Nissan Micra 2000 vs Ford Fiesta 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.2 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: | 60 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 80 NM | 110 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.5 seconds | 13.1 seconds | |
|
Ford Fiesta is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 15 HP less power than Ford Fiesta, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Ford Fiesta. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 40 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 570 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 680 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. Ford Fiesta might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.75 m | 3.83 m | |
| Width: | 1.60 m | 1.63 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.32 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but higher. Nissan Micra is 8 cm shorter than the Ford Fiesta, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 12 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 205 litres | 250 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 930 litres | |
| Nissan Micra has 45 litres less trunk space than the Ford Fiesta. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Micra (by 30 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 9.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 0.7 metres less than that of the Ford Fiesta, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`340 | 1`450 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Ford Fiesta has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Ford Fiesta, so Ford Fiesta quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Ford Fiesta has
| |