Nissan Micra 2000 vs Kia Picanto 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.0 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 | 62 HP | |
| Torque: | 80 NM | 86 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 18 seconds | 16.3 seconds | |
|
Kia Picanto is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 2 HP less power than Kia Picanto, whereas torque is 6 NM less than Kia Picanto. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Kia Picanto is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Kia Picanto, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Micra could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Kia Picanto. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 330'000 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 Kia Picanto engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 7 years | |
| 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: | 3.75 m | 3.50 m | |
| Width: | 1.60 m | 1.60 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.48 m | |
| Nissan Micra is 25 cm longer than the Kia Picanto, width is practically the same , while the height of Nissan Micra is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 205 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 882 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Nissan Micra has 15 litres less trunk space than the Kia Picanto. This could mean that the Nissan Micra uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Micra (by 78 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`340 | 1`340 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | Kia Picanto has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Kia Picanto, so Kia Picanto quality is probably better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Kia Picanto has
| |