Nissan Cube 2010 vs Nissan Pulsar 2015
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 7.7 seconds | |
|
Nissan Pulsar is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Cube engine produces 80 HP less power than Nissan Pulsar, whereas torque is 87 NM less than Nissan Pulsar. Due to the lower power, Nissan Cube reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | no data | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 46 litres | |
| 700 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 300'000 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 Cube engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 16 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 Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Juke | |
| 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. | |||
| Nissan Cube 2010 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: | 3.98 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Nissan Cube is smaller, but higher. Nissan Cube is 41 cm shorter than the Nissan Pulsar, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Cube is 16 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 385 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1563 litres | 1395 litres | |
| Nissan Cube has 130 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Pulsar. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Cube (by 168 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`700 kg | 1`785 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`265 kg | 1`295 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 435 kg | 490 kg | |
| Nissan Cube load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 13 procentiem less than Nissan Pulsar. Therefore, Nissan Pulsar is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | |||
| Nissan Pulsar scores higher in safety tests. The Nissan Cube scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 5800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Cube has
|
Nissan Pulsar has
| |