyers who love the Juke despite its quirkiness, the NISMO variant gives them a sportier option" with a sporty bodykit, a hint of added performance and an affordable price. So there you go, the Juke NISMO is for those who already love and buy the Juke but would appreciate a new trim with a (very) little hint of added sportiness in looks and feel. They would have to overlook cars like the Ford Focus ST, the upcoming Fiesta ST and other hot hatches on the market, though.

Source: Nissan


Comments







Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.






Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.




🔥 Most Visited This Week

Michelin Pilot Super Sports vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 - Street Review

I've been a huge fan of Michelin PSS tires and exclusively bought them for the Mustang over the last four years. So how did I end up here? This year, I was hugely interested in trying an "R-comp" tire. I had my eyes set on Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's for two simple reasons: price and reputation. Although not a true "R-comp" tire on paper, it performs like one by the account of every single test and review I've read (down to wear rates...). They seem like they're easily the most affordable (from a big brand) R-comp tire and combine that with a reputation for having tons of grip, it was an easy top contender. I had my concerns, though. For one, I'm told and have read that they are an autox tire, not really designed for high speed, pressure, and temps associated with open track. For another, the Mustang is a heavy car (as far as track cars are concerned) being roughly 3,800 lb. (including driver), which will amplify the unwanted open track load...

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's vs Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's

I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one. The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would ...

2016 Mustang EcoBoost Track Review

Photography by: Graham MacNeil Ford really wants to sell you a Mustang with a turbo four cylinder. They started by derating the V6 engine in the 2015 S550 compared to the 2011-2014 S197 V6 to make the EcoBoost 2.3 litre more differentiated. Then, they offered a performance pack on the EcoBoost but not on the V6. Now, they killed the V6 all together for 2018 and will only sell you a V8 or this EcoBoost. I love a good V8, everyone who knows me knows that. This is a Mustang, which means it needs a V8. If those aren't enough reasons, I always prefer natural aspiration over forced induction. That's three strikes against the EcoBoost-powered Mustang. But I'd be lying if I said the idea never intrigued me. It's the lightest (if you account for features). It has the best weight distribution. It has the same great chassis as the GT. It's very affordable and it has a lot of potential to make more power. Aftermarket? Endless support. There's plenty of good about it....

2004 Audi TT 3.2 Quattro DSG Track Review

Before getting into this, I have to confess something... I had never driven an Audi TT before. Not until this one, anyway. But that hasn't stopped me from forming an opinion about it from the comforts of my own couch while reading and watching reviews online. After all, if you've never done that, do you even know what the point of the internet is? Now, we all interpret reviews differently. Call it confirmation bias if you will, but if you like a car, you'll read a review and look at the positives as what makes the car great and the negatives are but a few quibbles you have to live with. If you don't like a car, the positives are a few things the manufacturer got right while screwing up everything else. It's a bit harsh to put the TT in the latter category, but that's where it ended up for me... I never took the TT seriously. The problem with the TT for me isn't that it's a Golf underneath, per se. There is nothing wrong with a performance car sharing a...