Smart ForFour 2014 vs Nissan Micra 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 98 HP | |
| Torque: | 91 NM | 142 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.9 seconds | 11.3 seconds | |
|
Nissan Micra is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForFour engine produces 27 HP less power than Nissan Micra, whereas torque is 51 NM less than Nissan Micra. Due to the lower power, Smart ForFour reaches 100 km/h speed 5.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 4.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
By specification Smart ForFour consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Smart ForFour could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Smart ForFour consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 28 litres | 41 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 1130 km on highway | ||
| 450 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Micra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Nissan Micra) 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 (Smart ForFour) 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Dacia Logan, Dacia Sandero, Renault Twingo | 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. Smart ForFour might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.49 m | 3.78 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Smart ForFour is smaller, but slightly higher. Smart ForFour is 29 cm shorter than the Nissan Micra, width is practically the same , while the height of Smart ForFour is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 265 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
975 litres | no data | |
|
Nissan Micra has more luggage space. Smart ForFour has 81 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Micra. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.7 meters | 9.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForFour is 0.6 metres less than that of the Nissan Micra, which means Smart ForFour can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`435 | 1`435 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Smart ForFour has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Nissan Micra, so Smart ForFour quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 7800 | 5800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForFour has
|
Nissan Micra has
| |