Citroen Nemo 2009 vs Nissan Cube 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 68 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 18 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Nissan Cube is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Nemo engine produces 42 HP less power than Nissan Cube, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Nissan Cube. Due to the lower power, Citroen Nemo reaches 100 km/h speed 6.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.5 | 5.2 | |
|
The Citroen Nemo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Citroen Nemo consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Cube, which means that by driving the Citroen Nemo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 52 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 2 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | |
| 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: | yes | no | |
| 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: | 3.96 m | 3.98 m | |
| Width: | 2.02 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.67 m | |
| Citroen Nemo is 2 cm shorter than the Nissan Cube, 32 cm wider, while the height of Citroen Nemo is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 360 litres | 260 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1563 litres | |
|
Citroen Nemo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Citroen Nemo has 100 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Cube. The Nissan Cube may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Nemo is 0.2 metres less than that of the Nissan Cube. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`700 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Nissan Cube scores higher in safety tests, butCitroen 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 (€): | 2800 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Nemo has
|
Nissan Cube has
| |