Honda ZR-V e:HEV LX vs Nissan X-Trail Ti e-Power 2024 comparison review

Now, hang on. Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply compare the X-Trail e-Power with the recently-released Honda CR-V e:HEV RS range-topper?

They are, after all, roughly the same size.

And the answer would be yes, except the new CR-V hybrid is $60,000 drive-away, while you can buy a base X-Trail ST-L e-Power from under $55K drive-away… which just happens to be exactly how much the ZR-V e:HEV LX costs.

Do please keep in mind that cheaper versions of both Hondas are in the pipeline for Australia.

The ZR-V e:HEV LX starts at $54,900 drive-away. (Image: JP Beirouty)

So, what are these hybrid mid-sized SUVs like, then?

Released in mid-2023 and based on the excellent Civic hatch, the ZR-V is the new kid on the block. And – starting at $54,900 drive-away – what it lacks in size against the X-Trail is more than made-up for in features.

Now, at this price point, both feature plenty of safety, including Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), blind-spot alert, lane-keep assist systems and adaptive cruise control with full stop-go functionality.

Additionally, you’ll find heated front seats, dual-zone climate control, wired Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, privacy glass, 18-inch alloys and a full suite of driver-assist safety systems including emergency braking, adaptive cruise control and surround-view cameras.

The X-Trail Ti e-Power is priced from $54,690, before on-road costs. (Image: JP Beirouty)

But considering the X-Trail ST-L costs the same price as the ZR-V LX, it lacks the latter’s 12-speaker Bose audio upgrade, leather upholstery, heated steering wheel, powered front-passenger seat, heated rear seats, wireless Apple CarPlay, wireless charger, reverse-tilt exterior mirrors, interior air purifier and hands-free powered tailgate with walkaway closing.

For an electric tailgate, leather and smartphone charger, you’ll need to step up to X-Trail Ti e-Power (as tested) from $54,690, before on-road costs, or just under $60K when drive-away costs are factored in, giving the ZR-V LX hybrid a handy $5K start.

However, the Ti does bring its own little exclusive luxuries, like tri-zone climate control, adaptive matrix LED headlights, a panoramic sunroof, exterior-mirror camera view, and 19-inch alloys – though you’ll need to fork out for the range-topping X-Trail Ti-L from $57,160, before on-road costs, (or nearly $63K drive-away to more-fully match most of the ZR-V LX hybrid’s spec.)

Advantage Honda. But, like we said, the Nissan has great big size on its side. And it has two electric motors for all-wheel drive – something the ZR-V has no reply for.

Advantage: X-Trail. Families seeking space in a larger-than-usual mid-sized SUV need look no further.

Before we go on, remember, our photos show the Ti but the base ST-L that matches the ZR-V LX’s price point features an 8.0-inch (rather than 12.3-inch) central screen, more-traditional analogue instrumentation cluster with a 7.0-inch TFT screen, non-leather seat trim and conventional, rather than camera, interior mirror.

Regardless, you’re also likely to notice how large and airy the X-Trail interior is, with easy access to all five seats thanks to very wide-opening doors, revealing an interior offering heaps of legroom, headroom and shoulder room.

Upfront of the X-Trail Ti e-Power is a 12.3-inch multimedia screen. (Image: JP Beirouty)

Nissan – just like Honda – got its interior right, with most of the important stuff thoughtfully executed – superb build quality, broad yet comfy front seats, ample ventilation, an excellent driving position with good all-around vision and completely logical control and button layout/access.

There's also more storage than you would know what to do with. Big bottle holders in the doors is another boon.

Remember when the X-Trail’s dash used to have chilled/cupholders, a centrally-located analogue instrument binnacle and two storage cubbies on either side, all to give it a rugged and utilitarian 4x4 feel?

The X-Trail's rear seats are quite flat yet supportive. (Image: JP Beirouty)

That’s all gone now, with our Ti being the most opulent in the series’ 23-year (and four iteration) history.

More high points? Attractive and yet hardy, the long, low instrument panel features premium finishes, backed up by a chunky little steering wheel, an informative and multi-configurable digital instrument cluster, bi-level centre console bisecting the front seats for a cosier feel, and a big central touchscreen that’s simple to figure out and operate.

Out back, the quite flat yet supportive rear seats are remarkable for being slide-able as well as reclinable, while – as with the Honda – occupants are treated to rear air outlets, USB-A and USB-C port access, a centre folding armrest with cupholders and even more bottle storage in the doors.

The X-Trail has a boot capacity of 575L. (Image: JP Beirouty)

Plus – predictably – the deep side windows lend a lot of light and vision out, adding yet another dimension of family friendliness. The substantially larger CR-V would have been a better fit for this showdown.

That all said, it’s not as if Honda was sitting on its hands when creating the ZR-V’s interior.

Strangely enough, it’s not as tight inside as its smaller length and wheelbase measurements suggest – especially if you’re a human and not, say, a tumble dryer trying to be shoved in the back. More on that later.

The ZR-V manages to look classy as well as sensible. (Image: JP Beirouty)

Up front, the ZR-V is typical modern Honda, with a simple – say might even say sparse – dashboard layout that, with plenty of soft-feel surfaces and strip of honeycomb trim, manages to look classy as well as sensible.

The leather front seats are cushy and nicely bolstered, providing an absolutely superb and immersive driving position ahead of elegant and crystal-clear digitalised instrumentation.

Along with the thick-rimmed sports steering wheel with paddle shifters (for regen-braking effort), it feels inclusive in here, like you’re about to drive a low-slung sports sedan. Thin A-pillars provide better-than-usual forward vision, too.

The ZR-V's leather front seats are cushy and nicely bolstered. (Image: JP Beirouty)

However, over-the-shoulder vision is poor due to the slim side and back glasshouse, and the black trim does make it seem smaller inside than it actually is, while having no factory sunroof availability – even as an option – is an oversight. That would at least shower the cabin with more light.

On the other hand, a high-set digital speed readout renders the absent head-up display almost superfluous, the cupholders, smartphone charger pad and under-console shelf are thoughtfully placed, the climate control is beautifully intuitive to operate and the tactility of the toggle and switchgear controls are right up there with luxury car alternatives.

Likewise, the back-seat area is also inviting, with ample room for even taller adults, proving the ZR-V’s rear isn’t cramped, just cosy due to the well-padded seating and high window line.

The ZR-V's back-seat has ample room for even taller adults. (Image: JP Beirouty)

And the backrest has a 40/20/40 split, meaning the centre bit can be folded down for additional longer-load-through accessibility from the back. Great for skis or broomsticks.

Note, though, that, unlike in the X-Trail, neither the base nor backrest slide or recline, respectively, it’s dark enough to be a gloomy Smiths album out back, the back doors can’t hold a bottle, there are no overhead grab handles, and what’s with that fiddly roof-mounted centre rear lap/sash seat belt location?

Further back, it’s a no-brainer... on paper.

The ZR-V has a boot capacity of 370L. (Image: JP Beirouty)

The X-Trail trumps the ZR-V with 205 litres more cargo capacity at 575L versus 370L. But in reality, both offer a decently-sized opening to help make loading bulky things inside easy.

There are low flat floors with sufficient depth and width for plenty of gear and a few nooks and crannies for additional items.

Keep in mind that neither carry spare wheels. You get a can of goo and an air pump instead. Not good enough for many rural drivers.

And that X-Trail hybrid's boot space is 10L less than the five-seat petrol-only versions, but much bigger than the 465L offered up in the seven-seat variants (also petrol-only). And speaking of internal combustion processes…

One of the biggest differences between these and the Toyota RAV4 hybrid is that these two contestants offer a significantly fuller EV experience.

Why? The Nissan’s petrol engine never powers any of the driven wheels, but instead drives one or both electric motors to make it all-wheel drive (AWD).

The Honda, meanwhile, uses its petrol engine to sometimes drive an electric motor, but mostly powers the front wheels, making it front-wheel drive (or 2WD in SUV marketing-speak).

Still, from behind the wheel, they’re remarkably similar in how they feel and behave, even if they sound completely different on the road.

The Nissan’s petrol engine never powers any of the driven wheels. (Image: JP Beirouty)

For starters, both are no slouches, despite relying on a continuously variable transmission (the infamous CVT strikes again!) to drive these hybrid SUVs.

The X-Trail’s 1497cc 1.5-litre turbo triple produces 106kW of power at 4400rpm and 250Nm of torque at 2400rpm on its own, but with help from a power generator, inverter and twin electric motors (making 150kW on the front axle and 100kW on the rear), and its combined power and torque outputs are 157kW and 525Nm, respectively.

The latter happens from zero revs, since the electric motor is always doing the driving.

The ZR-V’s 1993cc 2.0-litre naturally aspirated four, meanwhile, delivers 104kW at 6000rpm and 186Nm at 4500rpm, but combined with the single 135kW motor, makes a combined 135kW and 315Nm.

The Honda uses its petrol engine to sometimes drive an electric motor, but mostly powers the front wheels. (Image: JP Beirouty)

Now, this might seem like a free kick for the muscular X-Trail, but the power-to-weight ratio difference evens the score more than you might expect: the 1.9-tonne (1903kg) Nissan pumps out 82.6kW/tonne, compared to our 1.6-tonne (1586kg) Honda’s 85.1kW/tonne.

The result? The latter’s 300kg-plus advantage and lower, sleeker shape means that, against our stopwatch, there was very little in it between the two hybrids – 7.1 vs 7.6s in favour of the gutsier Nissan. But it was only about 0.2s for most of that, until the X-Trail’s extra torque finally overcame that extra mass.

That said, during our 70-100km/h overtaking manoeuvre, both needed 2.9s, again highlighting the Honda’s lightness, while braking hard from 100-0km/h the ZR-V stopped three metres shorter at 39.2m. Again, blame the Nissan’s weight.

Keeping all that performance in check in both SUVs, by the way, are MacPherson-style struts up front and a multi-link rear end.

Here’s another key difference. Officially, the Honda averages 5.0 litres per 100km while the Nissan should average 6.1L. But in reality…

During our week with both hybrid SUVs that included a lot of inner-urban schlepping as well as spirited driving and repeated performance testing – which tends to sap the fuel – the ZR-V averaged 7.3L/100km versus 8.6 for the X-Trail.

Note that the latter requires the more-expensive 95 RON premium-unleaded brew, too.

Officially, the Honda averages 5.0 litres per 100km while the Nissan should average 6.1L. (Image: JP Beirouty)

For the record, the car’s computer read 6.1 in the Honda and 7.4 in the Nissan, while the official combined average carbon dioxide emissions figures are 114 and 139g/km respectively.

The latter’s 55L tank means it should theoretically achieve around 900km between refills, against its rival’s 1140km from a 57L tank.

And just in case you’re wondering, the X-Trail’s lithium-ion battery is pretty modest at 2.1kWh, but that’s exactly twice as large as the ZR-V’s. Neither require to be plugged in, since - as mentioned earlier - the petrol engines do the charging.

Only the X-Trail has an ANCAP crash test rating, and it’s achieved five stars, based on the smaller Qashqai “partner model”.

While ANCAP has yet to test the ZR-V, Euro NCAP recently awarded the Honda four out of five stars, citing it was “just below the five-star performance thresholds” due to slightly below-par adult side-impact protection where the front occupants’ heads can make contact, as well as safety-assist system anomalies whereby traffic-sign recognition and driver monitoring tech that do not default to ‘on’ or only operate above 45km/h, respectively.

Both models offer lots of driver-assist safety equipment, like Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) with pedestrian and cyclist detection, blind-spot alert, lane-keep assist systems, adaptive cruise control with full stop-go function, a driver fatigue monitor, auto high beams, traffic sign recognition, front/rear parking sensors, anti-lock braking system with brake assist, 'Electronic Brake-force Distribution', hill-start assist, stability control and traction control.

Only the X-Trail has an ANCAP crash test rating, and it’s achieved five stars. (Image: JP Beirouty)

However, there are omissions: the Honda misses out on the Nissan’s rear AEB with pedestrian and cyclist calibration, while the Nissan’s seven airbag rating trails the Honda’s 11 – which includes full side airbag protection for outboard rear-seat occupants.

Both vehicles also include ISOFIX child-seat latches fitted to outboard rear seat positions, while a trio of top tethers for straps are included across the rear bench.

Note that Honda’s AEB system is operational from 5.0-180km/h according to Euro NCAP, the lane support systems work between 65-180km/h and the traffic-jam assist tech works between 0-72km/h.

The Nissan’s AEB kicks in from 5.0-130km/h, pedestrian and cyclist AEB from 5.0-80km/h, and the lane support systems work between 60-250km/h.