![]() 07/28/2014 at 17:51 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
2011 Juke vs. 2000 9-5 wagon.
Mom's car vs. My car
Both have turbos. Saab has 186, xxx miles on it, Nissan has 40, xxx.
Saab is a 5 speed, Nissan CVT.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 17:53 |
|
I was all Nissan until I read "CVT".
Must be amazing with boost though, but I'd rather row my own.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 17:55 |
|
Ditto. I'm like "Juke, Duhhhhhhh- CVT!!! RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!!"
![]() 07/28/2014 at 17:55 |
|
since that Saab is likely a turbo 4 I would say that. If it was a V6 (not sure if you could even spec one in a manual), then the Juke
![]() 07/28/2014 at 17:56 |
|
SAAB. A.D.A.N.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 17:59 |
|
Saab. No question, even if the Juke had a proper gearbox and the Saab an automatic. Being 31 years old I'm feeling way too young for the Juke.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 18:00 |
|
9-5, no question
![]() 07/28/2014 at 18:01 |
|
Saaaaaaaaaaab. Not a fan of the Juke at all. See them all the time here. The lines looks weird to me.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 18:02 |
|
I was with the SAAB all the way. I just find the Juke plain ugly, and not in a good way.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 18:03 |
|
Saab.
CVT is for Snowmobiles
![]() 07/28/2014 at 18:06 |
|
Why is that even a question? Even if you take the gearboxes out of the equation there can only be one answer. I wouldn't want to be seen dead in the Aztec!
![]() 07/28/2014 at 18:09 |
|
Juke, I'm just not a fan of Saab wagons.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 18:23 |
|
Saa...*sees mileage*...well I'm not really sure.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 18:40 |
|
The Juke, because AWD.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 19:21 |
|
FWD.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 20:06 |
|
Really, well that's a shame. AWD is the only way that makes the Juke okay to me with Nissan's horrible CVT. I guess I hereby change my choice to the Saab.
![]() 07/28/2014 at 21:33 |
|
Wagon is the correct answer.