Nissan Micra 1998 vs Renault Clio 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.1 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: | 55 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 79 NM | 93 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 15 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 5 HP less power than Renault Clio, whereas torque is 14 NM less than Renault Clio. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Clio is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Nissan Micra consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Kangoo, Renault Twingo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Clio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.72 m | 3.77 m | |
| Width: | 1.58 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but slightly higher. Nissan Micra is 5 cm shorter than the Renault Clio, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 206 litres | 255 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 1035 litres | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage space. Nissan Micra has 49 litres less trunk space than the Renault Clio. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Clio (by 75 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.1 metres less than that of the Renault Clio, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`290 | 1`420 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Nissan Micra has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Renault Clio, so Nissan Micra quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Renault Clio has
| |