Nissan Cube 2009 vs Citroen Nemo 2009
Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
---|---|---|---|
Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 122 HP | 73 HP | |
Torque: | 172 NM | 118 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 16.2 seconds | |
Nissan Cube engine produces 49 HP more power than Citroen Nemo, whereas torque is 54 NM more than Citroen Nemo. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 6.6 | |
The Citroen Nemo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan Cube consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen Nemo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Cube could require 270 litres more fuel. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
650 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
Citroen Nemo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 3.98 m | 3.96 m | |
Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
Height: | 1.67 m | 1.72 m | |
Nissan Cube is 2 cm longer than the Citroen Nemo, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Cube is 5 cm lower. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 323 litres | 356 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1645 litres | no data | |
Citroen Nemo has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Nissan Cube has 33 litres less trunk space than the Citroen Nemo. This could mean that the Nissan Cube uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
Turning diameter: | no data | 10 meters | |
Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`690 | |
Safety: | |||
Nissan Cube scores higher in safety tests, but Citroen Nemo is better rated in child safety tests. The Nissan Cube scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
Quality: | no data | no data | |
Average price (€): | 5800 | 2800 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Cube has
|
Citroen Nemo has
| |