Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Nissan Murano vs Toyota Highlander vs Subaru B9 Tribeca vs Honda Pilot



  • pschreckpschreck Posts: 524
    Yeah, but keep in mind that was practically all highway miles. I ran between 65 and 75. I tried to use the downhills to get momentum to get up the next hill. This is hilly terain in south central PA, MD and northern VA. I was trying to be very aware of my fuel usage and not doing a lot of passing. I just went with the flow mostly. I could have very easily dropped it down to 20 mpg just by driving in a more normal (for me) manner.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It should improve with age. My Forester didn't hit peak mileage until after 15k miles. By then my average was 2mpg better than it was when new.

  • yoyodkyoyodk Posts: 28
    According to the MPG readout, I typically average 20.1 to 20.4 MPG with mixed city and hwy driving. But I find that the computer is about 0.8 to 1.0 MPG optimistic by checking on the handy dandy calculator. Anyone else have similar findings?

    I burn premium all the time, I figure that with the way gas prices are now, there isn't much of a difference between paying $45 for a tankful of premium versus $ 42.50 for a tank of regular.
  • nspringernspringer Posts: 12
    My computer seems to estimate high also. I was wondering which is more acurate?
  • morey000morey000 Posts: 320
    Dividing the miles driven by the fuel you put in,
    is more accurate than the computer readout.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    For some odd reason my loaner Tribeca was the opposite - my calculated mileage was actually a tad better, 21.2 mpg or something like that. Almost 1 mpg pessimistic. I can't explain it, most people do worse, not better.

  • occkingoccking Posts: 346
    Don't have a Tribeca, but 2.5 Outback limited & the trip computer is consistently between 1 and 2 miles per gallon higher than actual. I have records for every gallon of gas I have put in any car I have owned for many years. Don't ask me why, probably nuts, but I always record the odometer reading, # of gallons put in, what the trip computer says is miles per gallon, date, and temperature. With almost 50k on my 05 Outback, I have pretty consistently averaged actualy approx 26 on trips, and 23 on mixed driving, whereas the computer would indicate approx 1.5 miles per gallon higher. In fact, have never many of my recent cars, including 1999 RX 300, 2001 Acura MDX, 2002 Buick Rendezvous, or 2005 Malibu Maxx, everyone of them overstated computer determined gas mileage as opposed to actual. I am coming the conclusion this is something car manufactures must do intentionally. There are probably many poor souls out there who believe what the computer tells them they are getting for gas mileage, and some probably don't even know how to calculate actual mileage (sad to say)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    At least they all lie consistently. :D

  • I had the same choice to make Dec. '05. The Tribeca was just out and too expensive, I tried a Highlander (one that cost the same as my used 05 Murano SL AWD about $22.5k) which meant a pretty stripped down model. Needless to say I chose Murano. It's a great ride- smooth, powerful, gas mileage could be alot better though. $50 for a fill up and around 300 mi mixed hwy/city- I'm just guestimating but around 15mpg.
  • alanpghalanpgh Posts: 13
    For me, the Murano was a clear winner over the Highlander. Besides all of the obvious advantages, I needed the cargo width, the vertical clearance for cargo, and the fact that the seat is much closer to the ground in the Murano; in other words, I don't need to step up to get into the Murano. Also, the front seat automatically moves back on the Murano. Not sure if this is the case with the Highlander. For what I need, there is no comparison.

    Good Luck!

  • morey000morey000 Posts: 320
    And to top it off, Murano really nailed the styling. Way better curb appeal than the Highlander. (with the acknowledgement that this is subjective)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Tribeca prices have come down, it was still new then. found a bargain semi-used model, so that's great. Congrats.

  • Bought an 06 Murano SL AWD with Touring Package.

    Tribeca was too stiff (seats and suspension). Transmission lagged with AC on. Turned off by dealer also. Two test drives.

    Tribeca also had less 2nd row room, and the 3rd row is a joke Limited didn't have as many options as the Touring Package Murano.

    Rented the S Murano twice through Hertz and drove it up and down Hwy 1. Very impressed with power and transmission through all the dips, climbs and curves.

    Highlander wasn't option due to styling.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Tribeca also had less 2nd row room
    They go back in two stages. 4" back with the regular knob. Then you hit a release and it goes back another 4". So it slides back a full 8", but most people can't locate the release.

    When you do slide it all the way back, the 2nd row touches the 3rd row, so it cannot be used at all, but there is *plenty* of 2nd row leg room.

    Just an FYI. Most of the press missed that, even.

  • I just bought an '07 Tribeca, and I have memory seats, auto up/down windows, and a back-up camera. These are all new to the '07 tribeca, so be sure you look at a new model. I drove the murano and the highlander, and thought the tribeca was the peppiest and most fun to drive. I didn't like the feel of the murano's cvt transmission, it felt sluggish. The clincher for me, though was the option of a 3rd row in the tribeca which the Murano doesn't offer. The gas mileage on all 3 is pretty bad, unless you go with the hybrid highlander, but those have a hefty mark-up.
  • turbozturboz Posts: 11
    That would never work for exact calculations since you can never drive the car till it's completely empty. You never know how much fuel is left in the tank when it's "almost" empty.
  • morey000morey000 Posts: 320
    Well Turboz, actually it works perfectly. You don't need to drive the car until it's completely empty, but you do need to fill it up all the way each time.

    Think about it, if I fill the car up to the brim. Then drive 300 miles. Then go to fill it up again and put in exactly 15 gallons, I know that I've used exactly 15 gallons and therefore have gotten 300mi/15gal = 20mpg. I don't need to use all 16.9 gallons in the tank to know that I used just 15 of them. In fact, it doesn't matter how big the tank is, nor do you need to know. You only need to know how many gallons you used.

    Think about it... I hope this helps.
  • occkingoccking Posts: 346
    Just curious, why do so many people have such a difficult time determing their actual miles per gallon? Just fill it to the brim as best you can, drive the miles you intend to drive until approaching empty, fill it again. Take the miles traveled divided by number of gallons used and, presto, you have actual miles per gallon.

    Now, I agree one should not stand at a gas station & squeeze every last ounce of gas in the tank (as I do) For the next few fill-ups do the same thing. After a few tank fill ups even if not filled to the brim, you will still have a a pretty good idea of actual mileage.

    Usually, when the auto pump shuts off first time at a gas station, there is usually "room" to put in upwards of another 1.5 gallons.

    Alternatively, just put gas in until auto shut off. After a few fill ups what you have determined is actual gas mileage will be fairly accurate.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That method works fine, in fact that's what I use, but it is nice to have a trip computer that gives you real-time readouts. Even if those are not totally accurate, they should still be proportional to fuel consumption, and you can adjust your driving habits to maximize fuel economy with constant feedback.

  • jeffmcjeffmc Posts: 1,742
    I keep the MPG readout on in my car, and it really does help me drive more efficiently.
Sign In or Register to comment.