Nissan Micra 1998 vs Skoda Felicia 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 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: | 55 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 79 NM | 135 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Skoda Felicia is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 20 HP less power than Skoda Felicia, whereas torque is 56 NM less than Skoda Felicia. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 4.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Felicia, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Felicia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 550 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 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 Skoda Felicia engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Seat Ibiza, Seat Cordoba | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Skoda Felicia engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.72 m | 3.86 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 14 cm shorter than the Skoda Felicia, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 206 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
960 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.3 metres less than that of the Skoda Felicia, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`290 kg | 1`000 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Nissan Micra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Felicia has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Nissan Micra, so Nissan Micra quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Skoda Felicia has
| |