Nissan Micra 2005 vs Ford Focus 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.4 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: | 88 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 128 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15 seconds | 14.1 seconds | |
| Nissan Micra engine produces 8 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 4 NM more than Ford Focus. Despite the higher power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Micra could require 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 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 Ford Focus engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Note, Nissan Cube | 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. Nissan Micra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.72 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but higher. Nissan Micra is 62 cm shorter than the Ford Focus, 18 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 251 litres | 385 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | 1247 litres | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage space. Nissan Micra has 134 litres less trunk space than the Ford Focus. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Focus (by 663 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 0.6 metres less than that of the Ford Focus, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`475 | 1`690 | |
| 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 Ford Focus, so Nissan Micra quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Ford Focus has
| |