Volkswagen Golf 2012 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 85 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Nissan Pulsar is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Golf engine produces 30 HP less power than Nissan Pulsar, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Nissan Pulsar. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Golf reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 5.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Golf is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Golf consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Golf over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Golf consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Golf gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volkswagen Golf engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Skoda Octavia, Skoda Fabia, Volkswagen Caddy, Audi A1 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Juke | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Golf might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Golf 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: | 4.26 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.52 m | |
| Volkswagen Golf is 13 cm shorter than the Nissan Pulsar, 3 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen Golf is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 380 litres | 385 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1270 litres | 1395 litres | |
| Volkswagen Golf has 5 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Pulsar. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Pulsar (by 125 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Golf is 0.7 metres more than that of the Nissan Pulsar, which means Volkswagen Golf can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`720 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volkswagen Golf scores higher in safety tests, but Nissan Pulsar is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Volkswagen Golf has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Pulsar has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf, so Volkswagen Golf quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8200 | 7600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Golf has
|
Nissan Pulsar has
| |