Just noticed this from the new 2017 Micra brochure vs. 2016:
2017 fuel economy rating:
- 8.7 / 6.8 (manual transmission)
- 8.9 / 6.8 (automatic)
2015/16 fuel economy rating:
- 8.6 / 6.6 (manual transmission)
- 8.8 / 6.6 (auto)
I don't think anything in the car itself has changed to cause this.
In the U.S., the EPA revised testing methods for 2017 to ensure the auto manufacturers were setting up the dynamometer properly for the tests.
Remember how a few automakers got in trouble in the past few years for using "erroneous" (haha) road load values which under-reported aero/mechanical drag and therefore inflated their fuel economy ratings vs. real world results? Hyundai, for example. The same thing has been going on in Japan with both Suzuki and Mitsubishi getting in crap for gaming road load values on their government's tests.
Not surprisingly, the changes affect the highway rating more.
And apparently these changes have been adopted by NRCAN too.
Which means: be careful comparing 2017 ratings against ratings published for earlier years. Because even if the car has not changed at all, the 2017 ratings will be a bit worse.