1996 Rover 400 vs. 2010 Nissan Micra
To start off, 2010 Nissan Micra is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Rover 400. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Rover 400 would be higher. At 1,589 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Rover 400 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Rover 400 (109 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 22 more horse power than 2010 Nissan Micra. (87 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Rover 400 should accelerate faster than 2010 Nissan Micra.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Rover 400 (145 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 17 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Nissan Micra. (128 Nm @ 3200 RPM). This means 1996 Rover 400 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Nissan Micra.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Rover 400 | 2010 Nissan Micra | |
Make | Rover | Nissan |
Model | 400 | Micra |
Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1589 cc | 1386 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 109 HP | 87 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 145 Nm | 128 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3200 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 80 mm | 73 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 79 mm | 82.8 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 9.9:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4370 mm | 3720 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1550 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1670 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2560 mm | 2440 mm |