Nissan Almera 2003 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| 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: | 112 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 248 NM | 215 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Nissan Almera is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Almera engine produces 10 HP more power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 33 NM more than Mitsubishi Carisma. Thanks to more power Nissan Almera reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.3 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Almera consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Almera could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Almera consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1330 km on highway | ||
| 950 km with real consumption | 1000 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volvo V40, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40 | |
| 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: | 4.20 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.40 m | |
| Nissan Almera is 28 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Carisma, width is practically the same , while the height of Nissan Almera is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 355 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1020 litres | 1050 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has more luggage space. Nissan Almera has 75 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Carisma. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Carisma (by 30 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`810 | 1`795 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Nissan Almera has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Carisma, so Nissan Almera quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.4/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Almera has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |