Ford Sierra 1990 vs Nissan X-Trail 2001
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 80 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 119 NM | 192 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.6 seconds | 11.3 seconds | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is a more dynamic driving. Ford Sierra engine produces 60 HP less power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 73 NM less than Nissan X-Trail. Due to the lower power, Ford Sierra reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 9.6 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Sierra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Sierra consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that by driving the Ford Sierra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Sierra consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Sierra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Nissan X-Trail 2001: It has selectable four-wheel drive with Auto, 2WD and Lock modes. In Auto mode, it has front-wheel drive under normal conditions, the rear axle engages when the front wheels start to slip, and power is distributed variably up to 50:50 front to rear. In 2WD mode, the transfer clutch is permanently unlocked, but the electronic control unit can engage the rear wheels occasionally, for example during hard acceleration. In Lock mode, the transfer clutch is permanently locked, providing a constant 50:50 power distribution. When vehicle speed increases above 30 km/h (20 mph), it switches to Auto mode, but when speed decreases, it switches back to Lock mode. The system also switches to 2WD mode in the event of overheating. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.68 m | |
| Ford Sierra and Nissan X-Trail are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1841 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Sierra is 1 metres less than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Ford Sierra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`000 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Sierra has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |