Nissan Pulsar 2014 vs Volkswagen Golf 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 85 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Nissan Pulsar is more dynamic to drive. Nissan Pulsar engine produces 30 HP more power than Volkswagen Golf, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Volkswagen Golf. Thanks to more power Nissan Pulsar reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.0 | 4.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Golf is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Pulsar consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Pulsar could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Pulsar consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1020 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Golf gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 350'000 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 Volkswagen Golf engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Juke | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Skoda Octavia, Skoda Fabia, Volkswagen Caddy, Audi A1 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Golf might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Golf 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.39 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.45 m | |
| Nissan Pulsar is 13 cm longer than the Volkswagen Golf, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Pulsar is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 385 litres | 380 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1395 litres | 1270 litres | |
| Nissan Pulsar has 5 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Golf. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Pulsar (by 125 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Pulsar is 0.7 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Golf, which means Nissan Pulsar can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`720 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volkswagen Golf scores higher in safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Volkswagen Golf has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Pulsar has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf, so Volkswagen Golf quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7600 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Pulsar has
|
Volkswagen Golf has
| |