Nissan Micra 2006 vs Honda S2000 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 240 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 208 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 6.2 seconds | |
|
Honda S2000 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 130 HP less power than Honda S2000, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Honda S2000. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 4.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 9.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 9.9 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 3.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda S2000, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 480 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 3.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda S2000. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 500 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km with real consumption | 500 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Nissan Micra) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Honda S2000) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 280'000 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 Nissan Micra engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Note | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Micra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Nissan Micra 2006 1.6 engine: A simple and reliable engine, not particularly demanding on fuel quality. Tends to consume more oil, may have problems starting in cold weather. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.81 m | 4.14 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.28 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but higher. Nissan Micra is 33 cm shorter than the Honda S2000, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 16 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 143 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
457 litres | no data | |
|
Nissan Micra has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Micra has 112 litres more trunk space than the Honda S2000. The Honda S2000 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.6 metres less than that of the Honda S2000, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`540 | 1`220 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 3000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Honda S2000 has
| |