Ford B-Max 2012 vs Nissan Note 2009
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| 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: | 105 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 153 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Nissan Note is a more dynamic driving. Ford B-Max engine produces 5 HP less power than Nissan Note, whereas torque is 3 NM less than Nissan Note. Due to the lower power, Ford B-Max reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford B-Max consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Note, which means that by driving the Ford B-Max over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford B-Max consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Note. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 48 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 530 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford B-Max gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 360'000 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 Ford B-Max engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford C-Max, Ford Fiesta | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Micra | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Note might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Nissan Note 2009 1.6 engine: A simple and reliable engine, not particularly demanding on fuel quality. Tends to consume more oil, may have problems starting in cold weather. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.08 m | 4.10 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.60 m | 1.55 m | |
| Ford B-Max is 2 cm shorter than the Nissan Note, 6 cm wider, while the height of Ford B-Max is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 318 litres | 280 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1386 litres | 1332 litres | |
|
Ford B-Max has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Ford B-Max has 38 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Note. The Nissan Note 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 Ford B-Max (by 54 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford B-Max is 0.5 metres less than that of the Nissan Note, which means Ford B-Max can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`830 | 1`580 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Ford B-Max has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Note has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Ford B-Max, so Ford B-Max quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford B-Max has
|
Nissan Note has
| |