Howdy, Stranger!

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





Nissan Murano MPG Real World Numbers

245678

Comments

  • As what I knew, most countries including all of Europe and Australia use RON while in the United States, we use (R+M)/2. And the rating number based on RON system is 4-5 points lower than the one using (R+M)/2. In other words, 87 octane fuel, the "regular" gasoline in the US and Canada, would be 91-95 (regular) in Europe.

    FYI, check this out:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
  • on my 2003 murano, I get less than 21 with mixed city/highway drive on 87 regular gas.

    with shell v-power 91 premium filled in this morning, I'm averaging 23+ with mixed driving. it was as high as 27.6 with highway only.

    I'm pleasantly surprised on how much nicer the MPG gets with premium gas.

    Both are numbers reported by computer, I have not done my own calculations yet
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Exactly right! :)

    Depending on the cost-spread in your area, and your local altitude it is actually cheaper, in the long run, to pay more for the Premium.... :P
  • Except after the whole tank, the mpg drops below 21 mpg again. The computer was reporting higher than actual mpg with a full tank.

    Am switching back to regular 87 octane gas, as the premium gas showed no improvement :(

    guess the factory specification 20-24 is reasonable for me, I'm getting between 20-21 mpg with mixed driving, with the stop and go highway traffic here at phoenix, not really much 'real' highway driving though. I can see it being 24 or so with just highway cruising.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Recently, between Palm Springs and Flag, driving through Phoenix, instead of I-40, mine was 25 for the RT. The computer is usually 1-2 MPG, off, I beleive, but more accurate measuring longer trips.

    I actually run the mid grade, (89 Octane) and have better results and pickup. For the few cents per gallon, what the hell! :P
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    Nissan can state all they want, but the fact of the matter is that this vehicle will run on regular gas without any knocking and pinging, I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I DROVE ONE FOR TWENTY THOUSAND MILES!!! Go into the Murano townhall and search this out, you'll see for yourself. It's a 6cyl engine, not a turbo, it will run perfectly fine on regular gas. Maybe if you need that extra boost to get that quarter mile time down on the commute into work then by golly, go ahead and buy premium, but if not, regular will suit just fine.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    #2303 of 2622 Re: SNOW AND THE BIG MO [twp_chief] by gerapau Feb 03, 2005 (6:05 am)
    Bookmark | Reply | E-mail Msg
    Replying to: twp_chief (Feb 03, 2005 5:23 am)

    twp_chief, the owner's manual doesn't say that you have to use premium. It says that you have to use at least 87 AKI gas which is regular. It says that for improved performance you should use premium. Regular gas should not hurt the Murano but MAY cause slightly lower performance/fuel efficiency.


    This was from 2005, and unless Nissan redesigned the engine or made some modifications to it that I've never heard about, regular gas will do fine, unless you're trying to race at stoplights, then get the premium.
  • cowbellcowbell Posts: 125
    I know the Murano doesn't need premium. What I said was:
    "Murano needs premium to get its numbers."

    You can run the Murano on 87, but don't expect anywhere near the 245HP claimed for the engine. I'd estimate it's closer to 220 on regular.

    And of course not everyone needs max horse power, but that is very often what sells cars, and often makes them more fun to drive.

    I'm just saying if you're trying to sell a semi-sporty crossover, and you're touting the engine as a selling point, you're going to have to use premium fuel in the Murano to get it to performed as advertised.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    It seems your main concern is fuel mileage. Why then did you buy a Murano? Seems to me you could have done better, especially in that price range.

    Just curious. We all have our personal preferences but yours seems to be a little off the curve to me.

    FWIW Nissan is most likely requiring premium fuel for the Murano to achieve it's max HP rating and not to simply run the thing. A lot of newer vehicles are like this. Use 87 and your HP decreases a good bit but you won't have any problems or cause any damage.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Well said. But I feel as if it needed more cowbell. ;)
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,621
    But most vehicles will get worse fuel mileage using 87 if the vehicle was designed for 91 because the timing must be retarded to compensate. So you not only lose power but you also lose fuel mileage which can negate the per gallon cost savings if you use more fuel.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    Fuel wasn't the factor in my buying decision, it was the vehicle itself, it was brand new, nothing else like it on the road, and the size and ride was excellent for my needs. All I'm doing is trying to wake people up to the fact that PREMIUM gas is not needed in this vehicle, and if it's needed for MAXIMUM performance, well, who really MAXs out their vehicles in the 1st place??? Some cars redline at 7000rpms, who in the reality of day to day driving ever even comes close to getting to 7000rpms? If people want to dump and waste $$$ by putting premium gas into this vehicle, go ahead, I'm just trying to save people the $$$ and tell them it's not needed. Again, I was getting 22-24mpg using 87 octane on the highway doing avg speeds of 70-80mph, now, you going to tell me that's not good? It's basically the EPA Est of 24mpg for highway, doing an average of 75mph, I'd say regular 87 was more than sufficient for this vehicle.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,621
    And it's probable that you would get even better mileage with 91 octane since the timing won't have to be retarded. If you get 24-26 mpg on 91 octane that's a 10% improvement. The price difference between regular and premium in my area is 10%. When gas was $3/gallon the price difference was even less. Worst case it's a wash. You're not saving any money, and you're getting less power to boot.

    It may be possible to get even more power and better mileage from the Edge by using 91. But it's apples and oranges.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    If you get 24-26 mpg on 91 octane that's a 10% improvement.

    That's a pretty big "IF." From everything I've read, there really wasn't anything that suggested that going to the higher gas octane would get significant results, and that's from the owners postings, not some brochure propaganda. Since this vehicle wasn't built to be a sportscar, I chose not to put "racing fuel" in it. If people want a sportscar, buy a sportscar, if people want a sport UTILITY vehicle, then expect more utility than sport.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,621
    Obviously it varies by vehicle but I've seen real world tests that confirm a 10% drop in mileage going from 93 to 87 in a car that was designed to use premium.

    It's common knowledge that in order for a car that's tuned for 91 octane to run on 87 octane without damage the timing has to be retarded. When you retard the timing you lose fuel economy. The only question is how much.
  • comp386comp386 Posts: 56
    The original point was simply that Murano needed premium to reach its listed hp. Using regular will give you less HP. If you don't care than that's good for you, but it's not a topic for this board.
    While I don't know too much about the Murano to do any feature comparison, the Edge seems to be well loaded. I'm glad to see Ford finally making all of these safety features standard. Has anyone gotten to sit in one of these vehicles? I think one of my biggest complaints about Fords (and probably all vehicles really) is that designers spend so much time on the outside, they forget that drivers spend most of their time looking at the inside of their car and not the outsides.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    ...."designers spend so much time on the outside, they forget that drivers spend most of their time looking at the inside of their car and not the outsides."

    How true! I guess they do look at them as rolling billboards to increase sales.... ;)
  • easym1easym1 Posts: 218
    My friends, I read some of your discussions and it was suggested that we need premium gas to get the posted HP. If that's the case, Nissan is in trouble because they overrated their HP, and if i'm not mistaken, it was based on regular gasoline and not premium.

    Regarding performance, a higher octane will achieve that but I don't think it will translate into higher MPG. I tried using the highest octane at shell station here in Canada out of curiousity for 2 months but did not see any gain in MPG but did find that the performance and the ease it runs is better but there's a price to pay, and for those who wants max performance, it's the best way to go. But I decided to use mid-grade instead. I still get improved performance but again, no MPG gain.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    There are many, many factors with all of that.

    What is your altitude where most driving occurs?

    What is the ambient temperature?

    Higher altitudes = less Octane rating to achieve optimum performance.

    Temperature and even air pressure effect the results.

    So long as it is revealed in the methodology of the testing, it is ethical to list HP using 91+ or whatever. So far as I know, there isn't a standard set for that by the Auto Industry......
Sign In or Register to comment.