MPG: K11 1.0 vs. K11 1.3 ?

[-SS-]

As some of you may know, at the moment, I have a K10 1.0 auto.

I plan to keep the car for another 6 months or so and then, money permitting, would like to upgrade to a K11.

The question I have is whether I should go for a 1.0 litre or a 1.3. It will have to be an auto as it will be driven by others, some of whom don't have a manual licence.

I looked on AutoTrader and have found the following performance / MPG figures. Just wondering how accurate these figures really are?

The plan is to use the car 50% in busy town centres where traffic crawls and 50% on A roads. Once in a blue moon the car will see a motorway and 70mph

Any advice / suggestions?

 

[Manny]

the 1.3 should be more than 54bhp? 1.0 better for town driving.

 

[jim_bling]

1.0 54 bhp 1.3 75 bhp

 

[-SS-]

Thanks folks. Do you think AutoTrader also made a cockup of the MPG figures? How can a 1.3 be MORE economical than a 1.0???

Found this on another 1.3, I am guessing this is the better / more accurate picture of MPG and BHP?

 

[frank]

the 1.0 might be slightly better in town, and the 1.3 better at cruising, but cvt k11,s are getting very thin on the ground tho

 

[-SS-]

Hi Frank

By CVT I am guessing you mean the autos? If so, I have noticed so myself. And any that are around, are fetching silly money for a low miles, 2000 - 2001 model.

 

[Desty]

Just to add to this, the K11 CVT was changed in (AFAIK) August 2000 and later models - they got rid of the (slightly flakey) electromagnetic clutch and put in a torque converter instead, which apparently gives it better fuel economy (10% according to Nissan's press release) and it's more driveable at low speeds. The earlier ones are "N-CVT" and I think the newer ones are "Hyper CVT".

I like my (early 2000) 1.0 CVT a lot, but have a feeling I'd prefer the newer torque converter version. Driving the N-CVT K11 at very low speeds is certainly a bit odd, compared to other automatics (and my old manual Ford Fiesta)- unless mine is abnormal (I think the EM clutch does wear down and slip a little) the car won't move without the accelerator being pressed... it might just inch forward on a smooth flat, but we're talking an inch every 5 seconds :suspect: so you have to prod the accelerator which is hairy at first when parking etc.
Also there's rather a lot of engine braking, depending on what speed you're doing... especially at low speeds, if you hop off the accelerator the car slows down with a bit of a jerk, then coasts to a gradual stop.

Efficiency-wise, I haven't properly measured it because I don't drive the car much, but it doesn't seem hugely frugal. That may be due to the clutch being a bit worn down (there's about 63000 miles on it, but it depends on driving style and I'd say the previous owner put it through some pain...). How do you guys measure the MPG? :grinning:

 

[-SS-]

Very useful info desty, many thanks! I will look out for a 2000 model in that case

 

[ronin_kid]

Do you think AutoTrader also made a cockup of the MPG figures? How can a 1.3 be MORE economical than a 1.0???

i'm pretty sure Ed said the 1.0 and 1.3 fuel maps are the same, just with the 1.0 running a little more ignition advance through the range - that would give the 1.3 better mpg as its producing more hp for the same fuel being used......

 

[Ed]

It also depends SO MUCH how you drive them.

Perfect example. My g/f drove her 94' K11 1.0 auto 280 miles and got 40mpg. I did the same journey two days later but drove back. The journey was um quicker, lol and I averaged 29mpg.

I may be wrong but I didn't think post 2000 Micras were CVT at all? In theory CVT should get better mpg as it can always choose the best rpm for mpg etc, equally it can also in theory get the worst as its able to hold the engine at maximum power continuously and change the gear ratios for maximum speed.

The powder clutch on a K11 never slips once the car is moving unlike a torque converter which may I believe slip unless its one that can lock fully.

 

[Desty]

I may be wrong but I didn't think post 2000 Micras were CVT at all? In theory CVT should get better mpg as it can always choose the best rpm for mpg etc, equally it can also in theory get the worst as its able to hold the engine at maximum power continuously and change the gear ratios for maximum speed.

Hi Ed,

The Micras built from August 2000 onwards were still CVTs, only the powder clutch was replaced with a torque converter which does (mostly) the same thing. The K12 autos are the non-CVTs, starting sometime in 2003.

The powder clutch on a K11 never slips once the car is moving unlike a torque converter which may I believe slip unless its one that can lock fully.

I think the powder clutch can slip a little, depending on (sudden) load etc, and how much wear it's taken - the properties of the magnetic powder change over time, so the more sudden acceleration/deceleration you do, the less efficient it gets AFAIK... if I understand rightly, it will eventually start to slip just like a worn manual clutch. I've got an NCT (equivalent to the English MOT) coming up in a month so will find out then if the emissions are much higher than expected.

Also I think all torque converters (in the last 15-20 years anyway) have that lockup clutch you mentioned, which kicks in once you're travelling over 25mph or so. I'd love to know why Nissan claim the Hyper-CVT with torque converter gives 10% better efficiency than the NCVT with powder clutch, though... it does seem intuitive that the electromagnetic clutch would potentially be more efficient. Maybe the savings come from tweaked CVT strategy.
Someday I'll stop someone with one of the Hyper-CVT models and ask them about it, maybe blag a test drive for comparison

 

[-SS-]

Ed / Desty - many thanks for the info.

If I want better MPG, should I be looking out for a 1.3 CVT with torque converter or a 1.3 with the powder clutch? Car will be doing a mixture of B roads and town traffic and once in a blue moon, a motorway, such as the M1.

 

[Desty]

If I want better MPG, should I be looking out for a 1.3 CVT with torque converter or a 1.3 with the powder clutch? Car will be doing a mixture of B roads and town traffic and once in a blue moon, a motorway, such as the M1.

If Nissan's press release is to be believed, the torque converter version is more efficient (whether it's because of the converter or the new and improved Hyper CVT perhaps selecting ratio more conservatively is another question).

 

[-SS-]

OK great. I recall that on the gearstick it says CVT-something, so that will tell me what I'm looking at.

 

[kostas007]

it doesnt worth to get the 1.0
very low torque,and with more than the driver inside it will strugle

 

[Desty]

it doesnt worth to get the 1.0
very low torque,and with more than the driver inside it will strugle

It's not too bad TBH - the CVT probably helps acceleration, but yeah personally if I could find a 1.3 K11 built after August 2000 I would be a very, very happy man.