Honda S2000 2004 vs Nissan Micra 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 240 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 208 NM | 153 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.2 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Honda S2000 is more dynamic to drive. Honda S2000 engine produces 130 HP more power than Nissan Micra, whereas torque is 55 NM more than Nissan Micra. Thanks to more power Honda S2000 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.9 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda S2000 consumes 3.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda S2000 could require 480 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda S2000 consumes 3.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 500 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 500 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Nissan Micra) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Honda S2000) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 360'000 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 Nissan Micra engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Note | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Micra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Nissan Micra 2006 1.6 engine: A simple and reliable engine, not particularly demanding on fuel quality. Tends to consume more oil, may have problems starting in cold weather. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.28 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Honda S2000 is larger, but lower. Honda S2000 is 33 cm longer than the Nissan Micra, 8 cm wider, while the height of Honda S2000 is 16 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 143 litres | 255 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 457 litres | |
|
Nissan Micra has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Honda S2000 has 112 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Micra. This could mean that the Honda S2000 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda S2000 is 1.6 metres more than that of the Nissan Micra, which means Honda S2000 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`220 | 1`540 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda S2000 has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |