Nissan Pulsar 2014 vs Toyota C-HR 2016
| Body: | Hatchback | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Toyota C-HR is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Pulsar engine produces 1 HP less power than Toyota C-HR, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Toyota C-HR. Due to the lower power, Nissan Pulsar reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Pulsar consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota C-HR, which means that by driving the Nissan Pulsar over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Pulsar consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota C-HR. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.39 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.56 m | |
| Nissan Pulsar is 3 cm longer than the Toyota C-HR, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Pulsar is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 385 litres | 377 litres | |
| Nissan Pulsar has 8 litres more trunk space than the Toyota C-HR. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Pulsar is 0.8 metres less than that of the Toyota C-HR, which means Nissan Pulsar can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`865 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 21 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Pulsar has
|
Toyota C-HR has
| |