Renault Sandero vs Nissan Micra Active vs Suzuki Swift: which one is the best value for money?

In the interest of fairness, we set our target price range around the R 180 000 mark, which should ensure manageable finance repayments, and stuck to manual-transmission offerings with a modicum of style, relatively low power outputs, and at least some modern conveniences on their spec sheets.

As luck would have it, two of our contenders manage to (barely) slip in below our target price, with the third overshooting this price point by less than R 5000. We’ve selected the least-expensive Renault Sandero for this comparison, and then pitched a revamped older-generation Nissan Micra (in its current “Active Visia” trim level) and a high-spec Suzuki Swift (winner of its category in the 2019 AutoTrader SA Car of the Year competition) against it. So which one really gives you the most car for your money?

Facts and figures:

First, let’s look at the numbers:

	Renault Sandero 66kW turbo Expression	Nissan Micra Active 1.2 Visia	Suzuki Swift 1.2 GL
Engine size (cyl/size)	3-cyl, 0.9-litre turbopetrol	3-cyl, 1.2-litre petrol	4-cyl, 1.2-litre petrol
Power/Torque	66 kW/135 Nm	56 kW/104 Nm	61 kW/113 Nm
Kerb Weight	1046 kg	946 kg	875 kg
Length (mm)	4 059	3 825	3 840
Boot volume (litres)	292	265	268
Airbag count	2	2	2
Top Speed (km/h) *	169	166	170
Ave Consumption *	5.2 ℓ/100 km	5.2 ℓ/100 km	4.9 ℓ/100 km
Warranty	5 yr/150 000 km	6 yr/150 000 km	3 yr/100 000 km
Price	R 184 900	R 179 700	R 179 900

* Manufacturer's official claimed figures.

 

Analysis

Power, performance, and drivetrains

These three contenders achieve similar results, but the ways in which they go about their business are very different. Their mechanical setups vary considerably, with a very small (0.9-litre) turbocharged 3-cylinder doing duty in the Renault, a 1.2-litre non-turbo 3-cylinder under the Nissan’s bonnet, and a 1.2-litre non-turbo 4-cylinder propelling the Suzuki. Their modest outputs are sent to the front wheels through a 5-speed manual gearbox, in all three cases.

None of these engines will exactly set the tarmac on fire, with the most powerful one (the Sandero) producing only 66 kW, albeit with 135 Nm of turbo-boosted torque to help it along. Next up is the Suzuki, which extracts 61 kW and 113 Nm from its larger, naturally-aspirated mill, with the Nissan’s similarly-sized engine bringing up the rear with only 56 kW and 104 Nm. 

The Sandero’s on-paper power advantage is reduced somewhat on the road, however, because it is significantly larger and heavier than the other two. It weighs 100 kg more than the Nissan, and 171 kg more than the featherweight Suzuki, and consequently boasts a power-to-weight ratio of only 63 W/kg, compared to the Nissan’s 59.2 W/kg and the Suzuki’s 69.7 W/kg. This means that, with a light load, the Suzuki should have the strongest performance of this trio – something also borne out by its highest top speed. 

The tables will turn at Gauteng’s oxygen-starved altitude, though, because the Renault will lose less of its power, thanks to that turbocharger compensating for our less-dense air. Fully-laden driving should also favour the Sandero, once again thanks to that serving of boost-produced torque. 

Choosing a winner in the performance stakes will consequently depend on the car’s intended usage pattern, with the Suzuki having the upper hand in lightly-laden conditions and at sea level, but the Renault taking the lead when carrying a full complement of passengers and luggage – but both of them will leave the Nissan behind under in all conditions.

 

 

Economy

There appears to be very little variation between these three as regards fuel efficiency, with all three posting admirable official average figures. The Sandero and Micra Active both claim average consumption figures of 5.2 ℓ/100 km, with the Swift being the official winner with a claimed average of only 4.9 ℓ/100 km.

Real-world driving will reveal a different scenario, however. Because the Renault is so dependent on its turbo boost to produce meaningful acceleration, even normal driving will need plenty of heavy throttle applications – which will have a detrimental effect on "real road" consumption. Expect to add at least 1 ℓ/100 km to the Renault’s somewhat optimistic claim, unless the driver is blessed with a feather-light accelerator foot. 

In contrast, the Suzuki has proven itself to be capable of consistently delivering low-to-mid-5 ℓ/100 km figures in normal use, without even trying to save fuel, with the Nissan falling roughly halfway between the other two. Open-road cruising should see the Renault’s drinking habits falling back in line, however, but it’s unlikely to better the Suzuki’s frugality. This one goes to the Swift, no doubt about that.

Practicality

The Sandero’s larger overall size helps it to stage a comeback here, where its minimum luggage capacity of 292 litres comfortably trounces both the Swift and the Micra Active. The Nissan has (barely) the smallest boot here, measuring in at 265 litres, compared to the Suzuki’s 268 litres. 

None of them are particularly spacious inside, either, but the Renault’s extra size does help it to offer more cabin space. This will be especially noticeable for rear-seat passengers, who will appreciate its leg- and headroom advantage, as well as in maximum utility space, where the larger Renault will hold the trump card. Second place is effectively a tie between the Suzuki and the Nissan, with their closely-matched overall dimensions translating to very similar cabin- and utility space.

 

Equipment and safety

This is the key point in the value for money equation: How much stuff do you get for your hard-earned Rands? It needs to be kept in mind that these three cars compete in the budget segment, so none of them will be luxuriously appointed. However, they all have the basics covered, with electric windows (all round in the Suzuki, front only in the other two), remote central locking, air conditioning, power steering, and USB/Bluetooth-compatible audio systems common to the trio. The Nissan misses out on remote audio controls, which the Suzuki has on the steering wheel, while the Renault has the company’s usual hidden fingertip controls mounted behind the steering wheel. 

Their basic safety requirements are all met fairly competently, with ABS, ISOFIX rear child seat anchors, and two airbags fitted to all three contenders, but the Renault Sandero is the only one to feature traction- and stability control as standard as well. 

Crash test ratings are a bit of a mixed bag, with this (older) generation of Micra scoring only one star in the Latin NCAP testing – with a standard safety spec which closely mirrors that of the cars offered on our market. Meanwhile, the South African-spec Swift only scored two stars in Global NCAP testing, with the local-spec Sandero getting three stars in the Global NCAP crash tests. None of them offered top-notch crash protection, but the Renault is the best (least-bad?) performer in this respect.

 

Verdict

Value for money is a somewhat foggy concept, especially in the budget car class. Going on feature lists alone may not give the full picture, and factors such as performance, efficiency, utility space and safety may skew the picture when differing levels of importance are applied to these criteria. Nonetheless, the Nissan Micra Active is the first car to be eliminated here: it’s the smallest, has the least power and laziest performance, only average fuel consumption, misses out on some comfort features, and has the lowest safety rating of these three. It’s not a bad car at all, but you can have a better one for only R200 more.

That extra R200 (over the Micra Active) buys you a Suzuki Swift 1.2 GL – our runner-up today. Marginally more spacious and with a higher equipment level, much stronger performance, class-leading fuel efficiency, a more-modern design, and slightly better safety ratings than the Micra Active makes the Suzuki’s minor price premium more than worth it.

The Sandero 66kW turbo Expression is the most expensive of this trio, but apart from the lack of rear electric windows, doesn’t really give up any ground to the Swift on the spec sheet. It’s also a bit more practical, but the real clincher here is its safety aspect: it may not perform brilliantly in a crash test (even if it’s better than the other two here), but at least the presence of stability control means that there’s a greater chance that you’ll be better able to avoid getting involved in a collision in the first place. That alone justifies its R 5 000 price premium over the Suzuki, and makes it the winner in this closely-run showdown.

 

* Pricing was accurate at the time of writing, but may change without prior notice. 

 

Related Reading:

What's new for the latest Suzuki Swift?

Read Ané Theron's road test of the new Suzuki Swift here.

We reviewed the Renault Sandero 66 kW turbo, and recommended it from the beginning...

The Sandero is also available with faux-off-road bits and bobs. We had it on test, and liked it.

Wonder what changed when the old Micra became the "new" Micra Active? We'll give you the low-down.

You can find crash test results for these cars on the Global NCAP website.