2003 MCC Crossblade vs. 2011 Nissan Micra
To start off, 2011 Nissan Micra is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 MCC Crossblade. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 MCC Crossblade would be higher. At 1,200 cc (4 cylinders), 2011 Nissan Micra is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2011 Nissan Micra (79 HP) has 9 more horse power than 2003 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2011 Nissan Micra should accelerate faster than 2003 MCC Crossblade.
Because 2003 MCC Crossblade is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2003 MCC Crossblade. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2011 Nissan Micra, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2011 Nissan Micra (108 Nm) has 6 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm). This means 2011 Nissan Micra will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 MCC Crossblade | 2011 Nissan Micra | |
| Make | MCC | Nissan |
| Model | Crossblade | Micra |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2011 |
| Engine Size | 598 cc | 1200 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 79 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 108 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 3780 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1666 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1514 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2449 mm |
