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

Attachment 656

When the Micra was launched back in May, I had the chance to drive both the manual & automatic transmission models on the exact same city/highway route in & around Montreal. Of course, I made a point of noting the fuel economy from the onboard computer in each car.

The manual reported 5.1 L/100 km (55 mpg Imperial / 46 mpg US), while the automatic said 5.6 (50 mpg Imperial / 42 mpg US). I used basic eco-driving techniques.

SEE THREAD: 2015 Micra fuel economy/mileage test: ecodriving a 5-speed and automatic in Montreal

The downside to that comparison was that it wasn't a true head-to-head match. Yes, the route was identical. But the laps were run consecutively, not at the same time. So the problem was that even though I consciously *tried* to drive the cars similarly (eg. same rates of speed, acceleration & deceleration), I couldn't be certain that I did. Also, traffic patterns were probably different between runs, so I couldn't be sure I'd hit all the same slowdowns, not to mention traffic lights. See all those grains of salt? Take one!

What I really wanted was a head to head comparison: the exact same traffic conditions; same stop lights; identical weather/road conditions; same rates of acceleration, cruising & deceleration.

Guess what? Last week, I got the chance to do just that.


Thanks to Cornwall Nissan...

The extremely helpful folks at Cornwall Nissan made it happen. (If this sounds like a plug, that's because it is and they earned it: if you're in the market, drop by their dealership and talk to the friendly staff who went above and beyond the call of duty to help me out!)

Attachment 653
Micra SV automatic (left) and Micra S 5-speed manual at Cornwall Nissan

I had originally hoped to do this comparison back in July, while I had the automatic SR on loan from Nissan Canada. At that time, I called around to my area dealers to see if anyone had a manual Micra I could borrow for half an hour. Shockingly, there wasn't a single manual Micra at any of the 4 closest dealerships. Lots of automatics, just no 5-speeds.

However the folks at Cornwall Nissan quickly offered to let me know as soon as one came in, and sure enough I got a call from them last week. "Come on down!"


Results...

Let's cut to the chase. After 20 km (12 miles.) of city & ex-urban driving, with a ~2 km freeway dash thrown in for good measure, here's what the fuel economy computers said:

Attachment 654

• 5.1 L/100 km - Micra S manual transmission (55 mpg Imperial / 46 mpg US / 19.6 km/L) *
• 6.5 L/100 km - Micra SV automatic transmission (44 mpg Imperial / 36 mpg US / 15.4 km/L) *

Both Micras were brand spanking new (<100 km). The manual was a base S and the automatic was an SV. Both had full tanks of gas (7/8 in the SV). Both cars began from a cold start.

* Note the Micra's onboard display is a bit optimistic. Displayed fuel economy in my Micra SR loaner indicated 4.5% better than the actual fuel economy calculated at the pump.


Driving style...

Unlike Montreal, there was little eco-driving this time around. I drove the manual car, following my dad who joined the fun and led the parade in the automatic.

Let's just say that my dad's not much for reading traffic and playing the momentum game; I'd call him more of a "binary pedal" driver (either on the gas or brake). So the rates of acceleration and braking were what most drivers would probably call "normal", as were speeds: around 5 to 10 km/h (3-6 mph) over the posted limit.

Attachment 655

I made sure to accelerate the manual car as quickly as my dad did in the automatic, and brake as late as he did. There was no neutral coasting or anything like that. And there was no "drafting effect" -- I stayed back far enough so there was no unfair advantage to the 5-speed car. No Micra NASCAR shenanigans here.

Fortunately, we lucked out at traffic lights as well: all the red lights caught both cars (instead of catching just me in the following car).

I used only one eco-driving technique in my manual driving style: I upshifted to the tallest possible gear after accelerating. In other words, I went to the highest gear that wouldn't lug the engine: sometimes that meant 5th gear at as low as 50 km/h on a level road. If I needed extra power to accelerate or climb, I downshifted.


Conditions & route ...

The weather was brisk, but otherwise sunny & dry:

• Thurs, Sept 18, 2014, 10:30 - 11:00 AM
• temp: 10 C / 50 F
• wind: N 9 km / 5.6 mph
• 66% humidity, 101.93 kpa pressure

Attachment 657
Click image to zoom in on route. Or see Google Maps, Cornwall Ontario - https://goo.gl/maps/qhebw

The round trip route covered 20 km (12.4 miles) and included a mix of urban (~40%) and ex-urban (~50%) roads, with one brief freeway run between interchanges (~10%).

- Start: Cornwall Nissan
- north on Brookdale Ave
- east on Cornwall Centre Rd
- south on McConnell Ave
- west on highway 401 / McDonald Cartier Freeway, exit at Brookdale Ave
- south on Brookdale Ave
- east on Ninth St
- south on Pitt St
- west on Second St
- north on Brookdale Ave
- Finish: Cornwall Nissan


Why does the manual do so much better than the automatic when their ratings are nearly identical?

The combined fuel economy rating of the manual Micra is just 0.1 L/100 km (~1 mpg) different than the automatic. So why does the manual seem to do so much better in the real world?

