Nissan Micra 2003 vs Ford Fiesta 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 65 HP | 68 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
|
Ford Fiesta is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 3 HP less power than Ford Fiesta, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.6 | 4.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.8 l/100km | 5.1 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 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Micra could require 45 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Nissan Micra consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1040 km in combined cycle | |
| 1150 km on highway | 1210 km on highway | ||
| 950 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Nissan Almera, Suzuki Jimny | Used also on Ford Fusion | |
| 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 Ford Fiesta 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 | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but higher. Nissan Micra is 20 cm shorter than the Ford Fiesta, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 371 litres | 268 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | 945 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Micra has 103 litres more trunk space than the Ford Fiesta. The Ford Fiesta may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Fiesta (by 361 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`510 | 1`560 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Ford Fiesta has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Ford Fiesta, so Ford Fiesta quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Ford Fiesta has
| |