Ford KA 1997 vs Nissan Micra 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 55 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 79 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 16.4 seconds | |
|
Ford KA is more dynamic to drive. Ford KA engine produces 5 HP more power than Nissan Micra, whereas torque is 26 NM more than Nissan Micra. Thanks to more power Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford KA consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford KA could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford KA consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 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 Ford KA engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.62 m | 3.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.58 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.43 m | |
| Ford KA is 8 cm shorter than the Nissan Micra, 5 cm wider, while the height of Ford KA is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 186 litres | 206 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
724 litres | 960 litres | |
| Ford KA has 20 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Micra. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Micra (by 236 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford KA is 0.6 metres more than that of the Nissan Micra, which means Ford KA can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`265 | 1`290 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Nissan Micra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Nissan Micra, so Nissan Micra quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford KA has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |