Kia Forte vs Nissan Kicks: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Kia Forte burns about $1,750 of fuel annually against $1,850 for the Nissan Kicks. That $100 yearly gap compounds to roughly $500 over five years and $800 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City versus highway split: the Nissan Kicks is the stronger commuter at 31 mpg city, while the Kia Forte pulls ahead on the interstate at 41 mpg highway. If most of your driving is stop-and-go traffic the city figure is the one to weigh; for long-distance highway mileage the reverse is true, and the two vehicles effectively swap places depending on how you drive.

Powertrain choice: the Kia Forte is recorded with 3 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, 2.0, 1.8), the Nissan Kicks with 2 (SIDI, 1.6). Across 60 recorded Kia Forte configurations and 12 for the Nissan Kicks, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Kia Forte is offered with Front-Wheel Drive, the Nissan Kicks with All-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Midsize Cars and Midsize Cars respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Kia Forte emits 256 g/mile of CO2 versus 268 g/mile for the Nissan Kicks. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.