Sometimes, true value can be hard to find. Very rarely does one product consistently stand out as a great deal. But it does happen from time to time. Even in the hyper competitive TV market this is happening; critics can’t stop raving about the quality and price of the TCL 6-Series, an HDTV from a little known but quickly growing Chinese company. The Nissan Kicks seems to be making similar waves on the internet. And it may even be a better value than its television counterpart.
In my first post covering the 2018 NY International Auto Show, I had this to say about Nissan’s smallest crossover:
The Kicks is basically a sub-subcompact crossover. Does that mean it’s smaller than a Rogue Sport? Not really. It’s about three inches shorter than a Rogue Sport, an inch and a half thinner, and the wheelbase is exactly one inch shorter than its bigger brother. Historically, such similarly sized dimensions generally meant that an automaker would look at the specs and decide there was only room for one of these products in their lineup. But Nissan clearly has a strategy here.
That strategy involves Nissan selling the Kicks at a substantially cheaper price than its competitors. And it seems like pretty much no one expected it.
Over at Car And Driver, John Huffman liked the Kicks for its cheap base price and compelling features but ultimately he came away feeling a bit underwhelmed by the crossover. He believes that this type of car is representative of the era in which it was conceived. Not really a bad thing, but its lasting appeal is suspect.
Scott Evans at Motor Trend also recognized the Kicks as a vehicle that may have an expiration date due to its trendiness. Although his conclusion was that it doesn’t really matter, as the car succeeds on the merits, and comes with a sound system that punches well above its weight.
Scott went so far as to declare the optional Bose sound system as superior to the stereo system in a Bentley Bentayga. Those integrated headrest speakers apparently enhance the music listening experience quite significantly.
So the establishment automotive publications seem to think this Kicks is worth a look. Why is it so compelling? Consider the base S trim. Here are the key standard features on every model: a 7 inch touch-screen with Bluetooth, three USB ports, and Automatic Emergency Braking with Forward Collision Warning. For an additional $2700, the SV trim adds Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, Blind Spot Monitoring, and Nissan’s keyless ignition system with push button start.
If forced to buy a Kicks, I would opt for the SR trim with the Premium Package and add reverse sensors as an accessory. Checking every box in the accessory section will add thousands to the base price of the Nissan. But the Kicks still comes out cheaper than the competition in pretty much every way.
The Renegade Limited has an MSRP of $27,240. Even at that price you’d still need to purchase several packages to match the Kicks in feature content. Jeep customers would have to opt for the Advanced Technology Group ($995) to get automatic emergency braking, automatic headlights, and reverse sensors. They’d also have to add the Safety & Security Group ($895) for features like blind spot monitoring, upgraded headlamps, and a security system. And the Beats Premium Audio System ($695) is also necessary to achieve content parity with the Nissan. All that adds up to a grand total of $29,825 for the Renegade. That is about $7,400 more expensive than a similarly equipped Kicks.
Even when subtracting current Jeep incentives and the added cash value of four wheel drive ($1700), the Nissan still comes in about $1,100 cheaper. And that is before any rebate or special offer Nissan throws at potential Kicks buyers.
The closest Honda equivalent to the Kicks seems to be the HR-V EX-L with navigation. At first glance, its $25,140 MSRP seems more reasonable than the Jeep and not too much of a penalty to pay for Honda’s legendary reliability.
While the highest tier HR-V gets an auto dimming rear view mirror and navigation, which aren’t available on the Nissan, it lacks other features that make the Kicks compelling. Android Auto/Apple CarPlay? Nope! Not available. Automatic braking, blind spot warning, and reverse sensors? The Honda sales person can direct you to a CR-V instead.
