Nissan Almera 2002 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 1997
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 163 NM | 174 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 12.4 seconds | |
| Nissan Almera engine produces 9 HP less power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 11 NM less than Mitsubishi Carisma. Due to the lower power, Nissan Almera reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Almera consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan Almera could require 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Almera consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 23 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan Primera, Nissan Almera Tino, Nissan Sentra | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Galant | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Carisma might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mitsubishi Carisma engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.20 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.40 m | |
| Nissan Almera is 28 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Carisma, width is practically the same , while the height of Nissan Almera is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 355 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1020 litres | 660 litres | |
| Nissan Almera has 75 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Carisma. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Almera (by 360 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`735 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Nissan Almera has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Carisma, so Nissan Almera quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.2/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Almera has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |