The second-generation Juke has finally reached us, but is entering a far more crowded sector than its predecessor fronted up to on arrival all those years ago.

Price: $44,990

Powertrain and performance: 1.0-litre three-cylinder DOHC 12-valve turbocharged petrol engine. 84kW/5250rpm, 180Nm/2400rpm. Front-wheel-drive. Combined cycle fuel consumption 5.8L/100km (claim), 6.5L/100km (road test).

Vital statistics: Length 4210mm, height 1595mm, width 1800mm, wheelbase 2636mm. Luggage 422 litres. Wheels: 19-inch alloys with 225/45 R19 Hankook Ventus S1 Evo3 tyres.

We like: Supportive front seats, stylish interior, high-grade specification and generous load space.

We don’t like: Low-speed dual clutch hesitations, becomes quite pricey in the Ti grade.

NOT many years ago a 1.0-litre car riding on 19-inch diameter wheels was unheard of.

With the trend toward engine down-sizing and compact SUVs taking hold of the market that combination becomes a reality with the new Nissan Juke.

The original Juke was a pioneer of the compact SUV segment a decade ago and the recently launched second-gen has increased dimensions to enable a more useful family configuration with enlarged boot space.

And it introduces Nissan’s ‘down-size’ 1.0-litre turbocharged engine and seven-speed dual clutch transmission.

There are three models – all with 1.0-litre turbo power and front-wheel-drive - with the ST providing a $32,490 entry point.

Priced at $44,990 the Juke Ti delivers the flagship specification. The Ti gains multi-spoke Akari-style 19-inch alloys, rear privacy glass, snug-fitting sports seats with combination leather and Alcantara trim, a shark fin antenna, tyre pressure monitoring and an eight-speaker Bose audio system which includes speakers integrated with the front headrests.

The mid-grade Juke ST-L with its $38,750 price point looks like the strongest value equation with content including 19-inch alloys, satellite navigation, an Around View camera with 360-degree and left-side view options, single-zone auto climate control, rain sensor wipers, LED fog lamps, two-stage heated front seats, auto fold and heated door mirrors plus Intelligent Key access with push button start.

In design the new Juke evolves the unique look of the original with the ultra-slim indicators and daytime running lights mounted high and large round headlights integrated into the bumper.

But it’s more conventional in its lines and proportions, particularly at the rear, while retaining the floating roof, high waistline and slim glasshouse themes of the original.

The dimension increases have boosted space and practicality. The new Juke sits on a wheelbase that is extended by 106mm while the overall length increases by 75mm.

It’s also 35mm wider and 30mm taller. There’s a little more cabin width and decent headroom front and rear while load space is one of the new Juke’s main benefits with an increase of 68 litres to offer generous 422 litres capacity.

With its slightly raised seating position, large door mirrors and slim A-pillar shape the Juke offers excellent visibility from the front seats. But the narrow glasshouse and large front seats do restrict the visibility from the rear.

The Ti cabin will be a talking point with its smart combination of leather and alcantara surfaces including soft-touch alcantara dash and door trim, front armrest and knee pad surfaces.

There’s a flat bottom steering wheel with paddle shifters and an 8.0-inch dashtop touchscreen display with Apple Car Play and Android Auto connectivity.

The 999cc direct-injected and turbocharged triple develops 84kW at 5250rpm with peak torque of 180Nm at 2400rpm. It’s a free-revving triple with a lively engine note when it worked harder.

Close ratio seven-speed gearing allows the engine to settle at 2100rpm in top gear at 100km/h with paddle-prompted downshifts to 2500rpm in sixth gear and 3100rpm in fifth.

During parking manoeuvres, and when making a momentary stop at a roundabout or give way sign, there can be delayed response from the dual clutch transmission. But once up to speed the shifts are quick with minimal interruption to the power flow as the little engine delivers its overtaking response.

