Nissan Pulsar 2014 vs Audi Q3 2014
| 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: | Manual | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 7.9 seconds | |
|
Audi Q3 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Pulsar engine produces 74 HP less power than Audi Q3, whereas torque is 120 NM less than Audi Q3. Due to the lower power, Nissan Pulsar reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.6 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.1 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Pulsar consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q3, which means that by driving the Nissan Pulsar over 15,000 km in a year you can save 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Pulsar consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1270 km in combined cycle | 1250 km in combined cycle | |
| 1390 km on highway | 1450 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 156 mm (6.1 inches) | 173 mm (6.8 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Audi Q3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
| Nissan Pulsar 2014 1.5 engine: The engine has many modifications, is sufficiently common and spare parts are available. The fuel consumption/power ratio is good. The fuel injection system can be a problem and the timing belt change interval ... More about Nissan Pulsar 2014 1.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.39 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Nissan Pulsar is smaller. Nissan Pulsar and Audi Q3 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 385 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1395 litres | 1365 litres | |
| Nissan Pulsar has 75 litres less trunk space than the Audi Q3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Pulsar (by 30 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Pulsar is 1.6 metres less than that of the Audi Q3, which means Nissan Pulsar can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`785 | 2`225 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Audi Q3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Pulsar has serious deffects in 70 percent more cases than Audi Q3, so Audi Q3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 17 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Pulsar has
|
Audi Q3 has
| |