Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

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

  1. #1
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Posts
    3,588
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 464 Times in 352 Posts

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

    Name:  head-to-head-title.jpg
Views: 4083
Size:  88.1 KB

    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.


    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!)

    Name:  micras-cornwall-nissan.jpg
Views: 1896
Size:  60.2 KB
    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:

    Name:  results-gauges.jpg
Views: 4358
Size:  41.6 KB


    • 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.

    Name:  city-driving.jpg
Views: 1427
Size:  46.2 KB

    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


    Name:  route-map-title.jpg
Views: 1300
Size:  30.2 KB
    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?

    Name:  ratings-head-to-head.jpg
Views: 1387
Size:  39.8 KB

    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.


    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.


    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.


        __________________________________________

        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) ...


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:

    AlphaMicra (09-22-2014),Daox (09-22-2014),Johnskers (09-22-2014)

  3. #2
    Senior Member AlphaMicra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,037
    Thanks
    114
    Thanked 245 Times in 174 Posts
    I've noticed that manual transmission cars can be driven, let's say, more "Spiritedly" with significantly less penalty on fuel economy.

    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) ...


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to AlphaMicra For This Useful Post:

    MetroMPG (09-22-2014)

  5. #3
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Posts
    3,588
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 464 Times in 352 Posts
    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.)

        __________________________________________

        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) ...


  6. #4
    Senior Member aftica's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    370
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 67 Times in 47 Posts
    Great post Darin!

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

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

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Micra S manual: 5.3 L/100 km ... 53.2 mpg (Imp) ... 18.8 km/L ... 44.3 mpg (US) ...


  7. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    24
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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.

  8. #6
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Posts
    3,588
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 464 Times in 352 Posts
    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.

        __________________________________________

        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. The Following User Says Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:

    AlphaMicra (09-24-2014)

  10. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    24
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Good to know! Thanks Metro!

  11. #8
    Administrator Daox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    753
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    206
    Thanked 83 Times in 62 Posts
    Why is the difference in this test so much larger than your test in Montreal?

  12. #9
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Posts
    3,588
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 464 Times in 352 Posts

    Montreal vs. Cornwall

    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).

        __________________________________________

        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) ...


  13. The Following User Says Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:

    Daox (09-24-2014)

  14. #10
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Posts
    3,588
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 464 Times in 352 Posts
    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:

    ...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


        __________________________________________

        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) ...


Posting Permissions

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