Weels.ca Pits Countryman vs. Juke
The Nissan Juke one of the more obvious cross-shop vehicles for the MINI Countryman. It’s small. It’s sportish. It’s funky. It’s got a turbocharged engine. It’s got all-wheel-drive. So it’s inevitable that the two cars would go head-to-head in the automotive press. John Leblanc of the Toronto Star gives the edge to the Juke, but upon reading his review, I almost can’t tell why.
In basically every category, he gives the Countryman the higher marks.
- More headroom
- More rear cargo room
- Better ride quality
- More refined interior surfaces and materials
So what’s the rub? Price. The Countryman is — as usual for MINI — the driver’s car, and you’re going to pay a premium for that experience.
Admittedly, the extra $10k it costs does give the MINI a slight advantage if you like to drive. The Countryman ALL4 leans less in corners and feels more composed when you drive it like a sports compact than the Juke SL AWD. Plus there’s the availability of a manual gearbox in the Mini, an option Nissan doesn’t offer with AWD in the Juke.
If I like to drive? Uh, yeah. I like to drive. While he’s not quite calling the Juke an appliance, he hits the nail on the head. The Countryman All4 is the only car on the market right now that gets the kind of mpg it gets, has AWD, and has an available manual transmission — let alone the kind of suspension that makes it capable in the bends.
So in the end, it comes down to price with Mr. Leblanc — the tired old trope that price is the only part of the value equation that matters. Needless to say, we don’t agree.
<p>What’s the point of comparing two cars head to head, if in the end you are going to go with the one with the lower price, even if it loses in every other respect? </p>
<p>It’s not giving it to the lower cost car automatically. Based on his analysis the MINI is not superior enough to justify the premium over the Juke. The Juke is better bang for the buck if you will. That’s his analysis. If the Juke was only a grand or two cheaper the MINI would likely have won, but $10 grand is an awful big discrepency for “a slight advantage”</p>
<p>Next week we’re going to compare the BMW 3-series to my son’s tricycle. Â (Blah blah blah, handling, acceleration, etc.). Â Yet, my son’s tricycle was only $29 at Target, so we’re going to have to go with the less expensive of these two vehicles… the tricycle wins it!</p>
<p>The juke’s awd system, with its more advanced torque vectoring system, the rush of its turbo, its anime styling, and lower price will appeal to some, but the MINI provides a feel to the driver of being in something special; something beyond its higher price.</p>
<p>When you drive a MINI, you’re driving something unique. It’s a car with character, a vehicle that represents its owner more than any other, much like a Porsche 911. If you’ve got the cash, it’s worth every extra penny.</p>
<p>We have a need to categorize things. Comparisons are our way of evaluating those categorizations. Things that appear similar on paper (or in some marketer’s head) thankfully fall short when compared in person, or in this case, by the seat of his pants. </p>
<p>You get what you pay for, and in this case money does buy all of the things that make one “better” than the other…</p>
<p>Oh, and here’s the link to the comparison…</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wheels.ca/article/795610" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.wheels.ca/article/795610</a></p>
<p>Not such a bad review, really… He did say nice things about the MINI…</p>
<p>“If you and your wallet can rationalize the Countryman ALL4’s premium pricing, and its four-seat setup, it’s a wonderfully capable and refined urban vehicle.”</p>
<p>Leblanc isn’t saying that “price is the only part of the value equation that matters.” He’s saying that prices is PART of the equation, and needs to be considered.</p>
<p>His summary statement is that the Juke “offers 90 per cent of the Countryman’s’ attributes, at two-thirds the price” And that’s why he recommended the Juke.  If a buyer agrees with that assessment, they might go with the Juke.   If he puts  more value on the things the Countryman is better at, then he’ll spend his money there.</p>
<p>Having test driven both cars, I kind of agree with him. I want a Countryman, but it seems overpriced by comparison. Better…but not better enough.</p>
<p>samurai:
completely agree with docfink.</p>
<p>While price is obviously a deciding factor for making purchases he should also weigh in the fact that the MINI will potentially save you money with its included maintenance. Also fewer service visits due to MINI’s long service intervals. Resale value will probably be similar relative to their Suggested retail values new. I want to see someone get more in depth like comparing suspension setups or All Wheel Drive Systems.</p>
<p>While I understand your point, the MINI is nevertheless more expensive to maintain in the long run, after the included maintenance has expired. I’m sure an oil change for a Juke would be half the cost of the MINI (as serviced at the dealer and not some Jiffy Lube). Also the premium for BMW/MINI parts will be more expensive than the Juke.</p>
<p>The saturation of MINI cars on the market has decreased the resale value MINI once had. It’s not a bad thing for someone trying to get into a used MINI, but for people trying to sell a MINI, the reality is that our resale value is slowly coming into line with other premium cars (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus). Although this is still higher than say a Kia or Honda, that $10K extra for the Countryman will not translate to a 10K premium at time of resale or trade-in.</p>
<p>For myself, I would take a Countryman over a Juke if price was no object. But that $10K will make me think awfully hard about the value of the Countryman vs. the Juke.</p>
<p>Having just recently sold my R53 (and having sold an R52 5 years ago), I look forward to leasing my next MINI instead of buying because the resale value is diminishing. Also I will not have to be concerned about expensive maintenance schedule once my lease and warranty has expired.</p>
<p>At least the comparison is apples to apples, albeit organic vs non-organic cost wise. Looking forward to more closely classed comparisons with the high end cross-overs or whatever they’re called. It could be the auto media is slowly discovering the awd Countryman as a different approach to that market.</p>
<p>The Countryman and Juke are 2 cars in the same category but also like comparing lemons with apples. When comparing different cars you have to first look at the kind of persons you will be targeting. If your audience is middle class compare middle class cars. If your audience is upper class compare uper class cars/products. <a href="http://allaboutminicars.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://allaboutminicars.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p>Just checking to see if anybody was calling it the Puke yet. </p>
<p>Thats what I did the first time that I saw it…….</p>
<p>Actually most articles I have read in plenty of magazines that compare the two, end up leaning towards the MINI. I have a Countryman S and would change it for anything.</p>
<p>Other things I think were different Nathaniel.</p>
<p>Rear bench seat in the MINI, though he points out it will be an option in the future,.
7hp less than the Juke, he does point out though in overboost the R60 has more alhough it weighs more too.</p>
<p>I think the main reason why he choose the Juke though was the 10k did not merit the slight gains with the superior R60. This is a typical BMW issue where they constantly get under cut by other builders that produce cars that are 90% as good that are sold at a lower price point and have proven a viable business model.</p>
<p>You know, if price were the only criteria, we would all be driving the Tata Nano…</p>
<p>At $40k for a Countryman, you’re in pretty rarified air! The local Acura dealer has year old RDXs at that price point. These are NEW, just still on the lot. They also have a 2011 MDX at $43k. Thing is, with the MINIs, if you add on a lot of options, the price just skyrockets! You can have most of what this Countryman offers for less from MINI itself, if you watch the options list closely…</p>
<p>Having driven both, I’m not sure that the difference is that large. The Countryman handled a BIT like the MINI coupe, but it’s lean was way, way too much (I see a lot of anti-sway bars selling to Countryman owners!) But the torque vectoring in the Juke was quite nice.</p>
<p>Interestingly, after driving the Countryman, any thoughts I had of trading up from our Clubman went out the window. Yes, it’s got more space for the kids, but that’s not that big an issue for us (kids can do the belts in thier car seats now).</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go hating on the Juke that much though, it’s aimed at a sligtly different demographic, and while it’s not my style, at least it’s not annonymous!</p>
<p>Matt</p>
<p>Not anonymous – just damn ugly.</p>
<p>The Suzuki SX4 is actually a nicely styled and nicely proportioned car/hatch. In its SUV wannabe trim its a much more pleasing package than the J(p)uke.</p>
<p>Ugly is in the eye of the beholder Lav. The r60 to me is a loathsome design. While I appreciate a lot they did, the design really just feel like a MINI on a American diet of junk food beaten with an ugly stick. Not saying the Juke is a thing of beauty just that to each their own.</p>
<p>Sure, to each their own, but despite that there are obviously some car designs that are widely derided – Pontiac Aztek probably the most recent. This will rank up there and likely exceed that. I’d say your feelings about the R60 are decidedly in the minority.</p>
<p>This is true, then again so far I have not seen the automotive press following your lead comparing the Juke to the Aztek. I think your feelings on the Juke are about the same. Would lay money down that I can find more people on MF that dislike the R60 than you can find people in the Nissan forums that dislike the Juke.</p>
<p>Either way these two cars are likely to sell well. I doubt either will capture any large share in the small crossover market.</p>
<p>Same conclusion after my test drive in the countryman, way too much lean/roll. Sticking w/the Clubman.</p>
<p>The SX4 feels smaller than either of these, and tinnier as well. It’s nice to get into 4WD at as low a price point as it offers. I didn’t drive it at the same time as the other two, and it was a year earlier, so my memory is a bit cloudy.</p>
<p>Funny the Aztek gets so much hate, and the Buick Rendevousequivalent (remember all the adds with Tiger in them?) didn’t get nearly the derision. Even though it was basically the same vehicle.</p>
<p>Back to the Countryman… $40k as priced in this eval is a very, very high price for what you get. There are a lot of people who just won’t pay that kind of money (and I’m sure that there are a lot who will). But $10k in savings is a nice chunk of change. If one were to spend it on aftermarket extras, $10k would transform pretty much any vehicle….</p>
<p>Or you could remodel a bathroom, or have a nice chunk in the bank account, of if financing, a lower payment. Any prudent buyer would have to ask themselves what are they getting for the money, and is the incrimental increase in whatever worth the extra cost. Some say yes, some say no.</p>
<p>Personally, I really wonder at MINIs choice of press vehicles. They seem to dump pretty much every option they can into the press cars, and that really jacks up the price. I think they’d be better served using a bit more discression in options choice. Wonder how the reccomendation would have come out if the Countryman was on $34k instead of $40k…</p>
<p>Matt</p>
<p>My first thought was “Joke”, but that only applies to styling now I guess as testers like the technical aspects of the car. Torque vectoring included as standard is one point where ‘attractive’ can safely be used and that performance bit is way beyond skin deep. </p>