By on April 25, 2017


Taking a cue from Mitsubishi, which offers the Outlander and the smaller Outlander Sport, Nissan has decided to introduce a Sport version of the strong-selling Rogue — though it is actually an entirely divergent model.

The 2017 Nissan Rogue Sport fills a relatively tiny gap between the brand’s smaller CUVs. While the sizing difference is easier to appreciate against the Juke, the two Rogues are actually more dissimilar than a first glance would suggest. For starters, the standard Rogue is about a foot longer and can be outfitted with three rows while the Sport is limited to only two. The larger crossover also comes with a 2.5-liter inline-four that the Rogue Sport won’t have. Instead, buyers receive a 2.0-liter inline-four that produces 141 horsepower and 147 lb-ft of torque, mated to a continuously variable transmission. 

2017 Nissan Rogue Sport

Considering that the base Juke comes with 188 hp and 177 lb-ft and the larger Rogue has the beefier engine, Nissan’s usage of the Sport moniker seems a little ill-placed here — unless it is referring specifically to “sport utility.” Both of the Rogues offer a bit more ground clearance than the Juke and some additional cargo space. In the Sport, that ends up being nearly 23 cubic feet in the rear and 61 cubic feet with the second-row seats folded — compared to 32 and 70 cubic inches in its bigger brother.

The Rogue Sport appears to be an anemic version of the standard Rogue, which is a perplexing choice for the brand to make on a new model until you realize that isn’t one. The Sport is actually the venerable Nissan Qashqai, sold in overseas markets for years, trimmed up to suit American sensibilities.

2017 Nissan Rogue Sport

Nissan is positioning the Sport as a city-sized crossover that will encourage you to “get out of town” once in a while. However, based on its specs, the revamped Qashqai will probably feel most at home in an urban environment as a versatile errand runner.

Starting at $22,380 for a base S front-wheel drive model, with an additional $960 for the destination fee, the Rogue Sport goes on sale May 11th. Better-equipped models begin at $23,980 for the SV, while the SL trim goes for $27,030. All-wheel drive is available on all three for an extra $1,350. While that keeps pricing near the competition, it’s also fairly close to the base Rogue’s pre-delivery MSRP of $23,820.

2017 Nissan Rogue Sport

[Images: Nissan]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

28 Comments on “Nissan Announces Pricing for the Rogue’s Baby Brother, Starting at $22,380...”

  • avatar

    Not normally a fan of these compact SUVs, but I like the looks of this one. I predict win.

  • avatar

    It’s a piddlin’ hatchback and that’s all it is. Too small, too low.

    • 0 avatar

      It is, but I’m trying to talk my girlfriend into getting a small AWD hatchback for her next car.

      A) She likes small cars ’cause she’s small (she actually thinks my Jetta is “way too big.”)
      B) Eventually we’re going to need something with a hatchback and AWD, but I don’t want to drive it.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    If the front seats and interior are as bad in the Rogue Sport as they are in the regular Rogue, I think I’d seriously look at Mitsubishi’s Outlander Sport instead.

  • avatar

    What I don’t get is when you need/want a crossover, why would you want something even smaller than a Rogue? Same for the Honda CRV/HRV? With that being said I agree with the others that these will be everywhere.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      People like my mother who find a Rogue (and as per Roberto’s comment below many do call it a Rouge) too large to drive comfortably.

    • 0 avatar

      The same reason people buy a Fiesta over a Focus. Its a little cheaper, its smaller which is a plus to some, and it drives better in ST form as per the late Bark M. (The man isn’t dead, just that moniker lol.)

      I doubt the HR-V handles better than the CR-V, but its not like that is very high on anyone’s list when looking at these type of vehicles. However, some do prefer something as small as possible, and you can get one cheaper than its bigger brother. I think the difference in the Honda’s prices is more than between this and the Rogue, but I don’t know for sure.

  • avatar
    Roberto Esponja

    “The 2017 Nissan Rouge Sport fills a relatively tiny gap…”

    It’s funny how many people I notice calling these Rouge instead of Rogue.

  • avatar

    Compared to most other things in this class, except maybe Mazda, it’s nice looking. And power looks competitive. I’ll be interested to see how it compares to the upcoming Crosstrek.

    • 0 avatar

      It doesn’t stack up well against the current Crosstrek — a few hundred bucks more (comparing models with AWD and CVT), less ground clearance, worse gas mileage, and similar power output (i.e., not much).

  • avatar

    Proven Qashqai platform + inexpensive/low dollar leases + Decent looking = Will sell like hotcakes

  • avatar

    Is this Nissan taking a page from newly acquired Mitsubishi, that built the Montero (Pajero), and then released a smaller model, calling it the Montero Sport?

  • avatar

    How did they squeeze a third row into a Rogue?

  • avatar

    Dude, there has to be at least four different models called Rogue. Every one should be a half inch larger or smaller than each other.

    In fact, just change the brand name to Rogue.

  • avatar
    Corey Lewis

    Looks better than the standard one, and appears to be a better value than some of the other options. It’s also much less derpy than something like a Trax or Encore.

    I think it’ll do very well.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    The fluffy first sentence inference that Nissan is following Mitsubishi is false.

    For years Nissan has been selling the Qashi (Dualis) and Rogue (XTrail) in the same markets, well before Mitsubishi decided to have the Outlander and “Sport” in one market.

  • avatar

    Why are all of these smallish CUVs so underpowered? They all do around 140 HP and about equal torque. My TDI does 140 HP but also has over 200 ft-lbs of torque, but it’s still slow. The Qashqai appears to weigh about 2900 pounds at a minimum.

    Anyway, I don’t get the point of these things. Underpowered and heavy isn’t a good combination.

    • 0 avatar

      “Why are all of these smallish CUVs so underpowered?”

      Oh, stop. It’s not your fault you’re a car guy but it is your fault that you persist in acting clueless about there being a vast majority of ordinary people out there for whom 140 hp is perfectly adequate and who have enough money to matter.

      • 0 avatar

        140hp is adequate for smaller car (and more efficient drivetrain/transmission). Low torque, heavy vehicle and the results are as stated in the title. I can bet that the 2.5l in the same vehicle would improve both performance (who cares in CUV) and the gas mileage (few care right now but you never know prices at the pump tomorrow)

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Greg Hamilton: Here’s a letter from a French Colonel to the President of France. (I’m sure you can find...
  • ajla: So the hatch is a good value and the shorter length is nice in parking situations. However, compared to the...
  • Lou_BC: “It might surprise readers to learn that the writing staff at TTAC do not spend the majority of their...
  • Land Ark: It’s the 2020s equivalent of driving around with your windows rolled up in the summer so people think...
  • Sobro: Is this more macho than a Bradley GT?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber