Nissan Micra 1996 vs Ford KA 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 55 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 79 NM | 105 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 15.4 seconds | |
|
Ford KA is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 5 HP less power than Ford KA, whereas torque is 26 NM less than Ford KA. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.8 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 Ford KA, 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 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford KA. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 320'000 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 KA engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford Fiesta | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.70 m | 3.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.58 m | 1.63 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.37 m | |
| Nissan Micra is 8 cm longer than the Ford KA, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 206 litres | 186 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 724 litres | |
| Nissan Micra has 20 litres more trunk space than the Ford KA. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Micra (by 236 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 0.6 metres less than that of the Ford KA, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`290 | 1`265 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Nissan Micra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Nissan Micra, so Nissan Micra quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Ford KA has
| |