|
The only real surprise is that it has as much as 80bhp, from driving one I didn't think it had much over 50. Presumably it only achieves this figure when revved right up at the red line. The one I had went a bit better if you kept the rpm above about 5000, but that doesn't exactly make for a relaxing drive and pretty antisocial in town!
With a reasonable amount of torque, 80bhp should be more than enough for a smallish car - the old VAG 1.9TDi only had 90bhp and that was fine pulling the first generation Audi A4 about.
One thing it does show is how much benefit a turbo gives. The TSI version of this engine I think is the same block but with a different map and turbocharger fitted (it has the same displacement and number of cylinders). The 110bhp engine is fitted in my wife's company Leon Estate and is not fast, but still perfectly adequate 5-up fully loaded with a trailer despite being a much bigger car.
|
|
|
|
The only real surprise is that it has as much as 80bhp, from driving one I didn't think it had much over 50. Presumably it only achieves this figure when revved right up at the red line. The one I had went a bit better if you kept the rpm above about 5000, but that doesn't exactly make for a relaxing drive and pretty antisocial in town!
With a reasonable amount of torque, 80bhp should be more than enough for a smallish car - the old VAG 1.9TDi only had 90bhp and that was fine pulling the first generation Audi A4 about.
One thing it does show is how much benefit a turbo gives. The TSI version of this engine I think is the same block but with a different map and turbocharger fitted (it has the same displacement and number of cylinders). The 110bhp engine is fitted in my wife's company Leon Estate and is not fast, but still perfectly adequate 5-up fully loaded with a trailer despite being a much bigger car.
|
The only real surprise is that it has as much as 80bhp, from driving one I didn't think it had much over 50.
The n/a 1.0 in this era of Polo would have 65, 75 or 80bhp depending on age and market. The 80bhp version here has 95NM of torque from 3000-4300RPM, which isn't that bad for a n/a 1.0, particularly where in the rev range it is. Peak torque in the Jazz 1.3 we used to have happened at 5000rpm!.
The problem here is that people's expectations of power and performance is way higher than it used to be. So performance that would have been deemed adequate 20 years ago is now considered totally unacceptable.
With a reasonable amount of torque, 80bhp should be more than enough for a smallish car - the old VAG 1.9TDi only had 90bhp and that was fine pulling the first generation Audi A4 about.
Their power outputs may not be that far apart, but comparing a 1.9 turbo diesel with a 1.0 n/a petrol is ridiculous!. That TDI has more than double the peak torque, and it arrives at 1900rpm.
One last thing, given the car has presumably been thrashed to within an inch of its life, I don't think 45mpg is that bad.
|
The problem here is that people's expectations of power and performance is way higher than it used to be. So performance that would have been deemed adequate 20 years ago is now considered totally unacceptable.
The 2 Nissan Micra 1.2 we had in the household between 2005 and 2015 had the same 80 PS as the Polo but its fair to say the Polo will be quite a bit heavier. For a 1.2 the Micra had surprising performance and the engine was far more flexible than any 1.2 had a right to be.
We test drove a Polo in late 2003 and that was fitted with a 55 PS 3 cylinder engine, the car was biblically dreadful. On the same day we drove a Nissan Micra fitted with the 1 litre 65 PS engine and it was like a rocket ship, this in some ways persuaded us to buy the 1.2 80 PS Micra 18 months later.
The Suzuki Celerio that we acquired for the uncle mid 2019 has about 65 PS from its 1 litre 3 cylinder engine and performance seems fine with good flexibility, the fact the cars weighs nothing also helps.
As said above, its all about expectations.
Go back to 1980 when I bought a new Mk 2 Escort 1.6 Sport. It had all of 82 bhp (80 PS in new money) but probably weighed less than the Micra with the same power. Back in 1980 it was a desirable "sporty" car at a time when the 1.6 Golf GTi (which was the best hot hatch) could only muster 105 bhp.
I blame Clarkson.
|
The car has not been thrashed within an inch of its life, far from it.
It has been carefully nursed to get an average of 45mpg (I actually worked it out as 44.6mpg); I would dread to think what the mpg would resemble if it was thrashed.
|
The car has not been thrashed within an inch of its life, far from it. It has been carefully nursed to get an average of 45mpg (I actually worked it out as 44.6mpg); I would dread to think what the mpg would resemble if it was thrashed.
