Nissan Serena 1998 vs Volkswagen Sharan 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 97 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 131 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.9 seconds | 12.8 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Serena engine produces 53 HP less power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 79 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Due to the lower power, Nissan Serena reaches 100 km/h speed 5.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 10.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 10.7 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Serena is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Serena consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan, which means that by driving the Nissan Serena over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Serena consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Sharan gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Sharan) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Nissan Serena) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.32 m | 4.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.84 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Nissan Serena is smaller, but higher. Nissan Serena is 30 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Serena is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
620 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Serena is 0.7 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Sharan, which means Nissan Serena can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`100 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Nissan Serena has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Sharan has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Nissan Serena, so Nissan Serena quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | no data | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Serena has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |