Head to head: 2015 Micra manual vs. automatic MPG/fuel economy comparison

It would have been nice if they could have lent you the cars the time it takes to go through a full tank. The sample set would have been more meaningful in my opinion.

No disrespect, just wanted to point out what seemed like a shortcoming.
As a comparison, here's what this agency is doing: <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml>
In a controlled lab environment, they drive it for 50 miles. I like that site, as I've seen many times their values matching the average user.

I'm not surprised by the end results though. Like another user here was saying, you have some brain dead drivers out there who can't drive their stick, and the EPA will show figures that averages out these guys. Personally, I just prefer the feel of manual stick car. I paid EXTRA on my challenger to get the Tremec manual transmission, not the opposite way. ;-) funny when you think about it.

In the same subject, is there any tuning done on this engine to help fuel economy? I'm thinking of tuners like Bully Dog, Diablosport, Jet.... you know, these chip makers claiming improvements either on the HP side, or MPG side.

^
As the Micra has the same engine as the Versa Note, a chip, like this one, meant for that vehicle might work for the Micra. Some of our Latin members may know of a chip meant specifically for our version of the Micra. Good luck!

Thanks Uftauk! It looks flimsy a little bit no? I could look into it though. I found this one for the european market but it's for a 1.2L engine. Maybe they will have another model. I'm not sure we can squeeze more MPG out of this engine. Possibly more HP with some 3 stages mods (for those days where I feel more devilish and want to play with my go kart-like 10k tin can).

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lbarouf

As a comparison, here's what this agency is doing: <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml>
In a controlled lab environment, they drive it for 50 miles. I like that site, as I've seen many times their values matching the average user.

---

Agreed: standardized testing is best.

But I've seen similar manual vs. automatic results replicated many times over in vehicles I've driven and in the fuel logs of owners: it's always easier to do better than the rating with the manual than with the automatic.

The EPA's standardized testing methodology IS the problem. They specifically prohibit simple manual shift driving techniques during the standardized test which cause their ratings to be much worse than a conscientious driver will get in the real world: 1) No "short shifting" when under light load; 2) No shifting to top gear when cruising at non-highway speeds; 3) No coasting in neutral.

Ah, I see your point. True, some of us may want to squeeze extra MPG. I guess we can only compare at this point using our own values, using our own driving styles. The law of averages will correct discrepancies in order to see how the two compare.

But then again who cares if the manual has better fuel economy than the automatic? I don't see what the whole war manual vs automatic is about. Makes no sense. If you want a manual then get a manual, if you want an automatic, then get one.

I drove manual all my life and now decided to go with the extra lux of an automatic. I love driving a manual car but I did not like driving a manual Micra.

I respect your opinion. I prefer manual personally, and would contribute to the fuel log mainly for my own logging, but also to provide the data to those who care. Personally, just like you, I also don't care if the manual is higher or lower than automatic, I would still have chosen the manual no matter what. Some may care even if we don't. It doesn't mean it's not useful. It's certainly not a war. To each their own Dani, to each their own. It may help someone decide which one they want.

P.S: The scientist in me though, likes to see rigorous testing when reporting values. Of course your mileage may vary (no pun intended, quite literally), but having a baseline when comparing values will indicate something. MetroMPG indicated very well some of the caveats of the standard EPA tests. At least it's a measure that is constant that can help compare. That's what I was commenting on. Not to seek which is best between one or the other.

Cheers,

What I meant is that the best way to choose is to try it. I thought I would get the manual but after trying it I changed my mind as I prefered the automatic. If someone prefer the manual then they should get that but if someone prefer automatic, the difference in fuel economy is not enough to choose manual if one prefer the automatic. If it would be a large difference then maybe, but not with such small difference. Also this difference is only valid for those who do mostly city. Once on the highway the automatic has the advantage.

Update to this thread:

After nearly 260,000 km tracked in our fuel log by 33 Micra owners over 650 fill-ups, the manual transmission cars are using 10% less fuel than the automatics.

On the fuel log page, click the link below the header to compare the fuel economy average of the automatic vs. manual transmission Micras:

http://micra-forum.com/imgs/fuel-log-row-of-micras.jpg

http://micra-forum.com/imgs/orange-arrow.png View detailed fuel economy stats by transmission type (4-speed automatic vs. 5-speed manual).

Keep in mind even though it's a lot more data, this isn't a purely scientific comparison. For example, maybe more people who have an urban commute choose the automatic for convenience, so their fuel economy results would drag down the average of the automatics.