How would you know there is no acceleration in any gear beyond 1st then?
Peak power is 5500rpm, if you are not using that, then the claim is neither fair or accurate.
Plus, as it was a hire car, why nurse it?.
The Suzuki Celerio that we acquired for the uncle mid 2019 has about 65 PS from its 1 litre 3 cylinder engine and performance seems fine with good flexibility, the fact the cars weighs nothing also helps.
We had a Daihatsu Sirion 1.0 (68bhp) from 2009-2011 and I found the performance fine (despite what the motoring press said), even on dual carriageways and motorways. It was also a pretty light car, about the same as a Celerio. Our current car, a Suzuki Ignis (perhaps surprisingly) is lighter still, so it is pretty lively with 89bhp (despite being hampered by the AGS gearbox).
|
|
|
The car has not been thrashed within an inch of its life, far from it. It has been carefully nursed to get an average of 45mpg (I actually worked it out as 44.6mpg); I would dread to think what the mpg would resemble if it was thrashed.
To get only 45mpg out of a car that size for presumably mixed driving (for mostly jig-jog traffic that would be good), given I can coax 41mpg average out of my 16yo Mazda3 1.6 N/A petrol. With a similar driving pattern, I managed to get an average of 53mpg out of my old 96N 1L Micra, and 47mpg average in much more heavy, slow-moving traffic.
The 1L Celerio and Mazda2 1.5 (75PS version) I've used as courtesy cars have easily got over 50mpg if I recall, probably nearer 60mpg on mixed mode driving.
This Polo doesn't look good. The 0-60 time on the review section is worse than my old Micra's.
|
I managed to get an average of 53mpg out of my old 96N 1L Micra
Considering we averaged about 44 mpg in mixed use out of both our 1.2 K12 Micra's I don't believe that at all.
Dads 03 plate Jazz did a little better but the twin spark engine in the early ones was quite torquey compared to other Hondas meaning less gear shifts.
|
I managed to get an average of 53mpg out of my old 96N 1L Micra
Considering we averaged about 44 mpg in mixed use out of both our 1.2 K12 Micra's I don't believe that at all.
It's all true. I used the brim-to-brim method and got that. Both my cars' odomoeters appear to be reasonably accurate compared to looking at online mapping distances for trips, and I never use trip computers (fuel use). If I recall, the 'official' mpg for mixed driving was about 47.5 for my Micra, which is the same as that for your old car, which managed to achieve it on the Real MPG average.
The worst I ever achieved was about 43-45mpg doing a commute (and only just after I bought it - my first car, so not an experienced driver) from my parents house just outside into North London, where I rarely got above 30 due to the very heavy traffic.
I would also note that my Micra had no A/C, power steering (I resume yours had at least the latter) or other electronic gozmos that reduced the mpg, and that the kerb weight of the K12 was a minimum of 1000kg, whereas my K11 1L only weighed 775kg.
Yours was probably a LOT safer than mine as a result of all the extra safety kit - mine didn't even have ABS, only side impact bars and one airbag. The engine bay was so empty I could easily see the bottom access cover and nearly reach it from above.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/nissan/micra-2003
www.honestjohn.co.uk/nissan/micra/2003/specs
I currently manage (using the same calculation method) to achieve 40.5mph for my Mazda3 1.6 petrol saloon, as opposed to the official average for my version (the HJ figure is for the remapped gen-1 version, lower, performance, better mpg and emissions than my one) which is 37.5mpg.
It shows I can consistently achieve about 10% more than the official figures. It's probably just my driving style - not Captain Slow by any means, but a light touch on the pedals and a defensive driver, which is probably why I also like driving in snowy conditions, even with tyres not normally suited to those conditions.
|
|
|
I managed to get an average of 53mpg out of my old 96N 1L Micra
Considering we averaged about 44 mpg in mixed use out of both our 1.2 K12 Micra's I don't believe that at all.
Dads 03 plate Jazz did a little better but the twin spark engine in the early ones was quite torquey compared to other Hondas meaning less gear shifts.
I had an M reg Micra like Andy's and the 1l as well and always got at least 50mpg from brim to brim calculations over a few years of using it - only time it would use a lot of fuel is when pushing it on the motorway.
Not sure why you can't belive it though - hardly amazing to get that kind of MPG out of a 1l car and your 44mpg seems a little on the low side if you are trying to get a decent MPG
|
|
Skidpan mentions his was a 1.2. Could that explain some if not all the difference?
|
Skidpan mentions his was a 1.2. Could that explain some if not all the difference?
Doubt it very much. In reality the 1.2 would need driving less hard to keep up with normal road speeds.
I think the difference is I always quote the average figures I have seen over many years as opposed to miracle one tank fill up you get once a year when you go on a long run. Using our Fabia as an example its averaged 48 mpg over the 4.5 years we have owned it (used in pretty much the same way as the Micra's) but on one run out early this summer we saw about 62 mpg over the just over 400 miles.
I also only quote calculated figures, we all know the dash display lies but many quote them as gospel. The first Micra did not have a dash display but the 2nd one did, it always showed an average about 4 mpg higher than the calculated figure.
Perhaps I should stop telling the truth and use fictional figures like others seem to do.
44mpg seems a little on the low side if you are trying to get a decent MPG
Don't drive to get decent mpg. I drive in a perfectly normal manner keeping up with traffic, accelerating briskly and overtaking when safe.
Take our twice a year trip to Scotland, 430 miles each way. The driving time is normally about 7 hours and we drive at the speed limits for the road (except perhaps when overtaking). That is an average of almost 62 mph, its not an economy run.
Edited by skidpan on 23/12/2022 at 14:39
|
|
<< Don't drive to get decent mpg. I drive in a perfectly normal manner keeping up with traffic, accelerating briskly and overtaking when safe.
Take our twice a year trip to Scotland, 430 miles each way. The driving time is normally about 7 hours and we drive at the speed limits for the road (except perhaps when overtaking). That is an average of almost 62 mph, its not an economy run. >>
There you go, Skidpan - suggesting that you drive 'normally' and possibly implying many others don't. When I am driving (my) normally I would never get anywhere near an average of 62mph, perhaps even if the entire trip was on M'way. As we all know that mpg decreases steadily with increasing mph, that may explain your figure of 44mpg ?
|
<< Don't drive to get decent mpg. I drive in a perfectly normal manner keeping up with traffic, accelerating briskly and overtaking when safe.
Take our twice a year trip to Scotland, 430 miles each way. The driving time is normally about 7 hours and we drive at the speed limits for the road (except perhaps when overtaking). That is an average of almost 62 mph, its not an economy run. >>
There you go, Skidpan - suggesting that you drive 'normally' and possibly implying many others don't. When I am driving (my) normally I would never get anywhere near an average of 62mph, perhaps even if the entire trip was on M'way. As we all know that mpg decreases steadily with increasing mph, that may explain your figure of 44mpg ?
I never said we took either Micra on a trip to Scotland at an average of 62 mph and 44 mpg did I.
For the record in the last Superb (a 1.4 TSi 150 PS) we would get about 52 mpg for that trip.
|
|
<< I never said we took either Micra on a trip to Scotland at an average of 62 mph and 44 mpg did I. >>
No, you just compared your figures with other people's and said you didn't believe theirs - going on to say you drove 'normally', however we were meant to interpret that ?
|
Perhaps I should stop telling the truth and use fictional figures like others seem to do.
44mpg seems a little on the low side if you are trying to get a decent MPG
Don't drive to get decent mpg. I drive in a perfectly normal manner keeping up with traffic, accelerating briskly and overtaking when safe.
Take our twice a year trip to Scotland, 430 miles each way. The driving time is normally about 7 hours and we drive at the speed limits for the road (except perhaps when overtaking). That is an average of almost 62 mph, its not an economy run.
Just because I and others can get better MPG than you does not mean we are using made up figures....that's just a very odd way to think of things. Why would everyone not be telling you the truth? Or do you think only you can calculate accurate figures?
|
Skidpan mentions his was a 1.2. Could that explain some if not all the difference?
Possibly - the K11's 1.3 (1275cc) had nearly 50% more power (54 - > 75bhp) than the 1L (998cc). I suspect that most of the change was due to the newer version of the car being quite a bit heavier. Not sure whether the K12's 1.2 was a variant on the K11's 1.3 or a all-new engine, which could've been developed at around the time of the tie-up with Renault.
I can also confirm that to get the best (mpg-wise) out of the K11 Micra, you had to keep the speed below 70 (4000rpm+). Pootled along nicely at 60 on dual carriageways and motorways. Always a bit wary of going any slowly (e.g. indicated 55) as that would put me right up with the HGVs in the 'slow lane', which wasn't exactly safe in a NCAP 2* rated car back then.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 23/12/2022 at 18:51
|
|
I had a 1.0 K11 Micra. Quite an enthusiastic little thing as long as you didn't let anyone else in or try to accelerate up hill. Certainly better than the 1.0 Mii we had, presumably with the 1.0 VW engine that triggered this whole thread.
|
|
Most speedos over read by 10%..I hope you adjust mpg accordingly
|
Most speedos over read by 10%..I hope you adjust mpg accordingly
My 1.4tsi Superb is reasonably close re speedo compared to GPS measured speed. It over reads by less than 2mph @ 70mph but is nearly spot on @ 30mph.
I think a speedo is always set to slightly over read but never under read.
I've driven the EA211 1.0 in both tsi and NA versions and the tsi always feels quite punchy and is low revved at speed where as the Normally Aspirated feels sluggish. It should be noted the non turbo versions have port fuel injection whereas tsi versions have more efficient direct fuel injection.
Edited by Big John on 24/12/2022 at 12:55
|
Most speedos over read by 10%..I hope you adjust mpg accordingly
Its the odometer that affects your mpg calculations, not the speedo. Take our Kia as an example. The speedo over read by the usual 3 mph at 70 mph but over our 430 trip to Scotland (GPS miles) it recorded only 412 miles, use the 412 and the calculated mpg would be lower than it really was. On the same 430 mile Scotland trip our Golf TDI recorded 441 miles.
When we corrected the calculations the Ceed and the Golf were within 1 mpg, ignore the odometer error and it was more like 4 mpg.
Only speedo we have had that was a full 10% out was the 2nd Micra. But when I changed the tyres I spotted that 2 sizes were on the door plate for 15 wheels, 175 60 15 and 175 65 15. The 60 profile ones were as rare as hens teeth and expensive, the 65 profile ones were used on many cars and were readily available at decent prices including the Kleber Quadraxer. Guess which we bought.
After fitting them I rechecked the speedo with the GPS and it read 74 mph. Seems it had the "wrong" tyres from new.
|
Not sure whether the K12's 1.2 was a variant on the K11's 1.3 or a all-new engine, which could've been developed at around the time of the tie-up with Renault.
The 1.2 in the K12 Micra was 100% Nissan, it was actually 1240cc and 80 PS. There was a 65 PS version as well (it replaced the earlier 1.0 65 PS version) but I don't think they actually sold many. The engine in the K13 was also 100% Nissan but not the same engine as the K12. The K14 is pretty much all Renault.
Was that engine a development of the K11's 1.3, I have no idea. When I see a mate I will ask, he is into K11 Micra's (and Clio's) and has just bought a couple of K11's to turn into comp cars for himself and his daughter.
|
should be noted the non turbo versions have port fuel injection whereas tsi versions have more efficient direct fuel injection.
They may be more efficient when new, but the absence of fuel 'washing' the ports and inlet valves, combined with EGR seems to cause problems as they age. I see that at least one manufacturer is using both port and direct injection on some engines.
|
Most speedos over read by 10%..I hope you adjust mpg accordingly
Most modern cars have speedos much more accurate than that - more like 2-3% - the 10% is just a legal limit - and odometers don't necessarily have the same inaccuracy as the speedo despite taking their information from the same source.
|
Most speedos over read by 10%..I hope you adjust mpg accordingly
They are not permitted to under-read, so most are designed to over-read by a bit. My personal experience is that electronic readout is more accurate than the old mechanical ones were.
However that is irrelevant as the over-read should not apply to distance measurement, so if the odometer reads accurately, calculated mpg should be equally accurate (allowing for inaccuracy at the pump, of course) :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
