Mitsubishi Carisma 1996 vs Nissan Almera 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 112 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 248 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Nissan Almera is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 22 HP less power than Nissan Almera, whereas torque is 72 NM less than Nissan Almera. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Almera, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Carisma could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Almera. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 1010 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 18 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40 | 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. Mitsubishi Carisma might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.20 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.45 m | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma is 28 cm longer than the Nissan Almera, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Carisma is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 355 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
660 litres | 1020 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has 75 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Almera. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Almera (by 360 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.4 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`675 | 1`810 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Nissan Almera has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Carisma has serious deffects in 440 percent more cases than Nissan Almera, so Nissan Almera quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 9.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Nissan Almera has
| |