Nissan Micra 2005 vs Ford Focus 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 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: | 110 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Nissan Micra is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Micra engine produces 10 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 3 NM more than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 440'000 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: | 20 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Note | Used only for this car | |
| 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. | |||
| Nissan Micra 2005 1.6 engine: A simple and reliable engine, not particularly demanding on fuel quality. Tends to consume more oil, may have problems starting in cold weather. | |||
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 |
982 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 265 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`490 | 1`710 | |
| 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
| |