Nissan Micra 2003 vs Renault Clio 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 98 HP | |
| Torque: | 128 NM | 127 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 10 HP less power than Renault Clio, but torque is 1 NM more than Renault Clio. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Note, Nissan Cube | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Megane, Renault Modus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Clio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Renault Clio 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 | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.42 m | |
| Nissan Micra is 9 cm shorter than the Renault Clio, 2 cm wider, while the height of Nissan Micra is 12 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 371 litres | 255 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | 1035 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Micra has 116 litres more trunk space than the Renault Clio. The Renault Clio 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 Renault Clio (by 451 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.1 metres less than that of the Renault Clio, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`475 | 1`495 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Renault Clio has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Renault Clio, so Renault Clio quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Renault Clio has
| |