The Nissan Juke: We Talk About It

  • Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 605 comments
  • 66,901 views
I think it's ugly as all get out. I also disapprove of Nissan's mission to install CVTs in ALL the cars! I'm surprised they haven't yet ruined the 370Z with one of those...

The Juke-R, on the other hand, manages to look slightly more right. Of course, I hate SUVs that can't go offroad anyway.
 
My point is, why would you get one of these when it doesn't do anything an equivalent-sized hatchback or wagon couldn't do just as well or better?

Depends on a person's taste in cars. Some people like SUV's but don't want something huge that doesn't fit in their garage and/or guzzles gas.
 
Those people still wouldn't get the juke. An SUV without the size and utility is a piece of crap. That's what the juke is if you're looking for anything more than something quirky/fun/different. There's no room in the front, rear, or the trunk. Even if you want the high driving position, the juke doesn't do that too well either.
 
eSZee
Those people still wouldn't get the juke. An SUV without the size and utility is a piece of crap. That's what the juke is if you're looking for anything more than something quirky/fun/different. There's no room in the front, rear, or the trunk. Even if you want the high driving position, the juke doesn't do that too well either.

No but the appeal to the dozens of people who bought them from the lot I work at is that:

1) It's different
2) Good gas mileage
3) It's quick
4) Its handling is fantastic.

If you like the styling and are looking at cars then why not one of these?
 
Yeeeeup, the Nissan Puke.....

I saw one once, and laughed.

What exactly is it? It looks like a large hatch back. Why not just buy a car - probably get better mileage than the Nissan anyway.
 
And it's also faster than any of the V8's he has in his sig. Well, atleast the monster Juke is.
 
Slower to 60 than a GT-R? Weird.

Might be some odd physics thing, like less weight on the wheels meaning it's harder to find traction, or a shorter wheelbase meaning weight balance is quicker to transfer to the back from a standing start, reducing grip to the front tyres. Only explanation I can come up with.
 
Might be some odd physics thing, like less weight on the wheels meaning it's harder to find traction, or a shorter wheelbase meaning weight balance is quicker to transfer to the back from a standing start, reducing grip to the front tyres. Only explanation I can come up with.

That's a good explanation.

Other factors that come to mind:
-Weight distribution may be different than what the launch control is designed to work with
-Tires
 
The GT-R already hits a brick wall at high speed, evidenced by the fact that its 1/4-mile trap speeds aren't quite as high as the competition despite an equal or even quicker ET. A 747 might have an excellent Cd, but it still requires quite a lot more power than a CRJ to go the same speed. It has more air to move out of the way.
 
I hate the standard Juke as it looks like it's trying to be 'funky' just by looking as weird as possible but it doesn't work. This on the other hand is absolutely brilliant, simply because it has the performance to match it's madness. I actually think the bodywork changes have made it look a lot better and being lowered helps too.
 
I hate the standard Juke as it looks like it's trying to be 'funky' just by looking as weird as possible but it doesn't work. This on the other hand is absolutely brilliant, simply because it has the performance to match it's madness. I actually think the bodywork changes have made it look a lot better and being lowered helps too.

Being lowered definitely works well, as the Nismo Juke also looks good:

nismo-juke.jpg


I'm a fan of the Juke's styling, precisely because it's completely different to anything else on the road, but if I have one criticism it's that normally, it looks a little under-wheeled. The Juke R and Nismo Juke both fit bigger wheels under the arches, and it works really well.
 
Back