Nissan Micra 2005 vs Ford Fiesta 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.4 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: | 88 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 128 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15 seconds | 14.6 seconds | |
| Nissan Micra engine produces 8 HP more power than Ford Fiesta, whereas torque is 4 NM more than Ford Fiesta. Despite the higher power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Fiesta is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.8 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 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 580 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Fiesta gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 350'000 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 Fiesta engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Note, Nissan Cube | Used also on Ford Focus | |
| 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: | 3.72 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: | 251 litres | 284 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | no data | |
|
Ford Fiesta has more luggage space. Nissan Micra has 33 litres less trunk space than the Ford Fiesta. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 0.6 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`475 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Ford Fiesta has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Ford Fiesta, so Ford Fiesta quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Ford Fiesta has
| |