For those interested in new vs old (how dare they even compare)

First Oz drive: Light rivals in Nissan's Micra scope

Micra-economics: New Nissan light-car is priced from under $15,000.

Nissan throws down a gauntlet to rivals with its sensationally priced light-car

By BYRON MATHIOUDAKIS 13 December 2007


NISSAN Australia managing director Shinya Hannya predicted last week that its all-new Micra “will change the balance of power in the light-car segment”.

The micro-car marks the Japanese brand’s return to a segment it helped restablish with the 1967 Datsun 1000 and then abandoned in 1997 after a half-hearted attempt with the previous-shape K11 Micra.

At $14,990, the 2007 K12 Micra – on sale in Australia from this week – is set to spark a reaction from rivals as a result of the Nissan’s provocatively low pricing.

With a five-door hatchback body, four-speed automatic gearbox, ABS brakes with EBD and brake assist, active front head restraints, twin front airbags, air-conditioning, remote central locking, four electric windows, powered mirrors, and CD audio with an MP3 player connector, Nissan is convinced that the Micra will turn the light-car segment – Australia’s fastest grower this year – on its ear.

“Micra delivers what the market wants,” claimed Nissan Australia’s marketing general manager Ross Booth. He backed this up with statistics revealing that abut 80 per cent of light-car buyers choose five doors over three or four, while three in five tick the box marked “automatic transmission”.

According to Nissan’s figures, the Micra’s three main auto five-door hatch rivals – the Mazda2 Neo 1.5, Toyota Yaris YR 1.3 and Hyundai Getz 1.4 – each cost $3160, $3000 and $2000 more respectively.

“And price is the main motivation in this segment,” Mr Booth said.

Nevertheless, Nissan is erring on caution’s side, with just 500 sales forecast each month.

Privately, the company will be disappointed not to achieve considerably more. One of the reasons why Nissan could bring the Micra in so cheaply has to do with the cost savings borne from not having a complex model line-up.

This partly explains why there is only a single model in the line-up for now.

Motivating the 965kg Micra is an all-aluminium 1.4-litre twin-cam 16-valve four-cylinder engine with variable valve timing and a drive-by-wire electronic throttle that helps deliver 72kW of power at 5600rpm and 137Nm of torque at 3200rpm.

For now it is mated solely to an electronically controlled four-speed automatic gearbox. Manual and/or three-door model Micras are not expected until the next-generation car arrives “in two years at least”, according to Mr Hannya.

Those with long memories may recall that the previous Micra won plenty of admirers for offering an extremely efficient continuously variable transmission.

Nissan may refute this, but speculation at the time of the current K12 model’s release five years ago suggested that this gearbox disappeared from the larger-engined Micra variants in favour of a conventional torque-converter automatic for economic reasons at a time when the company’s resources were severely strained.

Nissan Australia has not released performance or CO2 emission figures, but the Micra’s combined average fuel consumption figure is 6.8L/100km. European 1.4-litre automatic models emit 163g/km of CO2.

Unlike Hyundai and Mazda, Nissan cannot offer electronic stability control, while the Micra lags behind most new cars by not including a rear lap/sash centre seatbelt – relying instead on a lap-only item.

According to Mr Booth, the Japanese factory could not supply either safety feature, even though the K12 Micra made in England can offer both.

The car also runs on 165/70 R14 tyres when some rivals use 15-inch wheels, although a 1700 “City Collection” package adds 15-inch alloy wheels, along with dual side and curtain airbags and six-stacker CD audio. The spare is a space-saver.

Not as compact as its name implies, the Micra is roughly the size of the Yaris, measuring 3725mm long, 1660mm wide and 1530mm high.

It sits on a 2430mm wheelbase. Luggage space is 251 litres, rising to 584 litres with the split/fold rear seats folded down.

Using the front-wheel drive Renault/Nissan Alliance B Platform that also underpins the latest Renault Clio III, Modus and Twingo II, as well as Nissan’s Tiida small car, the Micra conforms to the light-car norm.

Suspension-wise it employs MacPherson struts, coil springs and an anti-roll bar up front and coil springs with a torsion beam axle at the rear.

An electrically assisted speed-sensitive rack-and-pinion steering system is responsible for the Micra’s second-to-Smart-only turning circle of 8.8 metres.

Nissan claims steering “feel” increases with velocity. Disc brakes are used up front while the back ones are drums.

Nissan has chosen a dark brown interior trim, offset by white instrument dials and climate-control dials.

Among the unexpected standard features are an armrest for both sides of the driver’s seat and an under-seat drawer.

It will come as no surprise to learn that Nissan is aiming for the younger, female demographic, although it claims that the Micra has previewed well with males, too.

Older buyers wooed by the tall styling and the high hip-point seating potential this brings may also fall prey, although Nissan maintains that the Korean-pricing point of this Japanese-built light-car will cast a wide demographic net.

The fact the previous Micra holds low-level cult status as a used car may also work in the new model’s favour. Overseas, the K12 Micra has been on sale since late 2002, and so reaches Australia in its twilight.

Nissan is preparing the fourth-generation model for a late 2009 debut.

One interesting fact to emerge is that Mr Hannya actually championed the boxy Cube (a cult car in Japan)instead of the Micra initially, but faced some opposition within Nissan Australia. Eventually, high prices put an end to the Cube’s chances.

“Personally I supported the Cube, but a lot of the guys did not agree,” Mr Hannya said.

Nissan Micra pricing:
1.4 (a) $14,990
1.4 City Collection (a) $16,690








NISSAN may not be setting the small-car segment alight with the Tiida, but anybody who writes off the company that brought us models as effective as the Datsun 1600, 200SX/Silvia, 350Z and Skyline/GT-R is deluded. When Nissan gets it right, look out! Case in point: Micra. Yes, the previous one flopped embarrassingly in Australia, but the current car is still a formidable supermini in supermini-mad Europe even after five years. And so while the Micra is not exactly new, it is fresh to Australia, appealingly packaged (a manual would be nice, though) and priced so sharply it may even redefine value for money in the hotly contested light-car class.

(It only "flopped embarrassingly" because Nissan got greedy)


Previous Model

Nissan K11 Micra
May 1995-December 1997

Although available overseas since the early 1980s, Nissan Australia didn’t market the Toyota Echo-sized Micra until well into the MkII model’s career in 1995. Engineered and built in Britain for European tastes, and offered in three and five-door hatchback guises, the Micra suffered from high pricing at a time when rivals were engaging in a savage price war. Yet its exceptional spaciousness, peppy performance and excellent economy should have won Nissan more buyers. The base LX was sparse, the SLX five-door gained power steering and the sporty Super S (so-named to evoke the Mini Cooper S which inspired the design) offered anti-lock brakes, a sunroof, bodykit and alloy wheels. All models feature the same 55kW 1.3-litre twin-cam four. A minor facelift heralded the 1997 model from August 1996.





THE middle of 1995 saw two highly rated Europeans arrive in Australia within weeks of each other, only for both to sink after especially sad sales performances.

One wore the Ford Mondeo moniker (HA to HE series: d.2000 RIP), and the other was Nissan’s second-generation Micra (K11: d.1997 RIP).

Lost in translation? Victims of circumstance? Inadequate marketing? Consumer indifference? Or maybe both were just too oddball for Australians on the cusp of re-electing a conservative Federal Government? Perhaps all apply.

But you cannot help but wonder what wider forces are at work when the Mondeo and Micra resurface locally within weeks of each other in late 2007.

And you know what else? Both are rewriting the value-for-money formula for their respective classes – in contrast to their expensive predecessors.

In the Micra’s case, the bottom line is tops: $14,990.

Perspective time: In 1995, that unmicro amount was still $650 short for the cheapest Micra manual with two fewer doors, no airbags, no ABS brakes, no power steering, no air-conditioning, no electric windows, no electric mirrors, no remote door locking, no immobiliser, no split/fold rear seats, no rear head restraints... and one radio/cassette player.

Holden once worked out that if it were possible to add such items to a new $15,000 light-car in the 1990s, the price would have ballooned to in excess of $25,000.

In this light, and considering that the Micra does not enjoy a low-cost source-based price advantage like its rivals from Thailand (Honda Jazz) and Korea (Holden Barina, Hyundai Accent and Getz, Kia Rio), the Nissan’s case is very compelling indeed.

We only spotted two AWOL items: no passenger-side sun-visor mirror (the predominantly female – and gay male – target audience might get cross) and no tachometer, while we can live with body coloured door-handles and 14-inch wheels (some rivals now sport 15s).

In fact, considering the surprise-and-delight MP3 plug-in and driver’s seat double armrests nestled among all the other essentials the Micra brings, it certainly does not feel like ‘povvo’ to paraphrase Ms Ja’mie King.

Nissan’s decision to choose Belgian Chocolate-coloured seat and dash trim also lends an air of quality and freshness to an interior that is impressively well-made and functional to use. We particularly liked the cream knobs and white-faced dials.

And the basics like seat comfort, the driver/car interface and space utilisation all rank highly.

So does the exterior, for that matter. Nissan is offering more than 10 colours, and most do suit the Micra, making for a pleasing break from the myriad of silver-derived grey hues that most car-makers are currently obsessing over.

Plus there is just no way most punters will pick this as a five-year-old design. There’s a lesson here for all manufacturers – going bold or individual gives a car longer legs stylistically.

Keeping in mind that this is an auto-only affair, as a driver’s car, the Micra seems to sit somewhere between the comfort-biased Yaris and the sportiness of the Swift – the Mazda2 and Ford Fiesta are safe as the keen driver’s choices.

The steering is light but nicely progressive and adequate in its communication and feel; the handling is not as top-heavy as the styling might suggest, imbuing the Micra with smooth and unruffled cornering capabilities; and the ride – tested on the optional 15-inch alloy wheels – is unexpectedly compliant... supple even.

Nissan’s launch test route took us through some pretty tight Melbourne lanes and alleyways, where we could revel in the Micra’s impressive turning circle, steering feedback, manoeuvrability and bump absorption properties.

On more open urban roads, we doubt anybody is going to complain about how straight and true this thing tracks either.

Perhaps the biggest issue is with noise and harshness.

On one hand, the 1.4-litre engine is adequately responsive from launch and amply powerful around town.

But put the pedal to the metal and it can turn raucous, as the automatic gearbox explores the upper regions of the rev range to eek out as much power as possible. And let’s face it – though lively low down, hit the highway and the fact remains that the Micra is not powerful.

Most small-engined rivals with conventional four-speed automatic transmissions suffer similarly, but the original Australian-bound Micra of 1995 came with an advanced and brilliantly efficient CVT automatic, so its absence here is a backward step for Nissan – a company committed to the concept on most of its products. The Jazz and Mitsubishi Colt show how good the modern CVT has become.

While we’re whinging, no rear centre lap/sash seatbelt means that this Nissan can only safely be regarded as a four-seater, while the non-availability of ESC stability control even as an option is out of step with the times. European Micras do. And the older Hyundai Getz has offered it for well over two years now.

And a note to Nissan: we think this car’s anthropomorphic face and cheeky character gives it a bit of a classless appeal – especially as the latest Mini has become a bit too self-conscious. Maybe bring in a few with (much-needed) cruise control, a sunroof, leather trim, and even satellite-navigation. We think it has the personality to succeed.

Even as it stands, the fact that the Micra does nothing badly and many things well – while being priced like a Korean Holden Barina but as capable as the fine Toyota Yaris (yet with more charm) – proves just how serious Nissan is about making its mark in the light-car class.

The 1995 Micra became a cult only as a used car; a dozen years on and this one deserves to be appreciated straight from the outset.
____________________________________________________________What annoys me is that the new model launched in December 2007, its now 2008, so if you bought, you would already have last year's model.

Nissan's transmission subsidiary is Jatco TransTechnology Ltd. Nissan owns 80% of Jatco. The Mitsubishi Colt CVT is made by Jatco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jatco_transmissions#Continuously_variable_transmissions

The K12 has been sold with a CVT in Japan since 2005, powered by the 1.5L HR15DE.
http://catalogue.carview.co.jp/NISSAN/MARCH/latest/equipment.asp
http://catalogue.carview.co.jp/NISSAN/MARCH/2005/equipment.asp

$14,990 is cheap.

The 3 door K12 was only manufactured in Japan from 2002 to 2005.

The only 5spd manual K12 offered in Japan is/was powered by the 1.2L CR12DE. This is available new in NZ.
Having said that, there is no 1.4L front drive auto offered in Japan but they are able to make it for Australia & NZ.

the fuel consumption is shit 6.8l/100klm the ford fiesta and swift are well under that at 6.3 amnd 6.6 per 100klm.

The turning circle is terrible as well. I think i will stick to my k11 anyday

K11 turning circle:
Power steering: 9.4m
Conventional: 10.1m

K12, 1.4L auto
turning circle: 8.8m
10-15 mode fuel consumption: 18.4km/L = 5.4 L/100km

Suzuki Swift, 1.5L auto
Turning circle: 10.4m
10-15 mode fuel consumption: 16.4 km/L = 6.1 L/100km

Ford Fiesta, 1.6L auto
Turning circle: 9.8m
10-15 mode fuel consumption: 12.0km/L = 8.3 L/100km

Fuel consumption figures above are the same japanese spec. Comparing apples with apples.

http://catalogue.carview.co.jp/spec/NISSAN/MARCH/2002/25544/
http://catalogue.carview.co.jp/spec/SUZUKI/SWIFT/latest/33343/
http://catalogue.carview.co.jp/spec/FORD/FIESTA/latest/31151/

well the swift 1.5 manual i looked at today has the fuel consumption on the window being 6.6 and this is what you quoted up in the text above and then you have said different info the post above tis one and the fiesta we brought today has fuel of 6.3l/100.

Nissan Australia has not released performance or CO2 emission figures, but the Micra’s combined average fuel consumption figure is 6.8L/100km. European 1.4-litre automatic models emit 163g/km of CO2.

nissan wont release those figures as theyre not required.

those windscreen stickers are applied here in australia and they are tested by an australian company.

the name of them escapes me right now but basically they're rubbish and even they have admitted that the figures they put on there are not realistic for most people. They are aiming to solve this in the future by publishing figures which are not simply combined averages.

oh ok still does not take away from the k12 being a bloody ugly car

Doesn't change the fact that your arguement sucked.

didnt suck as that is what is put on the windscreens of cars you buy and that is the info that most people go off so how the fuck did it suck. Hey please explain

Well I'm sure the display sheets in Japan list their figures. I think the Japanese are more likely to have comparible government controlled testing.

The data you have shown above for Ford & Suzuki is wrong.
Both Ford Australia & New Zealand list 7.5 L/100km for the 1.6L auto
This is nothing like the 6.3L/100km figure you state above...
http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1137384169644&pagename=FOA%2FDFYPage%2FDefault1024&c=DFYPage
http://www.ford.co.nz/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1132731178955&pagename=Page&c=DFYPage
Suzuki Australia lists 6.7L/100km for the 1.5L auto swift
http://automobiles.suzuki.com.au/specs.php?model=swift

Consider the vehicle weights, comparing 5 door auto versions:
Ford Feista 1087kg
Suzuki Swift 1060kg
Nissan Micra 950kg
A vehcile that is 14.4% heavier will most likely consume more fuel.

In New Zealand, Nissan gets the Automobile Association to independantly test their vehicles around real rush hour traffic & on real highways with plenty of hills & bends, rather than using some artifically low figure achieved in a lab.
Nissan in New Zealand lists 6.17 L/100km for the 1.4L auto Micra.
http://www.nissan.co.nz/promos/aa_fuel/

The fuel consumption label you talk about uses a "standard test procedure", probably something like driving around a flat racetrack at constant 60km/hr. http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/fuelguide/label.html
The Ford label lists 7.5 L/100km, the same as their websites
http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/GVGPublicUI/AdvancedSearchWebForm.aspx?CurrentTask=1569414f-1fe9-4f26-89bb-7f70c85d785a
click compare

i will go and get photos of the said stickers for you all so i am not talkin shit that is what is displayed up here.

either way you still listed two different fuel ratios for the micra which is correct.

Nissan Australia has not released performance or CO2 emission figures, but the Micra’s combined average fuel consumption figure is 6.8L/100km. European 1.4-litre automatic models emit 163g/km of CO2.

OR

K12, 1.4L auto
turning circle: 8.8m
10-15 mode fuel consumption: 18.4km/L = 5.4 L/100km

you gave two different readings and the first one is what started my argument. If that is not correct i will with draw it but twas the info you gave out so that is what started this

I find it hillarious that you're trying to discredit what nz_aj has posted.

I haven't seen you try and get any supporting evidence for your arguement?

All you seem to be able to do is provide information which is incorrect (turning circle). Draw conclusions which dont apply to you (you couldnt afford a new car no matter how much you'd like to think otherwise so saying you'll stick to your k11 is not a selected choice - its forced). Come back with lame fuel consumption figures which don't mimmick real life consumption (even been admitted by the organisation which does the testing).

The only question now is how much deeper will you dig yourself?

Actually I gave three different figuires for K12 fuel consumption:
Japanese 10 mode (Euro IV?) 5.4 L/100km
NZ AA test 6.17 L/100km
Green vehicle guide (Euro II) 6.8L/100km

What ever mate you dont even fucking know me so how would you know what i can and cant afford hey. We just brought the new 2008 feista so how can i not afford something i want. I prob earn more than you in a year. Do you earn close to 70k in a year i would think not. Fuck you as i said if you say those stickers i have seen are wrong i will withdraw my arguement as that is the info i was going off.....Tell me they are wrong and i will back down as i said. Dont judge me if you dont know me. You dont know who i am and what i have so back off

And I don't think I need to say anything about your intelligence. :)

Most car manufacturers lie about fuel consumption. Does anyone remember Nissan claiming that the micra could do 900klms per tank? Hard as I tried I could not get more than 500. Settle down guys.

THAT IS ALL

I was looking for comparison info to say how the K11 auto versus K12 auto work. A guy is trying to advise an elderly family friend on options for small cars that require foot firmly on brake to shift from Neutral and Park.

PS: sorry to ruin you having the last word on the thread sikk11.

There are conventional 4 speed autos & CVT autos offered in both K11 & K12 mated to various engines on various models, depending on which country you're in.
All CVT's are belt style.
If I remember right, Australia is currently only getting a conventional 4 speed auto.

lol