Citroen Nemo 2009 vs Toyota Verso 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Diesel | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Citroen Nemo) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Toyota Verso) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| 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: | 68 HP | 99 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 18 seconds | 13.3 seconds | |
|
Toyota Verso is a more dynamic driving. Citroen Nemo engine produces 31 HP less power than Toyota Verso, but torque is 35 NM more than Toyota Verso. Due to the lower power, Citroen Nemo reaches 100 km/h speed 4.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.5 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.4 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen Nemo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen Nemo consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Verso, which means that by driving the Citroen Nemo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen Nemo consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Verso. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen Nemo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Citroen Nemo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 2 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota Corolla, Toyota Auris, Toyota Yaris, Toyota iQ | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Verso might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Toyota Verso 2010 1.3 engine: The engine is known for its reliability but exhibits several common issues, especially as mileage increases. Owners report minor oil consumption, which tends to grow over time due to piston ring coking. Individual ignition ... More about Toyota Verso 2010 1.3 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.96 m | 3.99 m | |
| Width: | 2.02 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.60 m | |
| Citroen Nemo is 3 cm shorter than the Toyota Verso, 32 cm wider, while the height of Citroen Nemo is 13 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 360 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 623 litres | |
|
Toyota Verso has more luggage space. Citroen Nemo has 70 litres less trunk space than the Toyota Verso. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen Nemo is 0.8 metres less than that of the Toyota Verso, which means Citroen Nemo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`700 | 1`515 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen Nemo has
|
Toyota Verso has
| |