Renault Clio 2009 vs Nissan Micra 2011
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 151 NM | 110 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.4 seconds | 14.5 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is more dynamic to drive. Renault Clio engine produces 30 HP more power than Nissan Micra, whereas torque is 41 NM more than Nissan Micra. Thanks to more power Renault Clio reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Clio consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Clio could require 315 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Clio consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 41 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 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 Renault Clio engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 26 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster | Used also on Nissan Note | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Clio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Renault Clio 2009 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Clio 2009 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.23 m | 3.78 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.51 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Renault Clio is larger, but slightly lower. Renault Clio is 45 cm longer than the Nissan Micra, 4 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 439 litres | 265 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1132 litres | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage capacity. Renault Clio has 174 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 9.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Clio is 1.4 metres more than that of the Nissan Micra, which means Renault Clio can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`705 | 1`425 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Nissan Micra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Nissan Micra, so Nissan Micra quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |