Ford KA 1997 vs Nissan Micra 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 110 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 13.9 seconds | |
|
Nissan Micra is a more dynamic driving. Ford KA engine produces 20 HP less power than Nissan Micra, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Nissan Micra. Due to the lower power, Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.9 | |
| 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 0.8 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 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 700 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 | 22 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 | 3.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.54 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 litres | 371 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
724 litres | 584 litres | |
| Ford KA has 185 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 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`475 | |
| Safety: | |||
| 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 (€): | 800 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford KA has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |