Ford KA 1997 vs Nissan Micra 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 65 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 17 seconds | |
| Ford KA engine produces 5 HP less power than Nissan Micra, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Nissan Micra. Despite less power, Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 4.8 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford KA consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford KA could require 315 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford KA consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 1150 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Nissan Almera, Suzuki Jimny | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Micra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.62 m | 3.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.54 m | |
|
Ford KA is smaller. Ford KA is 10 cm shorter than the Nissan Micra, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Ford KA is 17 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 186 litres | 371 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
724 litres | 584 litres | |
| Ford KA has 185 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Micra. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford KA (by 140 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`265 | 1`510 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Nissan Micra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Nissan Micra, so Nissan Micra quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford KA has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |