Ford KA 1997 vs Nissan Micra 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 80 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 18 seconds | |
|
Ford KA is more dynamic to drive. Ford KA and Nissan Micra have the same engine power, but Ford KA torque is 25 NM more than Nissan Micra. Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford KA is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Ford KA consumes 0.6 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 90 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford KA consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 530 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 | 3.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.60 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.44 m | |
| Ford KA is 13 cm shorter than the Nissan Micra, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford KA is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 186 litres | 205 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
724 litres | 960 litres | |
| Ford KA has 19 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: | 1`265 kg | 1`340 kg | |
| Net weight: | 890 kg | 835 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 375 kg | 505 kg | |
| Ford KA load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 35 procentiem less than Nissan Micra. Therefore, Nissan Micra is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Nissan Micra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Nissan Micra, so Nissan Micra quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford KA has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |