Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: Gear ratios: 2015 Micra transmission, 5-speed & automatic (speed vs RPM) UK also

  1. #11
    Senior Member AlphaMicra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,037
    Thanks
    114
    Thanked 245 Times in 174 Posts
    We need to keep in mind that the Micra's very existence in Canada at such a low price depends on sharing components with other larger, heavier cars...and a naturally aspirated 1.6L in a larger, heavier car would benefit from these kinds of gear ratios. We take what we can get, and make the best of it...



    In our culture obsessed with absurd excess, the Nissan Micra is my counterculture car of choice.
    Be sure to visit my blog at mymicra.com!

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Micra SV manual: 6.4 L/100 km ... 44.3 mpg (Imp) ... 15.7 km/L ... 36.9 mpg (US) ...


  2. #12
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Posts
    3,535
    Thanks
    1,033
    Thanked 457 Times in 346 Posts
    Rephrased:

    "Take what we can get... and encourage Nissan to offer options/upgrades."

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Micra S manual: 5.0 L/100 km ... 56.5 mpg (Imp) ... 20.0 km/L ... 47.0 mpg (US) ...


  3. #13
    Administrator Daox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    753
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 83 Times in 62 Posts
    I really dont see a 6 speed being necessary. In this day and age engines are very well developed and have a nice flat torque curve. There isnt much need toreduce the rpm drop between gears which is all the 6 speed would do. Would it be cool? Definitely. Is it necessary? Nope.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    35
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    But isn't it all about being cool?! Wouldn't a 6 speed be beneficial at highway speeds regardless of torque curve? I know some might say just skip the 5th gear, but that extra shift keeps the torque flat like you mentioned.

  5. #15
    Senior Member AlphaMicra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,037
    Thanks
    114
    Thanked 245 Times in 174 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff88 View Post
    But isn't it all about being cool?! Wouldn't a 6 speed be beneficial at highway speeds regardless of torque curve? I know some might say just skip the 5th gear, but that extra shift keeps the torque flat like you mentioned.
    We need to keep in mind exactly what the Micra is: A budget priced economy car. When we look at Micra's contemporaries (ie; Yaris, Fit), we also see that only a 5 speed manual transmission is available. 6 speeds are usually reserved for higher end or performance variations.

    We're not the only ones talking about it, Fit owners seem to have the same concern: http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-g...-5th-gear.html

    Seeing Honda use similar gearing in their Fit makes me wonder if a taller 5th gear would be worth it. Given the greater power necessary to overcome air resistance at highway speeds, perhaps the downshifting that may be necessary might offset the perceived gains?

    In our culture obsessed with absurd excess, the Nissan Micra is my counterculture car of choice.
    Be sure to visit my blog at mymicra.com!

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Micra SV manual: 6.4 L/100 km ... 44.3 mpg (Imp) ... 15.7 km/L ... 36.9 mpg (US) ...


  6. #16
    Administrator Daox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    753
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 83 Times in 62 Posts
    I doubt that much downshifting would be necessary. They should be able to size a top gear for cruising, yet take the compromise that passing and steep hills will require downshifting. This should have a decent impact on fuel economy, and also add zero cost to the car.

  7. #17
    Senior Member AlphaMicra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,037
    Thanks
    114
    Thanked 245 Times in 174 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Daox View Post
    I doubt that much downshifting would be necessary. They should be able to size a top gear for cruising, yet take the compromise that passing and steep hills will require downshifting. This should have a decent impact on fuel economy, and also add zero cost to the car.
    Given the highly competitive nature of Honda and Nissan, one would think if it were as simple as that, they'd do it to get fuel economy bragging rights, which would sell a lot of cars these days when we're looking at heading past a buck thirty a liter again.

    In our culture obsessed with absurd excess, the Nissan Micra is my counterculture car of choice.
    Be sure to visit my blog at mymicra.com!

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Micra SV manual: 6.4 L/100 km ... 44.3 mpg (Imp) ... 15.7 km/L ... 36.9 mpg (US) ...


  8. #18
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Posts
    3,535
    Thanks
    1,033
    Thanked 457 Times in 346 Posts
    Believe it or not, it really is as simple as that. But it costs money. And it will offend typical car reviewers.

    Honda used to do it when their Civic lineup had dedicated (non-hybrid) fuel-saving models: they got taller gearing (and higher fuel economy ratings) than the "regular" models, which were also taller than the "sport" models.

    Even the Geo Metro had a special high-efficiency model (US market only) with taller gearing (and a few other changes) than the "normal" Metro.

    But it increases costs (development, testing, EPA/NRCAN certification, parts & marketing). Also, most car reviewers are traditional "petrol heads" who will whine, whine, whine if a car is geared "too tall" for their tastes.

    Case in point: the new Ford Fiesta 1.0L ecoboost. Currently it's the car with the best non-hybrid highway fuel economy rating. And I've already read two reviewers complain about the gearing being too tall! They want top gear responsiveness and power, not fuel economy.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    Also, with so few people buying manuals any more, it's easier to just have one set of ratios for the "sporty" drivers (who probably make up 90% of the ~6% of manual buyers anyway). They're now gearing the automatics significantly taller than the manuals.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Micra S manual: 5.0 L/100 km ... 56.5 mpg (Imp) ... 20.0 km/L ... 47.0 mpg (US) ...


  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Does anyone have the code/model for the transmission in the micra k13?

  10. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    14
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I think this is a spot-on critique. It is such a bummer that they do this with the manuals now. I remember well when the manual version of a given car always had slightly higher MPG estimates.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
    Believe it or not, it really is as simple as that. But it costs money. And it will offend typical car reviewers.

    Honda used to do it when their Civic lineup had dedicated (non-hybrid) fuel-saving models: they got taller gearing (and higher fuel economy ratings) than the "regular" models, which were also taller than the "sport" models.

    Even the Geo Metro had a special high-efficiency model (US market only) with taller gearing (and a few other changes) than the "normal" Metro.

    But it increases costs (development, testing, EPA/NRCAN certification, parts & marketing). Also, most car reviewers are traditional "petrol heads" who will whine, whine, whine if a car is geared "too tall" for their tastes.

    Case in point: the new Ford Fiesta 1.0L ecoboost. Currently it's the car with the best non-hybrid highway fuel economy rating. And I've already read two reviewers complain about the gearing being too tall! They want top gear responsiveness and power, not fuel economy.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    Also, with so few people buying manuals any more, it's easier to just have one set of ratios for the "sporty" drivers (who probably make up 90% of the ~6% of manual buyers anyway). They're now gearing the automatics significantly taller than the manuals.




Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •