Nissan Micra 2006 vs Hyundai Getz 2005
| Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 110 HP | 106 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 144 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
| Nissan Micra engine produces 4 HP more power than Hyundai Getz, whereas torque is 9 NM more than Hyundai Getz. Despite the higher power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra 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 more fuel per 100 km than the Hyundai Getz, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Micra could require 90 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Nissan Micra consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Hyundai Getz. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Note | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Hyundai Elantra, Hyundai Accent, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Hyundai Getz 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. | |||
| 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 | 3.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.49 m | |
| Nissan Micra is 1 cm shorter than the Hyundai Getz, 1 cm wider, while the height of Nissan Micra is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 254 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
457 litres | 977 litres | |
| Nissan Micra has 1 litres more trunk space than the Hyundai Getz. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Hyundai Getz (by 520 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 0.8 metres less than that of the Hyundai Getz, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`540 | 1`530 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Hyundai Getz has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Nissan Micra, so Hyundai Getz quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Hyundai Getz has
| |