Nissan Serena 1996 vs Toyota Picnic 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 126 HP | 128 HP | |
| Torque: | 169 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Toyota Picnic is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Serena engine produces 2 HP less power than Toyota Picnic, whereas torque is 9 NM less than Toyota Picnic. Due to the lower power, Nissan Serena reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 9.1 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Picnic is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Serena consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Picnic, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Serena could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Serena consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Picnic. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Picnic gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Toyota Picnic) 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 (Nissan Serena) 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Carina E, Toyota Hiace | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Picnic might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Nissan Serena 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: | 4.32 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.84 m | 1.62 m | |
| Nissan Serena is 21 cm shorter than the Toyota Picnic, 1 cm wider, while the height of Nissan Serena is 22 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 180 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
620 litres | 1840 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Serena has 170 litres more trunk space than the Toyota Picnic. The Toyota Picnic may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Toyota Picnic (by 1220 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Serena is 0.4 metres more than that of the Toyota Picnic, which means Nissan Serena can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`060 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Serena has
|
Toyota Picnic has
| |