Attachment 658

The government test handicaps manual transmissions

Government fuel economy ratings for manual transmission cars are handicapped by the testing method. They seriously underestimate the car's MPG potential in the real world in the hands of a driver willing to do one simple thing: upshift, upshift, upshift.

Official fuel economy tests dictate the specific speeds when the manual transmission test driver must upshift or downshift during the procedure. Why? For repeatability the same car must always return the same result on the dynamometer, so the test drivers can't choose their own shift points. They have to follow designated shift points that are decidedly not fuel economy-friendly.

SEE THREAD: Micra automatic or manual: which should you get for best gas mileage/fuel economy?

Manufacturers know this, which is why manual cars fitted with shift indicators or "eco" lights constantly encourage the driver to do one thing under light engine loads: upshift, upshift, upshift! They know that the lower the engine RPM for a given road speed, the better the owner's real world fuel economy.

If you don't make a similar habit of upshifting for economy & downshifting for power, your fuel economy will be closer to that of the automatic.

AT ECOMODDER: Shift points: EPA testing of manual transmissions (why beating MT ratings is easier)

The automatic warm-up hit

"Warm-up mode" is another small reason why automatics are less efficient. After a cold start, the car follows programming that causes the transmission to hold on to lower gears longer (for higher engine RPM) to speed up engine & transmission warm-up for reasons of emissions, driveability & durability.

Since both Micras were started from cold for this comparison, the automatic car experienced the warm-up hit.


Conclusions & observations

First: the good news is it's obviously much easier to achieve/beat the Micra's official combined fuel consumption ratings regardless of which transmission you have. (Provided you drive reasonably, of course.) The new 5-cycle fuel economy ratings that apply to 2015 and newer vehicles in Canada are very different from the old 2-cycle ratings, which most drivers found difficult or impossible to get.

Second: Kudos to Nissan for for including a factory fuel economy display in all trim levels of the Micra. Feedback is critical for drivers interested in getting good fuel economy.

Third: if you're interested in fuel economy and willing to shift your own gears, remember the manual's ratings don't tell the whole story. Upshift early and often, and reap the rewards.

I've noticed that manual transmission cars can be driven, let's say, more "Spiritedly" with significantly less penalty on fuel economy.

Yeah, that's a good point!

I managed to squeeze 5.4 L/100 km (52.3 mpg Imp / 43.6 mpg US) from the SR automatic in 2 fill-ups over 940.5 km of mixed driving, but I was usually trying to get the trans to lock up the torque converter as early & often as practical (at which point it's basically as efficient as a manual). Not too much "spirited driving" there ... with the exception of carrying plenty of momentum through bends ... all to save fuel of course. :)

In spirited driving (or even "normal" driving by most people's definition) with high engine loads, the torque converter stays unlocked and the trans spends a lot more time slipping merrily away in the least efficient "slushbox" mode. (Speaking of conventional autos only, not CVT's or dual clutch automatics.)

Great post Darin!

Preaching to the choir here, but being a gas mileage nerd it's always nice to have a little confirmation. :D

EDIT: props also to Cornwall Nissan for recognizing the value of online forums. Smart.

Can the "warm up hit" be some what avoided or lessened by idling the car upon start up for however long to get the engine warm? If so this would help with the fuel efficiency.

Nope! Never idle to warm up. Your fuel economy will drop even more.

The car warms up fastest under load. Even in the coldest conditions, start, wait ~10 seconds then start driving under light/moderate load until the temp starts to climb.

Or better yet: use the block heater that comes on every Micra! That will reduce the warm-up hit more than anything.

Good to know! Thanks Metro!

Why is the difference in this test so much larger than your test in Montreal?

True. The numbers were a lot closer in Montreal (5.1 vs 5.5) than in Cornwall (5.1 vs 6.5).

Couple of reasons I can think of:

1) The Montreal comparison had a lot more steady speed highway driving in it (about 50%) than the Cornwall test. And when the Micra automatic is in top gear with the torque converter locked, it's essentially as efficient as the manual in top gear -- with similar cruising fuel economy. The automatic actually has a slightly taller top gear than the manual, so on a long enough 100% highway trip in the right conditions, it could even come out slightly ahead of the manual. The top-gear cruising MPG of the automatic is actually pretty decent.

2) The Montreal cars were both already hot (warmed up) when I drove them. So the automatic didn't face the "warm-up hit". The Cornwal cars were both cold starts, and it was a shorter route too (20 vs 34 km).

3) Also, we have to take the Montreal comparison with a good size grain of salt. I didn't get to run the cars head-to-head, like in Cornwall. So there's no guarantee the numbers are as accurate. I can't be sure I accelerated/decelerated both cars at exactly the same rates, or drove at exactly the same speeds, even though I tried to.

4) Lastly, I used eco-driving techniques on both cars in Montreal. And as Alpha pointed out, an automatic suffers more of a loss than a manual when it's not eco-driven (it wasn't in the Cornwall test).

Just another data point to add to this thread:

In a review by Guide de l'auto, the fuel consumption of the automatic vs. manual Micra was compared and they saw a similar result:

Quote:

---

...we recorded an average fuel consumption of 7.4 L/100 km with the automatic and 6.3 L with the manual.

---

http://micra-forum.com/showthread.ph...e-Car-Guide%29

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.