Nissan Almera 2012 vs Kia Optima 2010
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.6 | 2.0 - 2.4 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 102 HP | 165 - 274 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 198 - 365 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 - 12.7 seconds | 9 - 10.9 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 - 8.5 | 7.6 - 8.8 | |
|
Nissan Almera petrol engines consumes on average 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than Kia Optima. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Nissan Almera is smaller, but higher. Nissan Almera is 19 cm shorter than the Kia Optima, 14 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Almera is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 436 litres | |
|
Nissan Almera has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Almera has 64 litres more trunk space than the Kia Optima. The Kia Optima may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Almera is 0.4 metres less than that of the Kia Optima, which means Nissan Almera can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`625 | ~ 1`994 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Almera has
|
| |