Nissan Micra DIG-S, will more than 1,000 miles without refueling?

Nissan Micra DIG-S, will more than 1,000 miles without refueling? - Yesterday, while walking through a mall, I noticed a billboard of Nissan Micra DIG-S. The slogan caught my attention, as happened to at Autoblog Sphyrna Answers. This announcement flirts with false advertising, but we can not treat it as such. Let the TV spot.

Worth the price of 10,300 euros is that of the Visia and show us a Tekna Premium. It's a totally common practice and fine print with a TV is HD (another thing to allow time to read it). I mean about the more than 1,000 miles without refueling.

According to European approval NEDC cycle, has a consumption of 4.1 l/100 km, and a reservoir of 41 liters (or one more), then in principle, are not fooling anyone, but the "more" spare, unless extra urban cycle. Eye, the Tekna Premium spends 4.3 litres/100 km and that is less than 1,000 km or approval in hand. It squeaks. Readmore Nissan X-Trail limited edition Formigal

A practical case of uninformed consumers (which abound)

Imagine my name Menganito, and I have not heard or will hear what's that NEDC cycle. I buy a Micra, attracted by its consumption seen in advertising. I am someone who has little money to stock and waiting to go to refuel every 1,000 miles and beak. Then come the disappointments. Tank after tank, I do not get to 1,000 kilometers, but hurry up running out of petrol.

I think it is broken, I take it to Nissan, and I say it is perfect. Over time, I discover Autoblog, and read the test of Nissan Micra DIG-S. In this test, one achieves Hatzive consumption 5.1 l/100 km, and that a driver is not running. By simple arithmetic, do not go 1,000 km per tank, but less. That's when I feel cheated.

That consumption is approved, approved. It seems very irresponsible and questionable use these data as a selling point. This goes for Nissan, and any other brand. Without going any further, my car homologous 4 l/100 km and day to day, I spent 5.8 litres/100 km. But I know what it is, it's normal. I know it is not broke, I'm more informed than normal.


The responsible thing would be to say that test cycle, the car spent it, and explain to the client with a graphical NEDC cycle what that is. You have to tell you that real consumption will certainly be higher, unless flowing in ideal thermodynamic conditions, without slope, etc..

Only a difference of 20 degrees, a car spends more (lower thermal efficiency). Just because you have less pressure 0.2 bar on wheels, spend more. By taking our chubby friend (who weighs two other passengers) also increases consumption. Having the storage trunk also increases consumption.

I would here require a code of ethics and ethical advertising on cars, in any medium, but it will be like yelling at the sky for rain. I put Nissan's example, but I find in any manufacturer. A car is a car and your circumstances, do not live in the world of ideal conditions (or all would attach more).

In the 90 consumption were announced otherwise. For example, the Citroen AX Diesel 3.6 l/100 km approved 90 km / h (see announcement). And it's easy to find people in Spritmonitor spends little, in fact, the average is 4.64 AX Diesel l/100 km. And neither milk nor HDi were aspirated diesel "zero technology".

At that time I have the feeling that advertised consumption were much more realistic. For example, my other car is at the time, I approved 10.5 l/100 km and my actual consumption is 10.4 l/100 km. There is a difference of almost 50% as with the Prius, is so negative.

Instead of clinging to the authorized consumption as straws, should make their own tests, according to an alternative approved rules, and say, "This car has spent so much at 90, both at 120 and both in the city to an average of 21 km / h ", which was done in the 90's. And sure many people would feel happier with their actual consumption!