Nissan’s fourth-generation Micra didn’t make much of a splash when it launched in the UK last year thanks to the absence of headline-grabbing technical advances. The forgettable styling didn't help, Nissan abandoning the idiosyncratic look of the previous model in favour of something that looked decidedly plain alongside its …
For the little lady in doors to do the shopping and go and get her nails done in.
(Condescending sexist remark of the day).
Is this really the right venue for you to express your existential angst?
The look on the face of that cretin behind the wheel of the "erectile disfunction compensator" which was toying with the accelerator behind you at the traffic lights - priceless. For everything else there is MasterCard.
Seriously, a lot of people enjoy driving a wolf in sheep clothing. Me included. It is something nobody will key in a parking lot just because it looks sporty and nobody will try to break in. It is economical, has low insurance and at the same when you need so (or when you feel so) can be driven in a manner which will give M3 drivers complexes of inferiority (especially in a city).
I meant, "Why oh why a car review?". On an IT site.
It's arguably hardware, but one review means nothing without a comparison set --- "Is 70% good or bad? Is 180pounds heavy or not? Where does the reviewer stand anyway?". For example, a bad review by Jeremy Clarkson may mean it's a reasonably priced and efficient vehicle instead of an ED/CD (erectile dysfunction compensator device), or it may actually be a bad car.
Cars are gaining more and more technology, and the fundamentals of car technology itself are changing.
We think that's interesting and, judging by the reader reaction to our car reviews, many of you folk do too.
"On a couple of occasions while hustling around the Peak District, the eager engine encouraged me to charge into corners with rather too much vim only to run out of poise and grip at the vital moment."
Slow-In, fast-out you silly boy.
I had one of the older Micra's before this one came out as a hire car.
It actually really surprised me by how much fun it was.
The Micra felt like a bumper car on steroids. I hope they've not lost that in this new generation.
Although new Festas, Corsa etc are very much more refined they really have lost all sense of fun to drive. The economy wasn't bad either Even that one easily achieved 50mpg, where the fords/vauxhalls achieve 40 at best.
I just wish they'd produced a more manly version! (Definitely nothing with a Reno badge on it)...
You probably had the 1.3 or even 1.4 version, not the 1.0 16v sewing machine.
The 1.3 and the 1.4 versions of the old Micra (not the bubble, but the 1990-es model) were a classic wolf in sheep clothing - around 9s 0-60 and sub 4s on 0-30 combined with nice stiff suspension, good cornering and good grip. Definitely lots of fun to drive. One of my colleagues had one of those and I remember her passing me while I was doing 70mph as if I was stationary on the way to work :) That thing went like the clappers.
Still, IMO, these Micras were not as nuts as a Daihatsu Sirion Rally2/Rally4 with its sub-8s 0-60. That was the peak of the SuperMini class evolution - 107bph non turbocharged engine in a 800kg car with factory stiffened suspension. Go cart with a jet engine. From there on it all went downhill.
The old model Micra was a fine and fun little car, but then you have to remember that the Clio that came out a couple of years later was essentially the same car. Which tells you a lot about the supposedly objective and impartial motoring press. The Micra got reasonable write ups which teated it as a rather dull but practical shopping car. Even the cooking model Clio's got shining writeups that treated it like it was the original Mini Cooper. Which goes to show that motoring journalists, like most other people, have trouble seeing past the badge.
"so I think I’ll wait until the folk at Nissan’s sister company, Renault, get hold of the DIG-S motor and stick it in the altogether more amusing Twingo"
So you want your new car to be in the local dealership more often than it's in your posession ?
Yeah. One of life's little rules: never buy a French car.
.... In the Arctic regions of Finland, as our Renault and countless others around this area will attest to! In fact if it isn't a Toyota it's a Renault. With a handful of big Volvo estates thrown in for good measure!
Quote: "So you want your new car to be in the local dealership more often than it's in your posession ?"
For that you need a diesel Honda, not a Renault.
57 days in less than 2 years before I got rid of it... Leaks from all holes on one side of the engine, duff alternator, charging faults, exhaust fumes going into the cockpit - you name it.
On top of that, because "Honda is reliable", when you ask for a courtesy car you get a " you do not deserve one" answer.
I've owned one Renault, two Citroens and a Pug. Every single one of them spent half it's life in the shop. Reliable those French cars. Probably why Renault tend to spend most of their time putting funny bodies on Nissan platforms these days.
...never had a fault in its life. I refer you to this document:
which neatly shows Renault's position in the reliability stakes.
A diesel Honda civic may be reliable, but as a colleague of mine will grumpilly tell you when they do break they cost an absolute fortune to fix. Not only did it cost a fortune to fix, but the dealer had to wait an age for the part because there were none in the country, so being out of warranty the car was off the road for that time.
Even if the break rarely they still break, there's no such thing as a 100% reliable car. What you want then is a backup system that will get your car back on the road quickly.
The wife's after one of these to replace her Mk. 1 Yaris, we took a demonstrator for a spin at our local Nissan dealer last week and I'd agree with the review entirely - blinding little engine, easy as pee to drive but rather dull. But we aren't looking for excitement from the families second car so we placed our order yesterday!
A Miller cycle engine is basically a blown Atkinson cycle one and the supercharger is inherent in the term.
Attach a blower to a Miller cycle engine and you'd have two of 'em.......
That's not strictly true is it?
The engines you desribe as Atkinson cycle are not true Atkinson cycle engines. The true Atkinson cycle never really worked well and was really invented as a way to avoid breaching the patent on the Otto cycle engine. The engines that are called Atkinsons these days were, I believe, effectively derived from Miller cycle engines with the super charger removed.
Sp you're right in saying that all Miller cycle engines have some form of supercharger, but that doesn't make them Atkinsons with an added supercharger.
The reason that the Miller cycle engine seems to be undergoing a resurgence is that mechanically driven supercharger design has taken leaps forward of late and superchargers themselves are much more efficient than even a few years ago. The result being that the efficiency and performance of the Miller cycle engine has also improved.
Bear in mind however that the Nissan's engine is a long way from being a converntional Miller cycle engine.
Sounds like a nice little engine - it's just a shame that the car looks so damned uninspiring. And what the hell were they thinking with that horrific interior?
"The Nissan Micra DIG-S is a bitch. And I spanked it."
...the exact same thing while I was reading the review!
The old Micra handled considerably better than it let on, so this is somewhat of a disappointment. I think that the old car was probably better in many ways (my wife loves the styling and my opinion doesn't count there), but this new engine is admittedly truly impressive.
As to the styling, we had one of the first one's in the country. It was distracting to have people taking photographs on their camera phones while driving. People forget quite how innovative it was back in 2003, particularly as so many companies have copied elements of the styling since.
Boring, overrated, totally generic and makes an irritating whining noise?
You forgot "bland and derivative" but I'm putting that down to having forgotten him already.
You also forgot to mention that when performing Martin thrashes about on stage as if he was playing thrash metal when in reality he's playing the blandest thing since eighties lift muzak. What's the motoring equivalent of that?
Efficiency all trumpet but no figures? What did YOU achieve on your haring around the peaks? IT might be capable of being an econobox under certain conditions but when the foot is down just how economical is it? usually a super charger (injects more air) is used because you want to inject more petrol into each stoke, to up the power which is all well and good for headline 1.2L figures but how much more petrol does it use? I'm not convinced this is economical at all..
0-60 in 11 is good for a 1.2 but probably won't fool many into thinking it's 1.5! now a 1.4 maybe.
Like the "Buy from Amazon" button! I won't though.
Slow in fast out is for RWD drive cars! (and a number of French favourites, 205, Saxo VTS, 306 GTi-6). Where if you go too fast into a corner you'll come out of the corner still going fast but backwards.
Small FWD cars are typically fast in, fast out! ;-)
Think classic mini Cooper. BMW right up your playmini on the straights then it appears to stop dead in time when in a corner.
Driving a small fast RWD car can be very unsettling for a FWD car trying to follow, as their braking areas are different.
Stuff FWD hatches, Chrysler/Talbot knew how to build a hot hatch, 2 models in fact.
But as a visit to any hillclimb event will testify a small FWD car is generally quicker up a twisty course than an equivalent RWD model.
... that this review should have been placed in the "Hardware - Mobile" section!
Seems like a lot more 1/2 engine and 1/3 engines around now.
Last time I drove a triple it was slow, not smooth and felt like there were cylinders missing.
Can't they achieve this economy with a normal nuber of cylinders, like the very common 2/3rds engine.
Fewer cylinders = Fewer parts = Cheaper to make
Because they've come up with algorithms to dynamically balance an engine without needing balancer shafts, they're cheaper to make.
Also if they can share more parts this saves on tooling costs.
e.g. 1.2 3cylinder and 1.6 4 cylinder, same pistons, rods and associated components.
In automotive, if they can save 10p per car on 500,000 cars they will try to.
large numbers of parts the same between at least 3 inline 4s and 4 V6s, but not pistons. But all have same valves
Since small cylinders are generally more efficient it seems curious that economy cars these days actually have larger cylinders by dint of having fewer of them for the same capacity.
I've got a Suzuki Splash with a three-cylinder (1.0L, normally aspirated) engine. The only niggle I have* is that at idle, the vibrations tend towards "unsettling", when compared to four-cylinders (which are a major fourth higher in pitch for the same speed, and probably smoother).
Did the Micra suffer from this, or did the on-off thingy stop it happening?
* You could complain that it's underpowered, or that it sounds like a demented sewing machine when you thrash it, but they're not really valid - it's a cheap, small and economical engine.
Hmm 750 2 stroke triple
The vibrations made by a multi cylinder engine are inherent in it's design, not in the number of cylinders. Funilly enough an inline four cylinder engine is not actually particularly well balanced.
There are two basic ways to make a triple (if we ignore odd things like V3's) one is to have a 180 degree crank shaft, the other is to have a 120 degree crankshaft. Usually a 180 degree crankshaft has pistons 1 and 3 at TDC while 2 is at BDC. This means that the vertical movement of the two pistons is not balanced by the other. This is poor primary balance in the vertical. Try to correct it with weighted crank webs and you have poor balance in the horizontal. Such an engine is hard to balance and manufacturers will often throw in a balance shaft to try to counter the inherent shakes. Four cylinder engines tend to have 1 and 4 at TDC while 2 and 3 are at BDC. This means the pistons vertical accelerations balance each other out. You will notice however that the longtiudinal seperation between the pistons along the crank means you have a rocking couple that is trying to bend the whole engine in the middle.
A smoother three cylinder engine has a 120 degree crank where the crank pins are seperated evenly spaced. This is a much smoother engine as the pistons motions balance each other out. You will notice in the cutaway picture of the engine that number 1 is at BDC, number 3 is at TDC and number two is in the middle of a stroke. It's a 120 degree crank.
The 180 degree engine is cheaper to manufacture. Partly because it's more like a four cylinder engine so things like crank and camshafts are easier to tool for. And partly because ignition and injection systems are easier to setup build. For example you can use the good old wasted spark system between 1 and 3. Try that on a 120 degree crank and you'd be in trouble.
Looks nice and the built in satnav, trip computer etc is good at that price. What a shame Britain gave up on the car industry becuase it was too hard.
Britain didn't actually give up on the car industry. There are still an awful lot of cars designed, engineered and manufactured in the UK, but we did sell it all off to foreign ownership. Except for Morgan, of course, and Metrocab, but that needn't trouble us now.
('D'oh icon for the short-sightedness of the failure to invest in the UK car industry, rather than Jim LIX).
The micra is built here
Unions and a general apathy towards quality didn't help.
The previous micra was, this one is built in India apparantly
And don't forget Ariel motor too.
Still lusting after one, but the closest I got was a few laps around Prodrive in Kenilworth :D
I'd include a link, but all you'd see is a crappy blank screen and the icon for present in nice wrapping paper with a bow.
Ariel* make toys for rich people. They're very nice but you can't build a large manufacturing industry on that. Furthermore many of the components are bought in from foreign plants. Where do Aeriel get their engines again? And how much do they charge for their impractical cars? Peronally I'd rather have a fleet of bikes than one of their 30 grand cars. And as for the one that costs five times as much. Eh?
At least some of the foreign owned plants over here are manufacturing a lot more than just a chassis with a whole load of bought in parts bolted on.
* Along with Caterham, Morgan, Ginetta, Noble, et al.
" but we did sell it all off to foreign ownership"
And since the British government stopped trying to build cars, the cars that have been built in Britain have never been better and the industry is efficient and healthy.