Nissan Micra 2003 vs Ford KA 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 88 HP | 69 HP | |
| Torque: | 128 NM | 102 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15 seconds | 13.1 seconds | |
| Nissan Micra engine produces 19 HP more power than Ford KA, whereas torque is 26 NM more than Ford KA. Despite the higher power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 5.1 | |
|
The Ford KA is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan Micra consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford KA, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Micra could require 255 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 790 km on highway | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.72 m | 3.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.51 m | |
| Nissan Micra is 10 cm longer than the Ford KA, width is practically the same , while the height of Nissan Micra is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 371 litres | 224 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | 710 litres | |
| Nissan Micra has 147 litres more trunk space than the Ford KA. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford KA (by 126 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 9.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 0.1 metres less than that of the Ford KA. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`475 | 1`320 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | Ford KA has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 255 percent more cases than Ford KA, so Ford KA quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Ford KA has
| |