Nissan Micra 1992 vs Mazda 626 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.8 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 | 106 HP | |
| Torque: | 79 NM | 158 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 51 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 79 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 4.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 7.4 | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan Micra consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 240 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| Mazda 626 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 | 480'000 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 Mazda 626 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Micra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 626 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 | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.58 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but slightly higher. Nissan Micra is 100 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 17 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 206 litres | 455 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 747 litres | |
| Nissan Micra has 249 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Micra (by 213 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 626, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`290 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |