Nissan Micra 2000 vs Ford KA 1997
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 80 NM | 105 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 18 seconds | 15.4 seconds | |
|
Ford KA is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra and Ford KA have the same engine power, but Nissan Micra torque is 25 NM less than Ford KA. Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford KA is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford KA, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Nissan Micra consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford KA. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 42 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 320'000 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 KA engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford Fiesta | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.75 m | 3.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.60 m | 1.63 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.37 m | |
| Nissan Micra is 13 cm longer than the Ford KA, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 205 litres | 186 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 724 litres | |
| Nissan Micra has 19 litres more trunk space than the Ford KA. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Micra (by 236 litres). | |||
| 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 KA, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`340 | 1`265 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Nissan Micra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Nissan Micra, so Nissan Micra quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Ford KA has
| |