The Kicks even uh, “kicks” (sorry) up the intra-company competition a notch when compared to the Nissan Rogue Sport. As far as I can tell, the $27,190 for the North American Qashqai gets you navigation, but no other features that make the additional expenditure compelling. Although there are subjective reasons why shoppers might gravitate toward a Rogue Sport, like styling, comfort, and overall refinement. But are those reasons worth almost $5,000?
| Make/Model | Length/Width/Wheelbase (inches) | Front Head Room/ Rear Headroom (inches) | Leg Room Front/Rear (inches) | Hip Room Front/Rear (inches) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nissan Kicks | 169.1/ 69.3/ 103.1 | 40.7/ 38.5 | 43.7/ 33.2 | 50.9/ 49.1 |
| Nissan Rogue Sport (Qashqai) | 172.4/ 72.3/ 104.2 | 39.6/ 38.3 | 42.8/ 33.4 | 53.4/ 46.9 |
| Jeep Renegade | 166.6/ 79.6/ 101.2 | 41.1/ 40.5 | 41.2/ 35.1 | 53.1/ 51.9 |
| Honda HR-V | 169.1/ 69.8/ 102.8 | 39.5/ 38.3 | 41.2/ 39.3 | 53.1/ 47.4 |
And I’m sure some of you thought the Kicks would have one glaring issue: interior space. But that is simply not the case here. While the other subcompact crossovers have more width, which leads to better hip room, the Kicks either beats all the other models on the chart or is decently competitive with them. And the Kicks has more cargo capacity behind the second row than the Honda and the Rogue Sport. This Nissan is an HR-V killer.
In his review of the Kicks, Alex Dykes very succinctly sums up the advantages of the Nissan in relation to the competition:
“…we actually find a cargo area that is a little bit bigger than the Honda HR-V and a rear seat passenger area that is definitely more accommodating than the average subcompact crossover. The Mazda CX-3 is an awful lot of fun to drive but the rear passenger area and the cargo area are awfully small. The Honda HR-V has a very premium feeling interior but its going to cost you twenty to thirty percent more. The Kia Soul is a very practical, very square box but it’s not going to get the kind of fuel economy we get out of this model.”
Is the Kicks perfect? No. Its probably not the most refined entry in its segment. It notably lacks adaptive cruise control, all wheel drive, and other features that might turn some customers away. And its interior is a bit spartan. But it undercuts the competition by thousands of dollars without giving up interior space, cargo capacity, fuel economy, or 0-60 performance.
So the next time you read about an automaker culling its sedan lineup, it would be wise to think about the Kicks, which provides a substantive value for shoppers looking for a vehicle in the $19,000-$22,000 price range.
Amazing how SUV’s, CUV’s, crossovers, etc have taken off!!
In truth, aren’t these surrogate station wagons for men????
No, they’re surrogate station wagons for women, who have long been the biggest proponents of the high seating position in marketing studies
Good point. It then “raises” a question. Are we seeing the female population taking over, or is it just that the natural 50/50 split now reducing the bias towards males in the automotive world? I actually think that it is the former, not the latter. Historically, we have seen a complete lack of any catering to the desires of the female buyers, or misogynistic versions of “girls cars” (with the Dodge La Femme being the most egregious example I can think of). We know that many cars have carried the “chick car” designation, but rarely was that acknowledged or designed by the manufacturers. However, with the changes we see today, it makes sense. According to a quick search online:
“Women now outnumber men in number of licenses held and they are buying an increasing percentage of all vehicles sold. They play a huge role in the purchase decisions of vehicles even when their name isn’t on the registration. The oft- quoted statistic is that 85% of car buying decisions are influenced by women.”
With those numbers, no wonder SUVs/CUVs are overtaking sedans. I even think it affects truck sales, too. One sees a lot of females owning and driving those pickups we often call “bro-dozers”. Then, take into consideration the number of women now in upper management of the manufacturers, and it helps decode the changes we are seeing now. Maybe it’s not the Millenials driving the changes after all, it’s actually all due to females….LOL.
Another factor is the sales axiom that it’s easier to sell a macho car to women than a “chick car” to men.
“Another factor is the sales axiom that it’s easier to sell a macho car to women than a “chick car” to men.”
How exactly is a CUV ‘macho’? Is it the rinky dink fwd layout favored by most, is it the laughable off-pavement ability, the plastic bodywork everywhere, the huge rims and rubberband tires, or the tiny wheezy little engines? I mean, maybe compared to a total zero like a midsize sedan..but what’s that saying? There are a few SUVs that still have some beef, (4Runner, Grand Cherokee) but theyre niche vehicles at this point.
I’ve heard 60% of car purchases.
But, to me full size 4-door trucks are today’s Electra/Marquis/New Yorker, symbol to of “… if my friends could see me now”*
*Was used as tagline for Olds ads around 1970, and worked.
Movie “Ordinary People”, upper class parents drove Olds 88 and 98. Today, they’d have Toyota Tundra [dad] and Lexus RX CUV [mom].
I believe the 60% is the total sales, the 85% is “influenced the decision to buy”.
Yes, trucks are taking over in “near luxury”, to the detriment of sedans. Who would have imagined in 1972 that a pickup would be the first choice of an upwardly mobile middle aged man?
A 2016 study by Experian showed that of the top 15 vehicles with the most female-skewed owner registrations, all but two were CUVs (those two, surprise, surprise, were the VW Beetle and EOS).
Actually designing and selling an intended “chick car” has proven difficult; most attempts to make a car that would be popular with women hit the market with a thud; it doesn’t help that often (as with the aforementioned Dodge LaFemme) the car reflected male product planner’s ideas of what women wanted in their cars). And conversely, most of the cars that did become popular chick cars like the Golf Cablioret were complete accidents and never intended as such.
If you buy the Kicks, add a couple of thousand for an extended warranty with a zero dollar deductible, because if past trends are any factor, you will go through the original AND the replacement CVT at or before you hit 100,000 miles. And I went to Nissan and built one, you can’t get a stick or a conventional transmission with, you know, actual gears.
The last Nissan CVT to have any issues was the Pathfinder, because they didn’t beef it up enough to handle the extra weight and people hauling.
Sentras, Altimas & Maximas haven’t had CVT issues since before 2005, maybe time to update your cliches….
I’d be kind of surprised to hear about CVT issus in the Sentra, Altima, or Maxima before 2005 because none of those cars had a CVT until 2006-2007ish.
Nissan has been selling CVTs in the US since 2002, the point still stands regardless of the model: over a decade of reliability in each and people still just go “no, garbage, I heard…”
Opinion…can you back this up with any facts/stats?
https://www.nissanversaforums.com/gtsearch.php?q=cvt
Over 3,000 results for ‘CVT’ vs. 790 for ‘automatic’ and 85 for ‘five speed’
And those are just in the Versa blog I belong to. No telling what the Sentra and Altima blogs say… But there are posts regularly by people who start having problems way too early. It sounds like Honda’s Odyssey’s transmission woes – which my last roommate experienced herself and it cost her a bundle.
How much time did you waste on this bizarre, anecdotal (non) evidence?
People searching about issues does not equal real world percentages, they sell hundreds of thousands of cars, some are going to break.
You can go to any brand forum, type in any part, and get 100s of results. Hondas, Toyotas, Fords, everything. Do you think there are forums where people just go post: “Nothing today, still working 100%”
Show me a Consumer Reports, Truedelta etc breakdown of actual statistical problems.
It’s not just me or ‘wasted time’ at one website, dude.
http://www.nissanproblems.com/trends/cvt/
https://www.carcomplaints.com/Nissan/Altima/2014/transmission/shudders_and_jerks.shtml
The CVTs have a deservedly bad reputation compared to typical automatics and I would NOT buy a car with one. For example, the 2013 Altima typically fails at 60,000 miles.
“Typically”… Again, with no citation or statistical results.
And you really cite the first Google Ad result of a lemon lawsuit firm redirecting website? That same page literally exists for every make of car.
Here’s one for the Prius, literally the most reliable car in the world.
http://m.carcomplaints.com/Toyota/Prius/
Look at the that! The Prius must be garbage…
You obviously have a negative opinion of Nissan CVTs, with no sort experience, but please don’t post links to banner ad type websites and expect that to add to your position.
