Nissan Cube 2010 vs Citroen Nemo 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 68 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 18 seconds | |
|
Nissan Cube is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Cube engine produces 42 HP more power than Citroen Nemo, whereas torque is 80 NM more than Citroen Nemo. Thanks to more power Nissan Cube reaches 100 km/h speed 6.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 4.5 | |
|
The Citroen Nemo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan Cube consumes 0.7 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 105 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 2 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Cube might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Citroen Nemo engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 3.96 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 2.02 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.72 m | |
| Nissan Cube is 2 cm longer than the Citroen Nemo, 32 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Cube is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 260 litres | 360 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1563 litres | no data | |
|
Citroen Nemo has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Nissan Cube has 100 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: | 10.2 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Cube is 0.2 metres more than that of the Citroen Nemo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`820 | 1`700 | |
| 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
| |