Nissan Micra 2005 vs Volvo C70 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Nissan Micra) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Volvo C70) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 88 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 128 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo C70 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 92 HP less power than Volvo C70, whereas torque is 222 NM less than Volvo C70. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C70, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 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 Volvo C70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo C70 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.81 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but slightly higher. Nissan Micra is 77 cm shorter than the Volvo C70, 15 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 200 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
457 litres | 404 litres | |
|
Nissan Micra has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Micra has 55 litres more trunk space than the Volvo C70. The Volvo C70 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 Nissan Micra (by 53 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 3.5 metres less than that of the Volvo C70, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`540 | 2`090 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Nissan Micra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo C70 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Nissan Micra, so Nissan Micra quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Volvo C70 has
| |