Nissan Cube 2010 vs Ford B-Max 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
|
Nissan Cube is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Cube engine produces 5 HP more power than Ford B-Max, whereas torque is 3 NM more than Ford B-Max. Thanks to more power Nissan Cube reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Cube is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Nissan Cube consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford B-Max, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Cube could require 30 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Nissan Cube consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford B-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 48 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 550 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 460'000 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 B-Max engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 19 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Note, Nissan Micra | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford C-Max, Ford Fiesta | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Cube might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 4.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.60 m | |
|
Nissan Cube is smaller, but higher. Nissan Cube is 10 cm shorter than the Ford B-Max, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Cube is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 318 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1563 litres | 1386 litres | |
| Nissan Cube has 63 litres less trunk space than the Ford B-Max. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Cube (by 177 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Cube is 0.3 metres less than that of the Ford B-Max. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`700 | 1`830 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford B-Max scores higher in safety tests. The Nissan Cube scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Cube has
|
Ford B-Max has
| |