I have the ''Canadian Version'' with the 1.6 manual transmission and it pulls way harder than this I was even surprised how much this little engine gives. Imagine with a proper tune. I would take the traction control off and launch it at 4000 rpm tho :) Good tires with this car and you can have fun IF it dosent break not super reliable with my experience and I am gentle with it ;)
I have a 2015 with about 320k and it has been stone reliable. The only expensive jobs were the fuel injectors, and one coil pack. Other than that, oil and tires, and undercoating in the winter.
Andy in Europe it was sold with a 1,2L 3 cylinder with 80hp, I have one with another "European" engine, the same 1,2 but with volumetric compressor and 98hp!
@@Andy-qk1bt This is 80bhp, the 1.2 3 cylinder petrol. I have the same one in India and it does 0-100 under 10 seconds. The 1.6 is bonkers perfomance, does 0-100 in 7.2 Seconds
quite an impressive little car...peppy enough for modern traffic too.... I remember the 1995 Geo Metro 3 cylinder (70 horse power) seeming quite adequate with 0 to 60 KPH times of 12 seconds. Technology sure make the difference in the new cars. The latest Mitsubishi Mirage looks good too!
You might want to measure the speed with GPS. The speedometer in my (German-spec) Micra overstates its speed by about 8 percent. The one in the video reaches 108 km/h in about 12 seconds - which seems a more realistic time to reach 100.
the micra 1.2l 12V with 80hp / the polo 1.4 TDI do 12s from 0 to 100Kmh / toyota Yaris d1.33 dual VVT 99Hp Do 11s/ Seat Leon FR 2.0l tdi Do 8.4 / Golf 7 TDI 2.0l Do 8.6s
Well a Can am outlander or renegade atv weight 800lbs + passenger can do about 130 + unlocked with a cvt tranny and low high speed only I do expect a full size Car engine with 80 hp and a big tranny 5 speed to be able to do faster
+Car Acceleration TV ... not unless you did the run down a hill it isn't. You've somehow shaved 3.5 seconds off the official sprint time, and at least 1.5, maybe 2 whole seconds off that of any other 80hp car I could name. Maybe if it was an original Mini you might see that kind of ET... Last car I had which just squeaked under 10 seconds 0-100k (literally, like, 9.9s) had a 106hp engine in it. And guess how much power the 1.6 Micra has? Yep, 109hp... (I just bought one, so I've checked the spec recently ... mostly I had to limit myself to 75+ hp cars and cut out most with 70 or less because they just didn't accelerate fast enough - I set a 0-100k limit of 13.5s as that's what my second car did and its acceleration was just about good enough for me, though I would have preferred something in the 85-90hp range or more to get it down under 12s. 80hp and low 13s will have to do, though I might end up chipping it...)
My uncle has a Micra Active (And yes it shares the same engine as this one) and yea it is louder than u thought. I thought micras/marches were weak but boy was I wrong
Pretty certain this isn't the 1.2, the engine note doesn't sound burbly enough (it's a 3-cylinder), and neither the NA nor the supercharged version can reach 100k in under 11 seconds... the NA takes over 13, and can't exceed about 170km/h... Plus it doesn't look quite high geared enough. This is probably the 1.6 as sold in North America, which has plenty of power (about +40% vs the 1.2 - as it's got an extra cylinder of the same size and better overall balance) but rather lower gear ratios.
