Nissan Micra 1996 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Nissan Micra) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Mitsubishi Carisma) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 55 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 79 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 60 HP less power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 186 NM less than Mitsubishi Carisma. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Micra could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 980 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.70 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.58 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but slightly higher. Nissan Micra is 78 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Carisma, 13 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 206 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 1050 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has more luggage space. Nissan Micra has 224 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Carisma. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Carisma (by 90 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.2 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`290 | 1`795 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 190 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |