Nissan Micra 2005 vs Suzuki Swift 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 133 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Nissan Micra is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Micra engine produces 8 HP more power than Suzuki Swift, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Suzuki Swift. Thanks to more power Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.5 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 75 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Nissan Micra consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Swift. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Note | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Ignis | |
| 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 | 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 |
982 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 420 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`490 | 1`485 | |
| 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
| |