+mspenrice Follow-up, now owning an NA 1.2 myself: Gearing in 1st thru 3rd looks correct; I think I must have imagined an additional gearchange somewhere because this video only gets to 4th, not 5th. However, the best estimate I can get of the gearing in that 4th, averaging the speed vs revs at various points including the braking period, is similar to the 5th gear of the Canadian & Mexican version - about 31km/h. Which suggests this is the supercharged version, as the naturally aspirated one is geared closer to 29.5k instead, but the DiG-S has a 4th of very nearly 31.0k... The engine note is actually correct, it's very even and tuneful at high rpm for a 3-pot, but you can definitely tell it's a bit "off" compared to a 4-pot if you listen carefully at idle and low revs, and the drive isn't quite as smooth at low rpms (below about 1500~2000; after that there's no noticeable difference). However here I'm pretty sure I can hear a boost whoosh at the 1st - 2nd gear change, even though there isn't much if any audible charger whine. Which is a bit disappointing really, if I had a supercharged car I'd want to be able to hear that! :) In any case, I stick by this being far too quick an acceleration for the NA model, unless the speedometer is badly overreading. But then the gearing would seem "off" as well, particularly in lower gears - the stock speedo is only out by a very small amount. It's still not perfect, but it's one of the more accurate units I've seen, at least at low speeds. Certainly not out by enough to change the apparent 0-100k time by more than 0.5 - 1.0 seconds, let alone 3.5... (let's just run the numbers, assuming that a change in horsepower causes a linear change in 0-100k time in any car capable of at least 125k and of similar weight... 80hp: 13.7s 109hp: 10.1s ... which is actually quite a bit faster than what Nissan claim, but close enough to the video time that you could claim the variation is merely down to gradient, wind, speedo inaccuracy and manufacturing variance Vs some others: My old Clio, 86hp: 12.7s ... which was also its book time... though the 80hp Clio *before* that did it in 11.9. Both, however, were diesels, which for the same hp generally means better acceleration as their power curves are more plateau-like than peaky and they get through the gears faster, and the 86hp one was distinctly heavier. My first car (45hp Polo): 24.4s ... a bit pessimistic, as it actually did it in around 20s, but it was both lighter and shorter geared, and would have been already nudging peak power in 3rd by 100k, rather than coming out the top of it in 2nd. Really the lesson is that it's not quite linear - the differences aren't as stark as that model would suggest, for whatever reason. But they are at least a guide, and one that confirms this car most certainly has 100+ horsepower ... possibly chipped... and probably on a downslope with a following wind.)
i saw this vidéo in 2015 before my parents bought one, we have it until this day, this little 1.2l 3 cylinders really surprised me, and the Answers is yes it go that fast but when you're alone in the car with the air conditioner off, i don't understand why but when you turn it on, it's like the car have 40 hp, and on the climbs the 3cyl is suffering, if Someone read this i'm sorry if i did some orthographe faults i try to perform my english 😅, and the real question is " why are you watching this ?".
Air conditioner is powered by an engine so everytime you turn it on it takes the power from engine to work. It is a one of basic rules in car world, wanna accelerate faster or quickly pass someone on highway? Turn off the A/C for the time of passing a car :D It can drastically decrease the power feeling of a low HP engine to the point where it barely moves at higher gears
Das ist eine sehr guter Wert. Die Lamdasonde beeinflusst die Fahrleistung sehr stark. Ich habe jetzt eine neue drin und er beschleunigt nicht mehr so gut, dafür verbraucht er 1L weniger.
***** pretty funny when atv like Kawasaki brute force or Can am Rotax 800-1000 Some polaris can do more than 80 hp The 1000 rotax do 82hp stock.. the brute do like 50 but with some mod can reach 80+ i think even seen one do like 100 with nos
Secondly, you seem to have a power obsession. Not having the better part of 200hp/tonne doesn't make something underpowered unless you're a total speed freak. Having difficulty keeping up with traffic unless you thrash the guts out of it (and sometimes even then) is underpowered - hence my bike is fairly quick in the city, but badly lacking for power on the open road. Only being midrange for performance in a group of its peers (faster than some, slower than others) isn't underpowered either, unless you want to label all cars other than the very fastest as such. 49hp from 700cc isn't a bad amount at all, really, and if that's only being asked to move 400-and-some kilos including the rider, it'll be pretty thrusty. Maybe twice what my bike makes. 89hp sounds overkill really. But you're comparing one engine with 70% of the capacity of the other, so of course there's going to be a difference, they're probably in entirely different classes, so what's your point? Like comparing a 1.0 litre to 1.4 litre car. Or the supercharged Micra vs the naturally aspirated one (as supercharger boost is generally considered worth about that much). If you normalise the capacities to each other, the Yamaha is making the equivalent of 70hp vs the Can Am. Also, given that you're looking down on 4-stroke Yamahas and putting out names of engines that I'd more normally recognise from ultralight aircraft and chainsaws and stuff, I'm thinking you're basing your comparisons on 2-stroke engines. Which is rather unfair, as they tend to pull out maybe 50% more power per capacity (which, when you consider they have twice as many combustions per crank rotation, is kinda crap), and, more importantly, have very peaky torque and are complete emissions disaster zones, and as a result are basically facing de-facto bans in many places (most particularly large cities, but entire countries in some cases) because they simply cannot comply with modern standards. They have no way of altering valve timings, little hope of making use of EGR systems to recover or process the hilarious amount of unburnt fuel / NOx that comes out of the tailpipe (as it'd interfere with the exhaust resonance chamber characteristics and such), and even if unburnt HCs weren't such a risk factor for overheating a catalyser, they can't usually have one anyway thanks to the need for total-loss lubrication, which would poison the cat through a mixture of liquid oil and sooty smoke contamination. In comparison, the car in question is one of the cleanest-emission fossil fuel burning machines you can buy which doesn't involve an electric hybrid system. Literally it's won awards for how clean the output from its exhaust pipe is, and at its last annual safety & emissions test some of the components registered as "too low to measure". Also said 2-strokiness might suggest they're using CVT transmissions rather than geared, which is a bit of a cheat for this comparison as they'll effectively ALWAYS be on the torque/power band when you have the throttle fully twisted. I do wonder what you think "a ton" of "low down" torque is, in that case. What percentage of the thrust you get at peak torque (which comes in at, what, probably mid 5000s if your limiter is at 7500?) is still available at half that rpm? As I said, the Micra isn't the strongest at idle with no throttle, but so long as you rev it even the tiniest bit, or open the tap and give it a couple of beats to respond (ie so the increased airflow can get to the cylinders), it pulls nicely with barely a twitch of the revcounter, acquits itself well from about 1200~1500, and is in full flow by 2000, probably making 90-95% of maximum by then (peak is at 4000). It can get up the steepest hill I could find anywhere around - the infamous Lickey incline - in 3rd gear at only 2000rpm on the steeper side (and 4th if it gets a faster run-up - there's some sharp turns and a low speed limit, though), and all the way up the slightly shallower side with only a couple of brief rev drops from even 1500 in top gear. It's a real wonder of VVT engineering. As there are enough regular cars which can't match that, and my 4-stroke bike (with 4T usually being better for torque range than 2T) certainly isn't anywhere close even when you normalise the revs, I doubt a 2T ATV can match it.
![2013 Nissan Micra Elle Automatic [1.2 - 80 HP] POV Test Drive 4K](/img/n.gif)
The power of nissan
For those who wonder, see his other video on his channel, he is filming the engine bay, it's the 3cyl. Now that doesn't mean he wasn't going downhill
I have the ''Canadian Version'' with the 1.6 manual transmission and it pulls way harder than this I was even surprised how much this little engine gives. Imagine with a proper tune. I would take the traction control off and launch it at 4000 rpm tho :) Good tires with this car and you can have fun IF it dosent break not super reliable with my experience and I am gentle with it ;)
I would also gladly buy the car with the 1600 machine, unfortunately, there is not in Germany.
Butterfly poop you have vids?
yes! its very fun to drive, because weith less than 1000 kilos
Sir David, what has gone wrong with it and how many miles ?
I have a 2015 with about 320k and it has been stone reliable. The only expensive jobs were the fuel injectors, and one coil pack. Other than that, oil and tires, and undercoating in the winter.
Hmmm very very fast for 80hp
not 80 hp, it has 106
880 kg with a 1.6 engine
Andy in Europe it was sold with a 1,2L 3 cylinder with 80hp, I have one with another "European" engine, the same 1,2 but with volumetric compressor and 98hp!
With good gear changes the 1.6 engine achieves up to 8.5 seconds
This is definitely the 1.2 in the video
@@Andy-qk1bt This is 80bhp, the 1.2 3 cylinder petrol. I have the same one in India and it does 0-100 under 10 seconds. The 1.6 is bonkers perfomance, does 0-100 in 7.2 Seconds
i have the same . great car.
quite an impressive little car...peppy enough for modern traffic too....
I remember the 1995 Geo Metro 3 cylinder (70 horse power) seeming quite adequate with 0 to 60 KPH times of 12 seconds. Technology sure make the difference in the new cars.
The latest Mitsubishi Mirage looks good too!
You should test the version equipped with the 4l 1,6L @ 109HP, might get different results
2Much Decibels 1.3
The 1.6 version in Brazil is 111HP.
Bonkers Perfomance 🙌🏻
You might want to measure the speed with GPS. The speedometer in my (German-spec) Micra overstates its speed by about 8 percent. The one in the video reaches 108 km/h in about 12 seconds - which seems a more realistic time to reach 100.
the micra 1.2l 12V with 80hp / the polo 1.4 TDI do 12s from 0 to 100Kmh / toyota Yaris d1.33 dual VVT 99Hp Do 11s/ Seat Leon FR 2.0l tdi Do 8.4 / Golf 7 TDI 2.0l Do 8.6s
Alter Verwalter das muss ja wohl der schnellste 3 cylinder sein! :O
Something wrong with speedo. 110 in 2nd, 155 in 3rd, 0-100 below 10 sec with 80 hp is impossible.
Seba03111976 100% stock ca with 80hp - maybe speedometer goes ahead
***** Try with Gps.
Seba03111976 it's possible... is the same in the saxo and 106,they go very fast.
the micra is a very small and tiny car
Well a Can am outlander or renegade atv weight 800lbs + passenger can do about 130 + unlocked with a cvt tranny and low high speed only I do expect a full size Car engine with 80 hp and a big tranny 5 speed to be able to do faster
Seba03111976 this nissan have 107 hp
What a beast!! Fuck yeah.
Isn´t it the 105hp version? Because I have one of those and it reaches arround 200km/h in fifth
Miguel Angel Triana It is 1.2l 12V with 80hp
+Car Acceleration TV ... not unless you did the run down a hill it isn't. You've somehow shaved 3.5 seconds off the official sprint time, and at least 1.5, maybe 2 whole seconds off that of any other 80hp car I could name. Maybe if it was an original Mini you might see that kind of ET...
Last car I had which just squeaked under 10 seconds 0-100k (literally, like, 9.9s) had a 106hp engine in it. And guess how much power the 1.6 Micra has? Yep, 109hp...
(I just bought one, so I've checked the spec recently ... mostly I had to limit myself to 75+ hp cars and cut out most with 70 or less because they just didn't accelerate fast enough - I set a 0-100k limit of 13.5s as that's what my second car did and its acceleration was just about good enough for me, though I would have preferred something in the 85-90hp range or more to get it down under 12s. 80hp and low 13s will have to do, though I might end up chipping it...)
Yess
Pudo haber hecho sin problemas 9bajos si la salida fuera mejor
Best technology
Actually, I think this is 1.6 version.
Nope it’s the 1.2
@@Eldomibori yeah it's definitely a 3 cylinder
I used to have one it was 85 hp and it was so fast top speed was 210 kmh but it was really hard to reach this speed you need to blow the engine
My uncle has a Micra Active (And yes it shares the same engine as this one) and yea it is louder than u thought. I thought micras/marches were weak but boy was I wrong
Are you guys getting the 1.6 version with 116 hp?
+Taijean Moodie 1.2 80hp.
+Neee35 The one down here in Canada is the dr16 with a 1.6l engine about 110 hp the same in the nissan versa note.
sorry, the old 1995 Geo Metro was 0 to 60 MPH in 12 seconds...I guess that is pretty slow compared to what cars 20 years later are doing...
Pretty certain this isn't the 1.2, the engine note doesn't sound burbly enough (it's a 3-cylinder), and neither the NA nor the supercharged version can reach 100k in under 11 seconds... the NA takes over 13, and can't exceed about 170km/h... Plus it doesn't look quite high geared enough.
This is probably the 1.6 as sold in North America, which has plenty of power (about +40% vs the 1.2 - as it's got an extra cylinder of the same size and better overall balance) but rather lower gear ratios.
+mspenrice Follow-up, now owning an NA 1.2 myself:
Gearing in 1st thru 3rd looks correct; I think I must have imagined an additional gearchange somewhere because this video only gets to 4th, not 5th.
However, the best estimate I can get of the gearing in that 4th, averaging the speed vs revs at various points including the braking period, is similar to the 5th gear of the Canadian & Mexican version - about 31km/h. Which suggests this is the supercharged version, as the naturally aspirated one is geared closer to 29.5k instead, but the DiG-S has a 4th of very nearly 31.0k...
