Nissan Micra 2000 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.2 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 | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 80 NM | 110 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 18 seconds | 15.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 2 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 15 HP less power than Mazda 2, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Mazda 2. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Nissan Micra consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 620 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 | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford Fiesta, Ford Fusion | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 2 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.75 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.60 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.54 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller. Nissan Micra is 17 cm shorter than the Mazda 2, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 205 litres | 267 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
960 litres | 1044 litres | |
|
Mazda 2 has more luggage space. Nissan Micra has 62 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 2. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 2 (by 84 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 Mazda 2, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`340 | 1`490 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 160 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |