2002 Ford Ka vs. 2009 Nissan Murano
To start off, 2009 Nissan Murano is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Ford Ka. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Ford Ka would be higher. At 3,498 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Nissan Murano is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Nissan Murano (261 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 126 more horse power than 2002 Ford Ka. (135 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Nissan Murano should accelerate faster than 2002 Ford Ka.
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, 2009 Nissan Murano (248 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 73 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Ford Ka. (175 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2009 Nissan Murano will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Ford Ka. 2009 Nissan Murano has automatic transmission and 2002 Ford Ka has manual transmission. 2002 Ford Ka will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2009 Nissan Murano will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Ford Ka | 2009 Nissan Murano | |
| Make | Ford | Nissan |
| Model | Ka | Murano |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Roadster | Crossover |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1596 cc | 3498 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 135 HP | 261 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 175 Nm | 248 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 10.3:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1890 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6.4 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 10.6 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