The one Nissan we owned with a CVT (2004 model Murano) had the warranty extended by Nissan to at least 100k miles (might even have been 120k, but I can’t recall offhand). Never had any issues with it, car is still on the road today (with someone else). Most issues with CVT’s have to do with too much power being routed through them in conjunction with too much weight being hauled around. I doubt the Kicks has either issue.
I love the looks of the Kicks. And the colours. But does it make more sense than getting the Versa it’s based upon?
For Nissan, hell yes! Similar cost to produce either, yet the Kicks list at $17,990 and the Versa lists at $12,110. The Kicks has a better chance of getting upgrades and options added versus the Versa, which usually is purchased as the budget-mobile. $5K more for basically the same car? Which would you want to sell?
For buyers, sense rarely enters the buying proposition. A car is one of the largest purchases one can make, yet it is often either an impulse purchase or a vanity choice over objective needs.
I’m not a big fan of buying cars for image, but I will say that subcompact sedans don’t really project a professional or “grown-up” image, which can be important in a lot of lines of work.
I can’t say the last time I saw someone driving a Versa (or for that matter a Fit, Yaris or Mirage) between the ages of 20-60. Everyone who’s not a teenager or retiree tends to go for CUVs or larger sedans.
One of the more respected and senior engineers at my work drove only versas. His wife and daughter also drove them. Here is a guy at the top of his field and he buys the cheapest car in America. Know why? Because he uses logic and reasoning to purchase vehicles. So something like this lifted Versa – for $5000 more – just wouldn’t rationalize out.
I should also say that he was able to retire in comfort at 57 years of age.
“I’m not a big fan of buying cars for image”
And it still didn’t prevent a holier-than-thou comment…
It all depends on what logic and reasoning you use, I suppose. If he wanted the cheapest way to get to work that may be one of the better choices. Although the Prius may have been even better in hindsight if value vs cost is part of the equation. If safety is a top priority, a Versa likely wouldn’t have done the job. It sort of sounds like he went for the lowest sticker price as his main logic reason.
What did he drive prior? The Versa hasn’t been around all that long.
Compared to a Versa Note, the Kicks has better safety equipment (automatic emergency braking), better infotainment, a more comfortable driving position for tall people (telescopic steering column and a more upright driving position), and a bigger cargo area. Rear leg room is less. I’d say the price difference is justified on those grounds. I couldn’t speak to the Versa sedan as it isn’t sold in my country.
Do they sell the Tiilda or Micra there?
This is the first I have heard of these. It seems like now that Hyundai and Kia are in the process of abandoning the bargain basement segment there is room for someone else. I wonder two things: Can Nissan make any money on this car, and will it hold up for any length of time. I guess we will all find out.
Hyundai just introduced the Kona in this same segment and Kia’s Niro Hybrid is “sort of” a competitor as well. Plenty of people seem to think the only difference between a small hatchback and a CUV is a longer shock and taller springs while selling for $5k more so I think Nissan’ll be fine…(i.e. Fit vs HRV, Versa vs Kicks, etc).
Future Curbside Classic? How? How is this any different from the dozens of other box standard crossovers crowding the streets? Its got lots of neat tech, that I’m sure wont be dated in a year or two… Why not buy something that has some longevity?
This competes with the C-HR & HR-V and it replaces the Juke.
Compared to those 3, this is as timelessly styled as a Volvo 240….
The interesting trend here is the rise of small, inexpensive crossover-y things that don’t offer AWD, like the Kia Soul, Toyota C-HR*, and now the Kicks. They’re not even pretending these are off-road-capable SUVs anymore.
* Had I not checked first I would have called it the CH-R rather than C-HR, just like Automobile magazine and a whole bunch of Toyota dealers in their ads. When even the dealers can’t keep the alphabet-soup monikers straight, you know it’s time to go back to real names.
Toyota already has the perfect name for it, one they’ve used on a non-lifted and cladded wagon in Japan for years. Corolla Fielder.
This dovetails nicely with the Wonder Woman 1984 discussion.
Between cheap pricing, trendy styling, zero enthusiast appeal and that ticking-time-bomb CVT, the Kicks has all the ingredients of a car that’ll be absolutely everywhere for a while and then disappear seemingly overnight about 10 years after the last one’s built. The Chevette or K-Car of the late 2010s/early 2020s, if you will. Future movies set in this era will be distinguished by a complete lack of Nissan Kickses(?) because even the studio-rental companies won’t be able to find one by 2050 or so.
Although I suppose by then they’ll be able to CGI one cost-effectively.
Here’s a 10 year old Nissan with a CVT, cheap and no enthusiast appeal. Have they all disappeared yet? Or are there tens of thousands still on the road?
On the plus side, film studios of the future will be able to save money by filming 2020 car scenes in black & white since the cars won’t look any different than they do in color 🙂
Even as someone who enjoys CUVs but doesn’t care for subcompact CUVs (I’ve never sat in a compact and thought, “You know what this needs? Less room and not much better MPG”), it is an important segment for everyone to have a competitor in.
Really, Nissan’s problem isn’t the Kicks, it’s that they have two compacts in both the Qashqai-based Rogue Sport and the X-Trail-based Rogue. What’s the point of the Rogue Sport? They’re also one of the few marques to have both a 2-row midsize and a 3-row midsize CUV (Murano and Pathfinder), and unlike Hyundai, those two don’t share any body parts.
Seems like the newest CUV’s are getting “longer, lower, wider”, almost like compact wagons. Hmmm?
So the Motor Trend article makes mention of the Rogue when comparing the size of the Kicks. However Nisan has a small CUV, the Puke……er…Juke. This is much better looking then that pile of steaming crap so this might steal Juke sales.
I would rather have the Versa Note over this as I like the Note a lot
I believe this is supposed to replace the Juke.
OK, I was wondering where the Juke would fit into the lineup since this seems to be in the same size and price range. It certainly resolves the main dilemma with the Juke, that is, it doesn’t look as weird and seems more practical. I think Nissan used the Kicks (Kix) name on another SUV that looked like a rebadged Suzuki Jimny or Mitsubishi Pajero Jr.
This is an absolute downgrade from the Juke. The Juke isn’t ‘pretty’ but at least attempted some coupe like styling cues and threw enthusiasts a bone with available turbo, manual and AWD, even if all 3 couldn’t be had at once. This thing breaks no new ground, ends up looking both worse and more boring at the same time and offers less. Fail.
Here in Europe we are sticking with the Juke and it is even getting the Bose sound system with the headrest speakers
Well, I think you are the first person to think this looks WORSE than the Juke…I think it’s slightly (or a lot) more mainstream than the Juke, seems to have what it needs to compete against the others in the segment , the price is certainly very right, and the job of the auto manufacturer is to sell cars and make money doing so. This seems to have it ALL OVER the Ford EcoSport and is a lot less dorky looking than FCA’s entry, the Renegade. I’ve driven a Renegade off road, it was impressive for what it is, but for 99.9% of buyers, the Renegade’s capability is a useless expense. Hardly fail, I give this a solid A. Let’s see how the sales volume is compared to the Juke after a year.
Jim, you just made my point for me: The Juke is controversial, and takes some risks. Im not all in on it myself, but love it or hate it you definitely notice it, and properly equipped it could be a fun little ride. On love it or hate it things, I tend to love them. This turd is total bland vanilla. Mainstream, as you said…and for my tastes that pretty much ensures Ill hate it passionately.
It is priced to be a lower entry than the Juke. A Juke MSRP started around 22 or 23 if memory serves me correct in 2017(last year for it). A loaded up,heavily optioned SL Juke AWD could hit 30k before rebates and discounts. This one easily getting under 20 puts it square into Sentra pricing territory which is a huge win for Nissan. Seeing people walk out of a showroom due to a lack of small crossovers is what drives brands to put out stuff like this. The consumer demands…and within 3-5 years of asking…they shall receive…
The push for CUV/SUV is pretty hilarious or at least ironic. US auto buyers have traditionally shunned hatchbacks yet here they are, buying these XL/XXL hatchbacks. No surprise as American sedan drivers, accustomed to soft, quiet boredom, who rarely think of winding roads as fun, are experiencing something that is jaunty-fun to drive and easier to enter.
The difference between this and the Rogue Sport is pricing, AWD availability and build quality.
The Rogue Sport is much better built than the Kicks.
I’d say equipment as well. I don’t see a sunroof option on the Kicks nor power seats.
Versa Note is going to go away very soon. This is a better buy for just a little bit more. Sentra budget for a crossover with popular tech seems like a winning recipe for success. CVT bashing is becoming so common but yet more and more brands are jumping on the bandwagon. When Nissan started using them in NA they were just starting to recover from a bad time. Now fast forward and brands like Honda/Toyota are using CVT’s all the time. Nissan has nearly 10 percent market share…So I ask…why the CVT bashing? ALL kinds of transmissions can fail and have failed…regardless of brand…Help me understand?
I’d say the first reason people bash CVTs online is just an extension of “Save the Manuals”, ie, they have to insist on the most traditional automotive setups so no one dares question their enthusiast credentials. An update of the anti-Turbo “No Replacement for Displacement” crowd. Luddites, basically.
The second reason is early CVTs were in fact, just bad, for both driveabilty and reliability. The cliche gripe of “rubberband” feeling applied then, and hasn’t stopped being used online since. If someone says “I don’t like CVTs because they feel terrible”, then they’d probably also complain about Hyundais being unreliable. In other words, they set their opinion 15 years ago and haven’t updated it for today’s reality. A new Subaru, Honda, Nissan etc with a CVT drives as nice as any traditional automatic, but with added efficiency gains.
In fairness to we of the anti-CVT mindset, remember the Ford Freestyle from just over 10 years ago. Dis-freaking-zaster of a transmission. I keep reading about how everyone is improving them, and I hope it is true. But I am still leery of them in larger, heavier cars. And you are right, Honda, Chrysler and some others have had plenty of trouble building decent automatics of the regular kind.
That is sad, the Versa Note was fun to drive and quite roomy for a small car. I actually enjoyed my time in one a lot.
The early CVT transmissions were junk. Not well built and prone to issues. But that was about 10 years ago. Now a CVT transmission in Nissan vehicles is seen as reliable. I would not hesitate to own one. Once you get over the go kart like feel of the CVT (no feelable shifts) then all is good. My first time driving a CVT trans car, I was a little disconcerted because I could not feel it shift but now, it is fine.
The ones in the Ford Five Hundred sucked and were not able to take the power of the engine in that car so they blew up.
Just another bland, boring CUV. Nothing to see here.
Sorry – I only support American brands.
If I didn’t, I’d never have anything Nissan makes anyway.
Just returned from Florida, and Nissan is the rental car brand.
So these should be saturating the rental car industry in another year or two.
So, what American brands and models do you support?
Tragic. 20-25 years ago Nissan built some of the world’s most exciting sedans (for the price and reliability). Remember the four-door sports car? The B13 Sentra SE-R was a blast, the A32 (95-99) Cefiro/Maxima/I30t was exquisite. I still think the preceding J30 (89-94) Maxima was ahead of its time and one of the most beautiful sedans Nissan ever made. All low, sleek cars with manual transmissions, fantastic engines, and great handling. Unfortunately, those cars weren’t making Nissan any money, and Ghosn turned them around to financially viable. But it meant making boring cars to do it.
Should be interesting to see how these age over the next decade or so and then really surprising when the first one start hitting the junkyard for reasons other than collision damage. Already I am seeing circa 2005 Nissans showing up in the junkyard more and more.
I thought it was fairly obvious this is Nissan’s way to take on not so much the small crossovers, but more specifically the lower end Kia Soul. The pricing on this Nissan is smack on top of the lower Soul range; $18-23k is the full Nissan price spread. A Soul with a similar output 1.6 will span $17-20k, yet more power and equipment in the + starts again at $22k, right where the Rogue Sport starts. I wouldn’t blame Nissan here, since Kia sold 115,000 Souls last year alone.