Rover 100 1990 vs Nissan Micra 1996
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.1 - 1.4 | 1.0 - 1.3 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 - 103 HP | 54 - 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 90 - 127 NM | 79 - 103 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 - 14.8 seconds | 12 - 19.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 - 6.9 | 5.8 - 6.3 | |
|
Rover 100 petrol engines consumes on average 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than Nissan Micra. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.52 m | 3.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.58 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Rover 100 is smaller. Rover 100 is 18 cm shorter than the Nissan Micra, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 100 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 229 litres | 206 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
552 litres | 960 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Rover 100 has 23 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Micra. The Nissan Micra 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 Nissan Micra (by 408 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 100 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Nissan Micra, which means Rover 100 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`300 | ~ 1`295 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 100 has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |