Toyota C-HR 2016 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014
| Body: | Crossover / SUV | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 12.7 seconds | |
|
Toyota C-HR is more dynamic to drive. Toyota C-HR engine produces 1 HP more power than Nissan Pulsar, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Nissan Pulsar. Thanks to more power Toyota C-HR reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota C-HR consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota C-HR could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota C-HR consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.52 m | |
| Toyota C-HR is 3 cm shorter than the Nissan Pulsar, 3 cm wider, while the height of Toyota C-HR is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 377 litres | 385 litres | |
| Toyota C-HR has 8 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Pulsar. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota C-HR is 0.8 metres more than that of the Nissan Pulsar, which means Toyota C-HR can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`865 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 21 000 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota C-HR has
|
Nissan Pulsar has
| |