Ford KA 1997 vs Nissan Micra 2005

 
Ford KA
1997 - 2004
Nissan Micra
2005 - 2007
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 1.3 Petrol1.2 Petrol
Camshaft drive: Timing chainTiming chain

Performance

Power: 60 HP65 HP
Torque: 105 NM110 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 15.4 seconds16.3 seconds
Ford KA engine produces 5 HP less power than Nissan Micra, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Nissan Micra. Despite less power, Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 6.75.9
Real fuel consumption: 6.8 l/100km6.3 l/100km
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
By specification Ford KA consumes 0.8 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 120 litres more fuel.
By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford KA consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra.
Fuel tank capacity: 42 litres46 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 620 km in combined cycle770 km in combined cycle
760 km on highway900 km on highway
610 km with real consumption730 km with real consumption
Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank.

Engines

Average engine lifespan: 320'000 km280'000 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 years22 years
Engine spread: Used also on Ford FiestaUsed 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 m3.72 m
Width: 1.63 m1.66 m
Height: 1.37 m1.54 m
Ford KA is smaller.
Ford KA is 10 cm shorter than the Nissan Micra, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Ford KA is 17 cm lower.
Trunk capacity: 186 litres251 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
724 litres584 litres
Ford KA has 65 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Micra. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford KA (by 140 litres).
Turning diameter: 9.8 meters9.8 meters
Gross weight (kg): 1`2651`475
Safety: no data
Quality:
low

below average
Nissan Micra has fewer problems.
According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Nissan Micra, so Nissan Micra quality is probably better
Average price (€): 8002000
Pros and Cons: Ford KA has
  • more dynamic
  • longer expected engine lifespan
  • lower price
Nissan Micra has
  • more power
  • lower fuel consumption
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • roomier boot
  • fewer faults
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv