Thursday, January 26, 2017

Price battle of the new Hybrids: Nissan Rogue Vs.Kia Niro


The new hybrid version of the familiar Nissan Rogue starts at $26 240 (only $1000 more than the base non-hybrid model)
While the all new Niro starts at $22 900.

Sure, the Rogue is a bit larger. Although not that much roomier. (I sat in both)
Cargo behind the front seats is 26.7 Cubic Feet.
While the Niro tops at 25.5 with the rear seats up.
So just a small difference.

But... Gas mileage is very different. And that's why people buy Hybrids.
The Rogue is rated at 33City/35Hwy.
While the much more efficient Niro gets up to 52 City and 49Hwy.
Quite an amazing difference.
For about $3000 less.

I also like the cleaner look of the Niro better. But that's a personal taste.

And, I know, the Niro competes more with the new smaller Rogue Sport than the regular model.
Stil, I think many people will check both the Rogue and Niro when shopping for a compact Hybrid crossover.
It's not like there are that many choices anyway.

What do you think?



16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Niro is smaller by far. If there were a hybrid rogue sport or Qashqai then you have a closer comparison and a fairer one. Plus Kia is garbage

Anonymous said...

The Niro recently set the Guinness world record for fuel mileage. The Nissan junk shouldn't even be compared as it hardly beats any new gasoline only vehicles.

Anonymous said...

It's not like there ARE that many choices anyway.

Anonymous said...

IMO, hybrids are not worth it if you are buying them specifically for their fuel efficiency.
I sat in an Niro two days ago in a local stealership in Florida. Not bad but I cannot pass the front, very cheap look in person.

Also, I agreed that Kia is a Kia, meaning they are not at the same level of a Honda or Toyota workmanship. You'll take a huge hit in a trade down the road. Trust me on that, I just traded a Kia Sportage.
At the end of the day I'll pay less up front and more in gas but I would rather buy a none hybrid, unless I was commuting all the time and putting lots of miles on it.
I'm currently in the middle of buying a 2017 CRV and I would say with confidence that I will pass on the Niro.

And I know, I know they're different animals...

Doug F said...

The Niro is only front drive, so it's really just a slightly taller wagon/hatchback, NOT a real crossover (I guess it's come to that now). So they are hardly competitors in the market.

Steven M said...

Niro is FWD only is what I heard. I could be wrong, but that would account for the price gap

Anonymous said...

They are both snooze material, but, if you have to choose between the two, pick the Kia, just because it's more efficient (which is the whole point of buying a hybrid). The Nissan seems rather pointless; it's the Jack off all trades, but the master of none.

Anonymous said...

Nissan is quite inferior when it comes to hybrid technology. So Nissan patches up their hybrid system with licensed (borrowed) technology from Toyota. In fact, name any hybrid model in the industry, regardless the manufacturer (yes, even Ford), their hybrid system mostly (more THAN 80%) uses patents originating from Toyota. Kia/Hyundai is the ONLY other company (beside Toyota) that have their own hybrid technology.

Unknown said...

Although being smaller, as a tall person the Niro is more spacious upfornt, with a sleeker dash and less intrusive center console. Build quality is also surprisingly good, though color choices are limited to coall mine mix of balck and grey unfortunately. Main gripe is that is indeed rather low, missing the 2high up" seating position of the Rogue (X-Trail here in Europe) and other Cross overs, mianly due to smaller wheels and lower ride height (both likely due to it#s hybrid only nature).

Anotehr upcoming alternative will be the Toyta C-HR, which I find very sleek in the flesh, and in the European version with a very high quality interior too. Sure, the car is smaller inside than both above, but does have the proven Prius drive train, and isn't much more expensive than the Niro. So at least ther is a little choice.

Anonymous said...

Given the high demand for compact suv's, the fact that the Niro is in a league by itself in terms of MPG and its
low price, I think this will be a home run for KIA.

Anonymous said...

poor comparison

Look at them said...

putting aside all the arguments about efficiency, resale value and size -- the Nero is a far better-looking design. Clean, lean, coherent, beautiful proportions. The Rogue is over-inflated, with that awkward Nissan front fender bulge. Not ugly, per se, but not particularly attractive.

one lung runner said...

Volt owner (who's lost access to home plugin) with new back issues I'm looking for a more comfortable seating/position and fuel economy. Volt resale value sucks. I've test driven the '17 CRV and sat in the new Niro. Both have excellent seating.

The Rogue should have more boot space behind the rear seat. Kia sacrificed some boot space to give more leg room in the back seats.

There's nothing wrong with Nissan's hybrid tech. The Rogue weighs 500 lbs more than the Niro and a couple hundred more than the CR-V. Power is a differentiator too; 0-60 speeds: CR-V - 7.5 sec, Rogue 9.1 and Niro 11.1. Relative to the regular Rogue the hybrid gets a significant boost in fuel economy.

AWD on the Rogue hybrid is expensive which makes it comparable to the RAV4 in price.

Panoramic sunroof comes with the tech package, so you can get a well equipped Rogue for $30k. A similar Niro with tiny sunroof runs $29K but should be on lots in a couple weeks.

Vince Burlapp said...

Yes, that tiny sunroof does suck. But at least its something...
I am curious about the upcoming Hyundai Ioniq pricing.
Which should be lower than the Niro. (And would compete better with the Volt/Prius)

Anonymous said...

In terms of bodystyle, I agree it will get the inevitable comparisons. But I think the Niro will appeal more to prior Prius faithful... a little more room, comparable fuel economy....

As for the suggestion that there's only Kia and Toyota in this game... that person hasn't considered Honda. Honda was out to lunch for a long time, but they have their own tech and a POV. And, recently, a resurgence in interest in making better cars. I fully expect that the CRV hybrid is in planning, and an HRV hybrid (already available in the JDM) will be following. Honda is still putting their Japanese operations back together after so many disasters, natural and self-made. Don't count them out of this hunt.

I believe the Niro has the potential to excite the entire market.

one lung runner said...

Honda ('17 CR-V), Kia (Niro) and Hyundai (Ioniq) have all invested in using grades of high-strength steel/aluminum to lighten the weight. Honda basically has the CR-V electrical/hybrid ready. The Rogue not so much; no real excuse for that except dragging out product life cycles. If you can use more expensive light weight materials in a $20K Ioniq, then the Rogue could have done it.

The only downside for the CR-V is the small turbo is a bit inefficient for real world city driving MPG. The upcoming CX-5 is reportedly to be Skyactiv 2 ready which will put a lot of pressure on other companies to step up their fuel economy game; we'll have to watch the Mazda 3 Skyactiv 2 role out ('19?) to see how impressive it is and if it really get 30% mpg gains (city/hwy).