Micra S 5-speed review: "much to offer including a tiny price tag" - Toronto Star

[MetroMPG]

Peter Gorrie writes on "green" issues for the Toronto Star and reviews efficient and advanced powertrain vehicles for their Wheels section.

Nissan loaned him a bare bones base S Micra 5-speed.

Likes:
- funky styling
- easy to use manual transmission
- fun to drive
- well composed ride
- lots of safety features

Dislikes:
- "utilitarian" black interior
- minimal seat support
- "rudimentary" sound system
- fuel consumption "considerably" worse than competition

Overall:

a better-than-decent cheap car for those who are frugal and/or on a tight budget.

Read the full review:
http://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/02...price-tag.html

Gorrie's biggest complaint (since he's the "green" reviewer") is that the Micra isn't particularly efficient for its class, something that "surprised" him (which suggests he didn't do his homework before getting the car).

However it does raise an issue: I suspect that most people automatically assume that because the Micra is small, it's going to get stellar economy, so they don't actually research & compare its ratings.

Though in Nissan's defense, they market the car on price, NOT fuel economy. Nissan Canada's president repeatedly downplayed fuel economy in interviews at the car's launch, even going so far as to say "our goal wasn't best-in-class fuel economy." In Canada we don't get the choice of more efficient 1.2L triples or the diesel that other countries get; no, we get the Micra hot rod.

[ptbo micra]

Although the advertising campaign with Sheldon from big bang theory was going on about how it sips gas.

[aftica]

The car is actually extremely fuel efficient.

It is the boneheaded reviewer, racing around like someone just loaned him a new car to beat on...that is the problem.

[Evilbred]

Car is relatively bad in fuel economy, when compared to competitors in the city car class. The thing is, you don't get all the fuel saving technology in a car that costs $10k. Cost of ownership, which is what we're all truly concerned with (unless you are a tree-hugging hippy) is probably the best for the Micra.

I just priced up the base model manual Honda Fit (14575 MSRP, 16103 before tax and 18196.39 taxes in).

Now, assuming you drive 20,000km a year, and gas is about a $1 a liter. The Fit gets 6.5l/100km combined, the Micra gets 7.7l/100km combined.

So (20,000 * 7.7 /100=1540) While (20,000 * 6.5 /100=1300) So you save about $240 a year in gas in the fit.

Now, assume you will have the car for 8 years, which is standard for Canada. You save $1920 in gas over that 8 years. Not bad eh? Well, I paid $12,800 for my Micra with taxes and everything in. So the Fit owner paid $5396 more than me. After 8 years he still paid $3,476 more than me. Not only that, but my savings are upfront, while his savings build up, so assuming I invest that money in a prudent way (blue chip dividend companies paying 4%) I have $4,757 before capital appreciation. Infact, before long the money I saved will build up to the point where it starts paying returns greater than his gas savings.

That, gentlemen, is why cost of ownership is the only thing that matters, not fuel economy.

[MetroMPG]

Yup. On the cost of ownership angle, depreciation is probably a typical owner's biggest expense, and the Micra was recently recognized for that: 2015 Micra earns award for highest residual value (lowest depreciation) in class

But if you plan to keep it for a long time, depreciation doesn't matter as much; actual running costs become more of a factor.

[IMPUL]

Car is relatively bad in fuel economy, when compared to competitors in the city car class. The thing is, you don't get all the fuel saving technology in a car that costs $10k. Cost of ownership, which is what we're all truly concerned with (unless you are a tree-hugging hippy) is probably the best for the Micra.

I just priced up the base model manual Honda Fit (14575 MSRP, 16103 before tax and 18196.39 taxes in).

Now, assuming you drive 20,000km a year, and gas is about a $1 a liter. The Fit gets 6.5l/100km combined, the Micra gets 7.7l/100km combined.

So (20,000 * 7.7 /100=1540) While (20,000 * 6.5 /100=1300) So you save about $240 a year in gas in the fit.

Now, assume you will have the car for 8 years, which is standard for Canada. You save $1920 in gas over that 8 years. Not bad eh? Well, I paid $12,800 for my Micra with taxes and everything in. So the Fit owner paid $5396 more than me. After 8 years he still paid $3,476 more than me. Not only that, but my savings are upfront, while his savings build up, so assuming I invest that money in a prudent way (blue chip dividend companies paying 4%) I have $4,757 before capital appreciation. Infact, before long the money I saved will build up to the point where it starts paying returns greater than his gas savings.

That, gentlemen, is why cost of ownership is the only thing that matters, not fuel economy.

Hey Evilbred, what was "and everything"?
Im looking to buying soon and just test drove a white "s"
manual ( finally .... Lol)and 401 dixie nissan tried to quote me $13,500 plus hst lol
Wannted to charge me for safety and security ( part of the sticker price) carpets ( also part of thr price ) wheel locks? Lol basically it started at 9998.00 ( with only $400-$500 of mark up built in) plus freight and pdi now $11.5k + $2000 in extras ??!? I asked for "free tint roof rack and up the warranty... For FREE)

So $13.5k + hst ..." Just because i like you...."

I was figuring i could get it for $12.5k on the road so you are giving me hope.

Please send me some details.. Who, what, where, and how... Lol.
Thx IMPUL

[AlphaMicra]

I have absolutely no complaints about the fuel economy. I always do better than estimates, even with spirited driving. Over the year I've owned it, my Micra has saved me a lot of money while sacrificing nothing. It's my no compromise money saver.