On ST-L and Ti models Eco, Standard and Sport drives modes adjust the throttle response and gear shift protocols. Nissan claims combined cycle fuel consumption of 5.8L/100km and road testing revealed a 5.6L/100km average on a relaxed highway run and 6.5L/100km as an overall efficiency number.

The small turbo engine requires 95-octane premium fuel.

It’s efficient and responsive but in the same size, price and sporty compact crossover category the Juke Ti is out-performed by the new Peugeot 2008 GT with a slightly bigger 1199cc triple that develops 114kW and 240Nm.

On the road the Juke holds true to its wide tyre and wide track appearance by putting a confident footprint on the road. It steers accurately and rides firmly with plenty of grip from the 225/45 R19 Hankook tyres.

Encounter some corrugated surfaces and the large wheels and tyres will produce some abrupt bump-thump responses, mainly from the twist beam rear suspension. And the wide tyres generate some intrusive coarse surface road noise at highway speeds.

Along with increased dimensions and down-sized displacement the other significant change for the new Juke is its enhanced safety and driver assist roster.

All models have LED headlights with High Beam Assist plus LED tail lights and daytime running lights.

ST-L and Ti models also boast intelligent lane intervention, adaptive cruise control and the Around View camera system but all three grades have intelligent braking assist with pedestrian and cyclist detection, traffic sign recognition, lane departure warning, blind spot warning and rear cross traffic alert, driver alert and forward collision warning.

With almost a decade of hindsight it’s interesting how far ahead the original Juke foresaw the growth of the small SUV segment. And while it’s been a long time coming, the gen-two Juke gives Nissan a stylish and competitive alternative to the more recent arrivals.

Time for a second look at this new baby Mazda crossover, this time checking out the base model as well as the flagship.

The CX-30 GSX (above) is quite unfazed being compared to the richer-trimmed Limited flagship (below).

Prices: $41,490 GSX, $50,990 Limited.
Powertrains and performance: 2.0-litre four-cylinder DOHC petrol (GSX) with i-Stop, 114kW/6000rpm, 200Nm/4000rpm. Front wheel drive, 6.4 litres per 100km; 2.5-litre four-cylinder DOHC petrol engine with i-Stop and cylinder deactivation, 139kW/6000rpm, 252Nm/4000rpm. All-wheel drive. 6.8 L/100km.
Vital statistics: Length 4395mm, height 1540mm, width 1795mm, wheelbase 2655mm. Luggage 430 litres. Wheels: 16-inch alloys with 215/65 tyres; 18-inch alloys with 215/55 R168 tyres.
We like: Feels crafted, surprisingly emphatically driver-centric attitude, fun attitude, strong warranty.
We don’t like: Little practicality benefit over a Mazda3, 2.5 getting gruff with age.

“Well, it looks nice, but I like my little car; this one seems a bit too big for me.”

So, less interest than I’d expected from the friend who owns a CX-3. Moving on, then, to two with CX-5s, mainly driven short distances and solo. Surely they could see the appeal of something of similar ilk, yet smaller, lower and more stylish?

Erm …

Positivity about the car’s overall style and the instrumentation improvements was mutual; but from one uncertainty about whether the rear seat would be comfy enough for fast-growing grandkids. And the other? “The one thing I really like about the CX-5 is that I sit high. I can’t get that from this, it’s more like a car.”

Okay, so on basis on that hardly scientific poll, the potential for the newest addition to Mazda’s quasi soft-roader lineup, the CX-30, to simply create its own empire from in-house conquest alone seems challenging.

Is all that effort to ensure every dimensional metric – save front headroom, which is more modest – sites the CX-30 between the larger and smaller alternates seems wasted if those with existing commitment to the lines sandwiching this new meat aren’t going to stand to be easily cannibalised?

Well, no. Even if CX-30 finds more success poaching customers new to Mazda than converting existing brand fans, that won’t inhibit progress. The small to compact sports utility sector is a big place in its own stead. In great health before we know about coronavirus, it seems so far to have come through the challenges of lockdown and diminished car sales activity pretty well, too. On top of all that, there’s this new twist of a crossover hatchback. That’s not without attraction, either.

today’s challenge: Pick the base interior. Not easy, right?

As much as Mazda’s CX model plan has always represented something of a boundary push, with the only consistent being a tailoring to trend softly insofar as the sports utility side of operability, CX-30 presents particular commitment to what might be called crossover chic.

This doesn’t mean it lacks eagerness for driving the mild side of ‘wild’ – it’s a confident car on gravel, regardless of whether all four or just the front set of wheels are laying down the power, and is as unfazed by steering onto dirt, sand and grass as the CX-3 and CX-5. Yet you immediately sense the newly-emerged middle child is sassier in different ways.

Certainly, it is particularly well polished in respect to presentation. Describing it as the best-looking CX model yet is bound to trigger enthusiast argument, given the Hiroshima design department has been smashing out hit after hit in this Kodo-influenced styling period. Comparing against rivals is suggests just two – the Toyota CH-R and incoming Nissan Juke - are as intricate in design and finish, but also debatedly do so with an outrage Mazda’s carefully-judged 'beauty through subtraction’ process carefully sidesteps.

Anyone who has been checking out recent Mazda interiors will understand, already, how these have become as ‘crafted’ as the exteriors. Here, you’re looking at the best yet. It’s an exemplar to the industry about how to lend a sense of premium expensiveness using materials that probably cost out effectively for mainstream duty. In many respects, the entry GSX offers better example of the execution than the Limited, not because the latter isn’t plush enough – it really is – but more because the base car lends very little obvious sign of the cost-cutting that allows it to fly $10,000 in the price stream.

Those lowballing on spend aren’t cutting themselves short on kit, either. Automatic headlights, an 8.8-inch infotainment screen, a head-up display, an eight-speaker audio system and the i-Activsense safety package - which includes lane-keep, active cruise control, blind-spot monitoring, rear cross traffic alert and active emergency braking that detects cyclists and pedestrians – come as standard fare, plus even base buyers also get a reversing camera, rear parking sensors sat nav and various electronic handling assists.

Spend more and there’s a swap from 16-inch to 18-inch wheels (which, admittedly, look better), autonomous rear braking which acts to inhibit, by jolting the brakes, potential to inadvertently reverse into something solid and more electric assists like 'Intelligent Speed Assistance' which is linked to the cruise control system and provides additional speed limiting warnings. There are also parking sensors on the nose and an off-road traction assist feature for the AWD system. The Limited also has LED rather than halogen headlights, gets leather trim and achieves a 12-speaker Bose sound system. Oh, yes, and Mazda has set a high standard with a five year, unlimited kilometre warranty and a very good scheduled servicing setup.

Whatever the fitment, the basics are the same. There’s positivity about the latest version of Mazda Connect; the controls are clearer and operability more finessed. The addition of a head-up display in all levels is good; so too that it now projects onto the windscreen rather than a fragile looking pop-up gunsight … just the realisation that even all instrument fonts have altered a touch, to become sharper, there’s more change than might first seem warranted, and a lot that takes time to appreciate. But the overall impact will appeal to the faithful or newcomers alike.

Clearly, there’s one area where its shape and lower roofline impinges. It’s … cosy for overall space. Tjat’s not to say the rear section isn’t a wholly tough spot for adult passengers, but it’s obviously less spacious than a CX-5. The boot is deep but markedly narrower than the CX-5’s and, even with 430-litres’ capacity, really only competitive within the bounds of the class. Basically, growing families intent on giving the CX-30 consideration need to be careful for what they wish for. I’d personally judge it as being better suited to a couple who might just occasionally offer the back seat to occupancy.

The sense of its intimacy also shows in a driving position far more in keeping with the Mazda3 (or even an MX-5) than any other CX edition, simply by virtue that you’re still sitting just as you would in a normal car, not an SUV. That’s what jinxed it for my pal Lisa; she’s a big fan of a command driving position, so never sensed the CX-30 felt ‘high’ enough. Obviously, it really is elevated – just plant it alongside a Mazda3 to see how much - however, I get her point. The increase in ride height is subtle enough that there’s never a sense you’re stepping up into this cabin.

Still, there’s as positive from this that undoubtedly plays well for the driving feel, where playful nimbleness is a common trait whether driving a GSX with a 2.0-litre engine powering the front wheels only or a Limited, where a 2.5-litre and Mazda's i-Activ all-wheel drive system fits. Both paired with a six-speed automatic transmission only.

That mechanical fitout is pretty much Mazda ‘101’ these days and, certainly, it’s in line with CX-5, too, save here there’s no diesel. Yet, simply because the CX-30 is smaller and rather more trim in its kerb weight, it seemed to me that the logics that determine the larger petrol being preferable in the larger car aren’t really fair to apply with this one.

the 2.0-litre has less punch than the 2.5, but delivers a sweeter note and evidences thrift more easily.

For sure, GSX's output being 25kW and 52Nm less than that from the larger engine is obvious at step off and the 2.5 feel more muscular in the mid-range, so it doesn’t have to put in as much effort when accelerating or overtaking.

Yet the entry unit shouldn’t be discounted simply because of that. For one, it earns marks for being more obviously economical. From this experience, the maker-claimed optimal returns (which don’t seem too major at 6.4 versus 6.8 litres per 100km) are much easier to close in on with the smaller unit – as Rob Maetzig reported in his own story about taking the Limited on a long-distance drive, the 2.5-litre ain’t so easy to rein into its thrift zone.

The other reason for considering the 2.0-litre is that it has a sweeter, less intrusive, note. And it’s still zesty enough that, basically, if you intend to employ the CX-30 simply for urban driving, occasional open road bursts and never in a more robust SUV involvement, then it’s more than an okay choice.

Not that the CX-30 deserves to be kept on a city beat. It’s just too delightful to drive for that. I’m not suggesting the MX-5 is under threat, yet within the crossover quarter it delivers well above the average expectation.

It’s not so much the suspension design – Macpherson strut front end and a torsion beam around the back is fairly simplistic – as the finessing.

As in the Mazda3, it is rewarded by Mazda's G-Vectoring torque control system. This senses when you're turning into a corner and pulls back the engine's torque output for a fraction of a second, to transfer weight onto the outside front wheel. That gives better turn-in. The same system then adjusts the torque output as you steer through, helping to balance the car all the way through to corner exit. Subtle stuff, assuredly, but work it does.

Mazda credits some of its dexterity to a new concept tyre, which has a smaller side wall and rigid tread that allows the tyre to distort when hitting a bump, which in turn has effect of reducing the load on the suspension and translating to a smoother ride for occupants. I’m not so sure the last part of that ambition is delivered entirely successfully, in that coarse chip alone will erode any serenity and it is fairly firm, in either spec format, around town.

Obviously the additional traction that the Limited’s drive system is beneficial – and, to me, the added pluses in the wet or slippery conditions would make it my choice. But to be fair to the GSX, in its own right it is fluid, confident and good fun on a twisting road. And both models lend a better driving involvement than any other CX, regardless that steering feedback could be sharper.

Perhaps this on-road dexterity becomes another recognised talent for CX-30 when a proper owner pool forms. In the here and now, it relies more on being acknowledged as the best beneficiary of the current styling language. All from just taking the Mazda3 and making it taller? The main points are the same - simple, elegant lines, a big bold grille, narrow lights – but maybe that’s too simplistic an analysis.

Winner? Well, it’s not going to be as easy as that, perhaps. Yet, if you want to experience the best of Mazda design, and can cope with losing some degree of practicality in the process, then there’s no better place to start. And, assuredly, as comfortable as life at the top is, starting at the bottom is absolutely no penalty.