The engine note is actually correct, it's very even and tuneful at high rpm for a 3-pot, but you can definitely tell it's a bit "off" compared to a 4-pot if you listen carefully at idle and low revs, and the drive isn't quite as smooth at low rpms (below about 1500~2000; after that there's no noticeable difference). However here I'm pretty sure I can hear a boost whoosh at the 1st - 2nd gear change, even though there isn't much if any audible charger whine. Which is a bit disappointing really, if I had a supercharged car I'd want to be able to hear that! :)
In any case, I stick by this being far too quick an acceleration for the NA model, unless the speedometer is badly overreading. But then the gearing would seem "off" as well, particularly in lower gears - the stock speedo is only out by a very small amount. It's still not perfect, but it's one of the more accurate units I've seen, at least at low speeds. Certainly not out by enough to change the apparent 0-100k time by more than 0.5 - 1.0 seconds, let alone 3.5...
(let's just run the numbers, assuming that a change in horsepower causes a linear change in 0-100k time in any car capable of at least 125k and of similar weight...
80hp: 13.7s
109hp: 10.1s ... which is actually quite a bit faster than what Nissan claim, but close enough to the video time that you could claim the variation is merely down to gradient, wind, speedo inaccuracy and manufacturing variance
Vs some others:
My old Clio, 86hp: 12.7s ... which was also its book time... though the 80hp Clio *before* that did it in 11.9. Both, however, were diesels, which for the same hp generally means better acceleration as their power curves are more plateau-like than peaky and they get through the gears faster, and the 86hp one was distinctly heavier.
My first car (45hp Polo): 24.4s ... a bit pessimistic, as it actually did it in around 20s, but it was both lighter and shorter geared, and would have been already nudging peak power in 3rd by 100k, rather than coming out the top of it in 2nd.
Really the lesson is that it's not quite linear - the differences aren't as stark as that model would suggest, for whatever reason. But they are at least a guide, and one that confirms this car most certainly has 100+ horsepower ... possibly chipped... and probably on a downslope with a following wind.)
Nope, you're wrong. I own a 1.2 3 cylinder in India and it goes 0-100 in under 10 seconds
ich hab jetzt mal genau hin geschaut. Es wird im 2. Gang angefahren, dadurch spart man sich die Zeit vom 1. Gang in dem 2. Gang zu schalten.
dann schau nochmal hin und sag mir, in welchem Auto man bei 60 in den 3. schalten muss
okay, ich geb mich geschlagen.
+Peters Schlagerbox War ja nicht bös gemeint :D
Aseki Bekovy
- ich war leider der Besserwisser und nicht der Wisser, das war mein Problem.
+Peters Schlagerbox stell dir mal vor, er fährt tatsächlich im zweiten Gang an. Dann muss er ja gar nicht schalten ;) verfehlt aber seine Zeit
i saw this vidéo in 2015 before my parents bought one, we have it until this day, this little 1.2l 3 cylinders really surprised me, and the Answers is yes it go that fast but when you're alone in the car with the air conditioner off, i don't understand why but when you turn it on, it's like the car have 40 hp, and on the climbs the 3cyl is suffering, if Someone read this i'm sorry if i did some orthographe faults i try to perform my english 😅, and the real question is " why are you watching this ?".
Air conditioner is powered by an engine so everytime you turn it on it takes the power from engine to work. It is a one of basic rules in car world, wanna accelerate faster or quickly pass someone on highway? Turn off the A/C for the time of passing a car :D It can drastically decrease the power feeling of a low HP engine to the point where it barely moves at higher gears
Der Wagen kann unmöglich eine 80 PS Maschine haben, der Tacho geht bis zweihundertzwanzig, den haben nur die Fahrzeuge mit über 100 PS.
Peters Schlagerbox doch hat er.. Ich hab den selben. Man schafft aber nur ca 190 wenns gut läuft
Das ist eine sehr guter Wert. Die Lamdasonde beeinflusst die Fahrleistung sehr stark. Ich habe jetzt eine neue drin und er beschleunigt nicht mehr so gut, dafür verbraucht er 1L weniger.
Believe or not is 1.2 liter ,3 cylinder
OMFG IT'S FASTER THAN THE 2015 MAZDA 3 2.0 LITER WITH 155hp???!!! WTFFFF????!!!
80 cv?
juankii 03 yes, 80cv!
***** pretty funny when atv like Kawasaki brute force or Can am Rotax 800-1000 Some polaris can do more than 80 hp The 1000 rotax do 82hp stock.. the brute do like 50 but with some mod can reach 80+ i think even seen one do like 100 with nos
+MrBonami2 ... what has this got to do with anything?
Mark Penrice those car are underpowered like mad
Secondly, you seem to have a power obsession. Not having the better part of 200hp/tonne doesn't make something underpowered unless you're a total speed freak. Having difficulty keeping up with traffic unless you thrash the guts out of it (and sometimes even then) is underpowered - hence my bike is fairly quick in the city, but badly lacking for power on the open road.
Only being midrange for performance in a group of its peers (faster than some, slower than others) isn't underpowered either, unless you want to label all cars other than the very fastest as such.
49hp from 700cc isn't a bad amount at all, really, and if that's only being asked to move 400-and-some kilos including the rider, it'll be pretty thrusty. Maybe twice what my bike makes. 89hp sounds overkill really. But you're comparing one engine with 70% of the capacity of the other, so of course there's going to be a difference, they're probably in entirely different classes, so what's your point? Like comparing a 1.0 litre to 1.4 litre car. Or the supercharged Micra vs the naturally aspirated one (as supercharger boost is generally considered worth about that much). If you normalise the capacities to each other, the Yamaha is making the equivalent of 70hp vs the Can Am.
Also, given that you're looking down on 4-stroke Yamahas and putting out names of engines that I'd more normally recognise from ultralight aircraft and chainsaws and stuff, I'm thinking you're basing your comparisons on 2-stroke engines. Which is rather unfair, as they tend to pull out maybe 50% more power per capacity (which, when you consider they have twice as many combustions per crank rotation, is kinda crap), and, more importantly, have very peaky torque and are complete emissions disaster zones, and as a result are basically facing de-facto bans in many places (most particularly large cities, but entire countries in some cases) because they simply cannot comply with modern standards. They have no way of altering valve timings, little hope of making use of EGR systems to recover or process the hilarious amount of unburnt fuel / NOx that comes out of the tailpipe (as it'd interfere with the exhaust resonance chamber characteristics and such), and even if unburnt HCs weren't such a risk factor for overheating a catalyser, they can't usually have one anyway thanks to the need for total-loss lubrication, which would poison the cat through a mixture of liquid oil and sooty smoke contamination. In comparison, the car in question is one of the cleanest-emission fossil fuel burning machines you can buy which doesn't involve an electric hybrid system. Literally it's won awards for how clean the output from its exhaust pipe is, and at its last annual safety & emissions test some of the components registered as "too low to measure".
Also said 2-strokiness might suggest they're using CVT transmissions rather than geared, which is a bit of a cheat for this comparison as they'll effectively ALWAYS be on the torque/power band when you have the throttle fully twisted.
I do wonder what you think "a ton" of "low down" torque is, in that case. What percentage of the thrust you get at peak torque (which comes in at, what, probably mid 5000s if your limiter is at 7500?) is still available at half that rpm? As I said, the Micra isn't the strongest at idle with no throttle, but so long as you rev it even the tiniest bit, or open the tap and give it a couple of beats to respond (ie so the increased airflow can get to the cylinders), it pulls nicely with barely a twitch of the revcounter, acquits itself well from about 1200~1500, and is in full flow by 2000, probably making 90-95% of maximum by then (peak is at 4000). It can get up the steepest hill I could find anywhere around - the infamous Lickey incline - in 3rd gear at only 2000rpm on the steeper side (and 4th if it gets a faster run-up - there's some sharp turns and a low speed limit, though), and all the way up the slightly shallower side with only a couple of brief rev drops from even 1500 in top gear. It's a real wonder of VVT engineering.
As there are enough regular cars which can't match that, and my 4-stroke bike (with 4T usually being better for torque range than 2T) certainly isn't anywhere close even when you normalise the revs, I doubt a 2T ATV can match it.
the micra dont have a turbo ,it have only 3 cilender and 12 valves / the sister of the GTR !
the Nissan engines are different from the others , only 3 cilender and so much fast
Ооо как хорош
Rip me mine doesn't have an engine RPM meter
speed locked
180 km/h
Ballsy fastest I went in mine was 165
my 2013 nissan march can’t do this😂
Ооо как харашо
Der hat aber keine 1,2L der muss eine 1600er Maschine haben das hört man.
qsmdloeten wellerman 100% 1.2l
+Car Acceleration TV 80 PS?
yes 80 PS
The Nissan configurator says: "0-100 km/h in 13,7 seconds"
BigMadmax91 that is correct
Воо