Nissan Micra 2005 vs Suzuki Swift 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 80 HP | 70 HP | |
| Torque: | 110 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.9 seconds | 14.2 seconds | |
|
Nissan Micra is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Micra engine produces 10 HP more power than Suzuki Swift, but torque is 60 NM less than Suzuki Swift. Thanks to more power Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Suzuki Swift is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Micra could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 970 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 1120 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Suzuki Swift gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 350'000 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 Suzuki Swift engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Suzuki Ignis, Suzuki Wagon R+ | |
| 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 Suzuki Swift 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 | 3.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.50 m | |
| Nissan Micra is 3 cm longer than the Suzuki Swift, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 251 litres | 213 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | 562 litres | |
|
Nissan Micra has more luggage capacity. Nissan Micra has 38 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki Swift. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Micra (by 22 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 9.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 0.4 metres more than that of the Suzuki Swift, which means Nissan Micra can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`475 | 1`525 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Nissan Micra has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Suzuki Swift, so Nissan Micra quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Suzuki Swift has
| |