Nissan Micra 1996 vs Audi A3 1996
| 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 | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 79 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Audi A3 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 45 HP less power than Audi A3, whereas torque is 66 NM less than Audi A3. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 5.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 270 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 420'000 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 Audi A3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Seat Leon, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza | |
| 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 Audi A3 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: | 3.70 m | 4.15 m | |
| Width: | 1.58 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but slightly higher. Nissan Micra is 45 cm shorter than the Audi A3, 16 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 206 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 1110 litres | |
|
Audi A3 has more luggage space. Nissan Micra has 144 litres less trunk space than the Audi A3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi A3 (by 150 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.7 metres less than that of the Audi A3, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`290 | 1`600 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Audi A3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Audi A3, so Audi A3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Audi A3 has
| |