Nissan Serena 1993 vs Toyota Picnic 1996
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| 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: | 140 HP | 128 HP | |
| Torque: | 181 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
| Nissan Serena engine produces 12 HP more power than Toyota Picnic, whereas torque is 3 NM more than Toyota Picnic. Despite the higher power, Nissan Serena reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.1 | 9.5 | |
|
The Toyota Picnic is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan Serena consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Picnic, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Serena could require 240 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| Toyota Picnic gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Toyota Picnic) 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Primera, Nissan Almera Tino | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Carina E, Toyota Hiace | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Picnic might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Nissan Serena 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: | 4.32 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.84 m | 1.62 m | |
| Nissan Serena is 22 cm shorter than the Toyota Picnic, 1 cm wider, while the height of Nissan Serena is 22 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 180 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
620 litres | 1840 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Serena has 170 litres more trunk space than the Toyota Picnic. The Toyota Picnic may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Toyota Picnic (by 1220 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`225 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Serena has
|
Toyota Picnic has
| |