Deutschland
France
Nederland
Great Britain
Sverige
Danmark
Suomi
Italia
Polska
EspañaVS
Ford Puma vs Nissan Micra comparison
Compare performance (168 HP vs 150 HP), boot space and price (24800 £ vs 24000 £ ) at a glance. Find out which car is the better choice for you – Ford Puma or Nissan Micra?
Puma
Costs and Efficiency:
Price and efficiency are often the first things buyers look at. Here it becomes clear which model has the long-term edge – whether at the pump, the plug, or in purchase price.
Nissan Micra has a barely noticeable advantage in terms of price – it starts at 24000 £ , while the Ford Puma costs 24800 £ . That’s a price difference of around 780 £.
In terms of energy consumption, the advantage goes to the Ford Puma: with 13 kWh per 100 km, it’s barely noticeable more efficient than the Nissan Micra with 14.20 kWh. That’s a difference of about 1.20 kWh.
As for electric range, the Ford Puma performs hardly perceptible better – achieving up to 417 km, about 1 km more than the Nissan Micra.
Micra
Engine and Performance:
Under the bonnet, it becomes clear which model is tuned for sportiness and which one takes the lead when you hit the accelerator.
When it comes to engine power, the Ford Puma has a slightly edge – offering 168 HP compared to 150 HP. That’s roughly 18 HP more horsepower.
In acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h, the Ford Puma is hardly perceptible quicker – completing the sprint in 7.40 s, while the Nissan Micra takes 8 s. That’s about 0.60 s faster.
In terms of top speed, the Ford Puma performs distinct better – reaching 210 km/h, while the Nissan Micra tops out at 150 km/h. The difference is around 60 km/h.
There’s also a difference in torque: Ford Puma pulls somewhat stronger with 290 Nm compared to 245 Nm. That’s about 45 Nm difference.
Puma
Space and Everyday Use:
Beyond pure performance, interior space and usability matter most in daily life. This is where you see which car is more practical and versatile.
Both vehicles offer seating for 5 people.
In curb weight, Ford Puma is a bit lighter – 1316 kg compared to 1452 kg. The difference is around 136 kg.
In terms of boot space, the Ford Puma offers distinct more room – 456 L compared to 326 L. That’s a difference of about 130 L.
In maximum load capacity, the Ford Puma performs minimal better – up to 1216 L, which is about 110 L more than the Nissan Micra.
When it comes to payload, Ford Puma slightly takes the win – 469 kg compared to 408 kg. That’s a difference of about 61 kg.
Who wins the race in the data check?
The Ford Puma holds a decisive overall lead in the objective data comparison.
This result only shows which model scores more points on paper – not which of the two cars feels right for you.
Ford Puma
Nissan Micra
Costs and Consumption
View detailed analysis
View detailed analysis
Engine and Performance
View detailed analysis
View detailed analysis
Dimensions and Body
View detailed analysis
View detailed analysis
from about £24,800
Ford Puma
Ford Puma
2.9 (10 Reviews)
The Ford Puma is a cheeky compact crossover that blends sporty styling with city-friendly practicality, giving drivers a surprisingly fun and composed ride. With clever storage tricks and a lively personality, it’s a smart pick for buyers who want enjoyment without fuss.
details
Nissan Micra
The Nissan Micra is a compact hatchback renowned for its agile handling and city-friendly dimensions. With a design that blends sleek curves with a practical layout, it appeals to urban drivers who value style and efficiency. Inside, the car offers a surprising amount of room and useful tech features, making it both a convenient and comfortable ride for daily commutes.
details
Ford Puma
Nissan Micra
Costs and Consumption |
|
|---|---|
|
Price
24800 - 36300 £
|
Price
24000 - 29900 £
|
|
Consumption L/100km
5.4 - 5.9 L
|
Consumption L/100km
-
|
|
Consumption kWh/100km
13 - 13.7 kWh
|
Consumption kWh/100km
14.2 - 14.7 kWh
|
|
Electric Range
404 - 417 km
|
Electric Range
317 - 416 km
|
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
Battery Capacity
40 - 52 kWh
|
|
co2
0 - 135 g/km
|
co2
0 g/km
|
|
Fuel tank capacity
42 L
|
Fuel tank capacity
-
|
Dimensions and Body |
|
|---|---|
|
Body Type
SUV
|
Body Type
Hatchback
|
|
Seats
5
|
Seats
5
|
|
Doors
5
|
Doors
5
|
|
Curb weight
1316 - 1563 kg
|
Curb weight
1452 - 1527 kg
|
|
Trunk capacity
456 L
|
Trunk capacity
326 L
|
|
Length
4186 - 4226 mm
|
Length
3974 mm
|
|
Width
1805 mm
|
Width
1774 mm
|
|
Height
1550 mm
|
Height
1490 mm
|
|
Max trunk capacity
1216 L
|
Max trunk capacity
1106 L
|
|
Payload
367 - 469 kg
|
Payload
403 - 408 kg
|
Engine and Performance |
|
|---|---|
|
Engine Type
Petrol MHEV, Electric
|
Engine Type
Electric
|
|
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
|
Transmission
Automatic
|
|
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Dual-Clutch Automatic, Reduction Gearbox
|
Transmission Detail
Reduction Gearbox
|
|
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive
|
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive
|
|
Power HP
125 - 168 HP
|
Power HP
122 - 150 HP
|
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
7.4 - 9.8 s
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
8 - 9 s
|
|
Max Speed
190 - 210 km/h
|
Max Speed
150 km/h
|
|
Torque
170 - 290 Nm
|
Torque
225 - 245 Nm
|
|
Number of Cylinders
3
|
Number of Cylinders
-
|
|
Power kW
92 - 124 kW
|
Power kW
90 - 110 kW
|
|
Engine capacity
999 cm3
|
Engine capacity
-
|
General |
|
|---|---|
|
Model Year
2025 - 2026
|
Model Year
2026
|
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
D, A
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
A
|
|
Brand
Ford
|
Brand
Nissan
|
Is the Ford Puma offered with different drivetrains?
The Ford Puma is offered with Front-Wheel Drive.
The prices shown are estimates based on German list prices, adjusted for local VAT. Local registration taxes (e.g. NoVA, BPM or CO2 malus) are not included. This information is not legally binding.