By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I am interested in the 05 S gas mileage.
Is your 05 S Murano an AWD? If not,that will explain the better mileage. Furthermore, the S is the lightest of all the Muranos...less weight = less gas to burn for moving on that chunk of metal...
You use regular octane, or premium as recommended?
Hopefully Nissan did finally fix this issue that they're well aware (poor gas mileage for such a hi-tech engine and CVT tranny)
Do you own a basic S? How stripped is this compared to SL?
I did compare S vs SL on Nissan's web site, and did not notice too many extras on SL vs S ( radio ctrls on strg wheels, tinted glass, more colors available).
Thank you,
Dan
That said, I must say that some people may have too high of expectations with respect to the Murano's gas mileage. I took an informal poll of people that I work with to see what others are getting from their mid-sized SUVs. I work with 2 people who have Honda Pilots, 1 who owns a Toyota Highlander, 1 who owns a Chevrolet Equinox, 2 who own Ford Escapes and 1 who owns a Ford Explorer. Of them all, the only ones who get better milage than my Murano (1-2mpg better) are the Highlander and one of the Escapes. Both of these had 4 cylinder engines though (and about 100hp less than the Murano). All the rest had milage similar to mine (16-18mpg city, 22-24mpg highway) except for the Explorer which was considerably worse. All of them stated that they have never been able to get as good of mileage as the respective EPA numbers. Browse the other topics on this board and you will see alot of people complaining about their mileage no mater what SUV they drive. It doesn't appear that the EPA numbers reflect very well the real-life mileage for most SUVs. That said, if you do drive in a fashion similar to how the EPA drives during their tests you will probably get very close to the EPA figures (it just that most of us don't do this).
It's basic math to figure out the mpg. Don't need to elaborate for people on auto-forums.
And if the computer is "way off", I bet you that all car is way off.
Do you know any person(s) at work driving a similar in size and engine performance Lexus RX330?
It would be worth comparing engines mpg of this two vehicles. You'll find it surprisedly...
Murano's engine ( 3.5L VQ) is best in class compared to all SUV's you mentioned ( not mentioning those w/ 4 cyl's).It is best in class in the last 10 years...
Combined with a CVT transmission, Murano must do it better on gas mileage. "Way" better!!
Thinking that Nissan engineers finally fixed for the 2005 Muranos the poor gas mileage issue ( engine+ tranny miscalibration? ), Viffor's figures makes perfect sense.
No matter how you measured it
Dan
Anyway, My 05 S is a FWD with convenience package - I find this model fairly well loaded and yes, one of the lightest. The convenience package brings it close to the SL plus you get roof racks(not standard on the SL). Dark tinted rear and side glass are standard on the "S". I have filled up for the first time on regular after 1400 miles and to my pleasant surprise, I see no change in mileage.
For clarification on my driving habits, my 15 mile one way commute has less than two stops per mile(approx. what is used for city EPA testing). There is a 7 mile stretch where I may or may not get a light and the speed is 45-50, also, I find it entertaining driving in a manner that promotes high mileage for the "fun and boast" factor - no jack rabbit starts and coasting to red lights and slow traffic ahead.
I get the G thrills from my motorcycle.
I have found the on board display mileage fairly accurate but have only checked it once and with 16 gallons there was a .5 gallon discrepancy. The display generally yields a mileage penalty on warmup so that short hops will probably drop mileage considerably but I cannot confirm accuracy yet. Hope that helps
Would I purchase the Murano again- certainly,. just maybe another color. The styling, the ride, the power, and that CVT is sweeet.
Regarding the CVT, it would seem that this powertrain would be more efficient than other drivetrains(if engineered correctly). The torque converter locks up at 15-18 MPH removing the main energy loss of other automatics. Furthermore, the engine speed runs at a minimum rate relative to power demand. 45 MPH is only 1200 Rpm on a level road for example. The CVT does run a little hot(power loss) but engine RPM efficiency is maximized.Also the acceleration numbers of the Murano compared to the RX and highlander are superior beyond the small HP advantage and weight differences.
As I elluded to in my last post, in this situation I would say that it is quite possible that the VQ engine itself isn't all that efficient when it comes to gas mileage. I don't know anyone who owns a car with the VQ engine who raves about good gas mileage. I owned a Maxima in the past (with the 3.0 VQ) and it surely wasn't great on gas. I have a friend who owns an Altima with the 3.5 VQ and his mileage isn't that great either. This engine just hasn't been designed to be the most efficient in its class. One thing that most owners will agree on though is that most cars with the VQ are a hoot to drive.
That said, I still haven't heard of too many people getting much better mileage from other similarly sized AWD SUVs. If your mileage is representative of the newer 05 Murano it would be good news. I have my doubts though.
The manufacturers don't actually test vehicles, they simulate the test using a computer program calculating weight, horsepower, aerodynamics, tire contact patch, rolling resistance, transmission gearing, ect.
I've got 33k on my 03 Murano SE AWD with every option including a big heavy trailer towing kit on the back.
I have manually collected every gas mileage receipt for the year and a half that I've owned the MO and have a cumulative 19.8 MPG to date.
The computer calculated MPG on mine runs about 1.5-2.5 MPG more optimistic than true mileage, especially in the winter when there is more warm up time. In the summer, it's dead on (+/- 1.0).
I am highly suspect of the claims of consistently >24 mpg and suspect errors may have been made in caluclations or measurement or how full the tank was, tire pressure, etc.
There are just too many possible variables until you build up some descent mileage over some amount of time.
All that said, when I bought my 03 Murano, there were no other options of a vehicle of it's size and flexibility (towing capacity, interior space, ride height, horsepower, torque) that provided the same mileage estimates (that wasn't a mini-van, which my wife refused to drive, ever).
That is not quite my understanding unless there have been some recent changes. The test procedure involves simulation with the actual vehicle on a dynamometer. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml
This test(initiated in the sixties) obviously has some major shortcomings though or we would not be discussing this subject. The test disregards air conditioning, temperature extremes, and speeds much in excess of 60 MPH.
It is the testing of hybrids that have produced unrealistic results and that the EPA is soon looking at some test modifications.
In addition to the shortcomings mentioned by viffer I would also say that the way they accelerate the cars during the tests can account for quite a bit of the difference between the test results and the actual mileage buyers are getting. As I mentioned in a previous post, one of the parts of the tests where the cars are accelerated the quickest has the car going from 0 to 30 in about 30 seconds. Now I realize that we may not all be speed freaks but my grandmother, before she passed away, would have accelerated quicker than that. The tests just do not accurately reflect real driving situations. The EPA realizes this and actually adds an extra 20% to their actual results to get their published results. Even that is too high (especially for cars which are routinely driven aggressively like sports cars).
I wonder if some of you are just having too much fun in your Muranos!
Steve, Host
Another reference point:
SUV fuel mileage - Feel free to participate
Steve, Host
I'd do it, but my wife is dragging me to dinner. :-)
Steve, Host
http://tinyurl.com/4ogrs
I can't tell if CR actually drove the cars for 15,000 miles or just extrapolated that number from one 150 mile trip. But their numbers are close to ours.
Our '03 Pilot averaged 18.3 over 28,800 miles (link). Our '03 Accord got 24.1 mpg over 17,360 miles (link).
Unfortunately, there's no Murano in our long term test fleet.
Steve, Host
We love a sense of humor! ;-)
tidester, host
I'm not sure if I'm passed the break-in period yet, but I'm kind of miffed that it runs around 16mpg city....but I love the power and the space, so I'm not THAT miffed.
These results do not completely surprise me as the engine never revs above 1500 RPM after warmup and usually runs at about 1200. Much more than that and I will be running into traffic. I do notice that the indicated MPG drops rapidly during warmup so short trips will definitely drink more gas. The
miles till empty readout seems quite inaccurate as I have seen it lose 20 miles in two miles of driving then sometimes recover some
I think Nissan needs to buy this vehicle back from me and figure out what they did right with the programming. I in turn would get a more exciting color like Merlot or polished Pewter.
On the 2.5 mile trip home from the gas station I did get the indicated mileage down to 20.5, but not without a few runs to 6000 RPM WOW!!
It IS possible to get 20+mpg in the city!
Maybe, if you could keep the rpm's under 1500 (which in my experience is almost impossible).
There's just too much energy expended to move a ~4,000 lb vehicle from a stand still, repeatedly. Once it's moving, the mileage is much better, especially if you keep the rpms low.
I keep mine (try to anyhow) under 2,000 and have gotten just at 19.0 over 33,xxx miles. (50% of my driving is highway and 50% city).
I have altered my path home from work a bit to attempt to avoid stopping if at all possible (less lights) and did see a slight increase in mpg.
This statement here is the reason I am wondering if there are some CVT programming differences in these vehicles. During warmup I have to get the RPM's over 2000. At the warmup point (if on a flat road) the engine speed starts stepping down maintaining a constant speed. After that I can stay with traffic(45 mph or less)and adequately pull away not exceeding 1500 RPM. At a red light and pulling away the RPM's will surge to about 1800, but when the torque converter locks up at about 18 mph, the RPM's drop. From 18 MPH to normal city speeds, operation above 1500 RPM will have me running into traffic(once again)
Call another dealer's parts department and ask for pricing. Or google an online Nissan parts dealer check here----> http://nissan.autowebaccessories.com/store/cat242_317.php
The installation is what's probably costing you even money, the unit is around $306.xx. Although, taking apart the dash units of vehicles is not something I would advise. Some are very easy while others are extremely difficult. I'd have the dealer do it or a reputable aftermarket audio shop. Most dealers subcontract work such as this and remote starters to small audio shops. high end audio shops should charge around $55-$75 per hour. This should not take an experienced installer more then an hour to do, if they work on Nissan products. If you do go this route, do not be afraid to question the installer, you can tell the experienced installer from the not-so-experienced. I would not take a car to Best Buy and have a 17 year old take it apart. Hope this offers some help.
So is it worth it? Depends, I personally like the estetics. on the Murano w/ the deflector. I'm being lazy here and actually haven't looked up the cost on. If I were to get one and the Murano's was priced at $100 and aftermarket dealer had one for $80. I'd go with the dealer installed one. It's probably warranted under factory the other wouldn't be. Lastly, all deflectors mount differently, some use adhesive other a clamp/screw set up.
If you want to test your luck. If you do purchase/lease the car. If your murano already has a deflector mounted and there is not one without it. Ask to have it removed or throw in and see what they say. Hope this helps....always the little things we get hung up on.
I guess it all boils down to how you drive and the terrain you drive on.
http://muranosat.avapl.org/index2.html
The Clarion kit (from either Infiniti or Nissan)with the tuner and antenna is ~$300 and labor should be about 2 hours at a good auto stereo shop. It's not hard to do and with any basic technical skills you can do it yourself.
Your also removing excessive trim and moldings from the rear of the vehicle. You could actually mount this antenna if you wanted to go this route at the front end of the vehicle along side or behind the other, run the wiring down the "A" pillar (this way you don't have two eye sores on the roof, remove panels you really don't need to or cut notches in metal). Your also splicing into the ignition radio wire behind the radio.... when the factory XM tuner simply plugs in!
I'd also recommend performing this install inside an air condition garage or like this guy have plenty of water around.....looks like the person doing the install will need a shower and have to put his clothes in the wash!!!
This guy looks like Patrick Ewing after a Knicks game 7 in the Garden!!!
I got news for you: just found out from my buddy @ Nissan Tec. Center in Farmington Hills, Mi, that indeed, mileage for 2005 is improved due to a CVT software reprogramming. Nissan is even recommending REGULAR gas now, instead of PREMIUM as for prev. years.
Therefore, listed MPG ( 20/25)is getting closer to real life driving, as some of you already acknowledge...
Looking forward for the HYBRID !!!!
Dan
On the other hand;
I absolutely love the way the Murano looks. However, after driving a brand new 05 SE today I feel that the vehicle does not seem solid. I dont know if it is the sound of the engine or just the feel of the vehicle.(not to step on any nissan owners toes, for I owned a 98 pathfinder and loved it)
I think Nissan has good quality vehicles, but perhaps Toyotas
are put together a little better? I will take another Murano for a drive and listen closer...
Has anyone any comments regarding Murrano ownership
that may give more insight about this vehicle. I am
considering getting one.
After driving this car, I don't know if I'd really want to own one. But that's more of a personal opinion than a reflection on the car itself. I've owned several lexus models and this car reminds me very much of my RX300. Which isn't a bad thing. It's funny how people are comparing the Murano with a Lexus, speaks well for Murano owners in general regarding purchasing such a fine vehicle. I just have higher expectations after driving an Audi A4. Although, even the salesperson admitted, the Murano isn't that type of car. The X3/X5 BMW are really the only x-overs that drive and handle like a sport sedan. The X5 is over priced and not what I'm looking for, the X3 is cheaply made. The Nissan Murano looks to be better built then it.
I have an 04 SL AWD and have found the fit and finish to be excellent, and overall a solid ride. The SE is a sportier, stiffer ride than the SL, though when I test drove I couldn't tell the difference. I'd say take another test drive, and try an SL as well.
i would also agree with you that the styling of the Highlander is rather bland - which is why the Murano unique look really pulled me in.
I suggest you try pushing the Murano to the corners in the test drive, as I think you will find it will respond very well. I'm not sure that I believe the auto mags that say it can stay in tune with an X5 3.0, but I've been amazed at this handling and cornering of the Murano..
Lastly, the antenna of the Murano does not transmit signal for XM, as correctly stated above. The one I test drove had the antenna mounted on the inside front of the vehicle, not the outside rear as show in above posts (My mistake before, incorrect info I provided)