Nissan Micra 2003 vs Ford KA 2008
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nissan Micra is available with both manual and automatic gearboxes, whereas Ford KA is available only with manual gearbox. | |||
| Engines: | 1.0 - 1.5 | 1.2 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 65 - 88 HP | 69 - 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 90 - 185 NM | 102 - 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 - 17.9 seconds | 13 - 13.1 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.5 - 6.8 | 4.2 - 5.1 | |
|
Nissan Micra petrol engines consumes on average 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than Ford KA. On average, Nissan Micra equipped with diesel engines consume 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford KA. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.72 m | 3.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.51 m | |
| Nissan Micra is 10 cm longer than the Ford KA, width is practically the same , while the height of Nissan Micra is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 371 litres | 224 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | 710 litres | |
| Nissan Micra has 147 litres more trunk space than the Ford KA. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford KA (by 126 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 9.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 0.5 metres more than that of the Ford KA, which means Nissan Micra can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`479 | ~ 1`368 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Ford KA has
| |