Kia Optima 2010 vs Nissan Almera 2012
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.0 - 2.4 | 1.6 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 - 274 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 198 - 365 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 - 10.9 seconds | 10.9 - 12.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 - 8.8 | 7.2 - 8.5 | |
|
Kia Optima petrol engines consumes on average 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than Nissan Almera. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.85 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Kia Optima is larger, but lower. Kia Optima is 19 cm longer than the Nissan Almera, 14 cm wider, while the height of Kia Optima is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 436 litres | 500 litres | |
|
Nissan Almera has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Kia Optima has 64 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Almera. This could mean that the Kia Optima uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia Optima is 0.4 metres more than that of the Nissan Almera, which means Kia Optima can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`994 | ~ 1`625 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7800 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Nissan Almera has
| |