Nissan Versa Real World MPG

wulfgar

I could not find the article but Backy is correct - this was revised well before any models were produced(seems like March/April?). Nissan, and others, routinely publish average city/highway MPG on their pre-model release publicity. These numbers were not met and revised downward - based on the final EPA figures, I'm sure.

w9cw

We have an old 1994 Dodge Grand Caravan ES with a 3.3L V6 and 4 speed ECT. Regularly, and still do, get 26MPG on the highway heavily loaded in "vacation trim" with four adults and luggage on board. In town, the MPG drops down to around 16MPG.

We're looking at a Versa SL to replace another car.

doromachi

My Versa was purchased on 29 Jun 06 and the mpgs on the sticker are 30 and 36. Exceeded 36 only once. Am beating the 30 by 1-2 mpg.

flightnurse

the 38 MPG was for the CVT model.

Tony :shades:

flightnurse

that might be true, but again my window sticker shows 30 city and 38 HWY..

Tony :shades:

backy

You are right, it was April:

Gardena, CA - April 7, 2006: Nissan is revising downward its estimated EPA city/hwy mileage for Versa models. EPA mileage for CVT-equipped Versa models is 33 mpg combined, down from the previously announced 38 mpg estimate.

Note that the correction was to the overall mpg estimate. Nissan said it would be 38 mpg before this announcement in April. That seemed high for a car with its weight and power. And it was.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/04/10/003552.html

nekansas

I've had my base Versa w/ 6 speed for about a month. In various highway and city driving I've never gotten more than 29 mpg. Disapointed with the mpg.

bendupre

I wanna see your sticker. Mine said 30/36 and I have the CVT. I don't beleive you.

wulfgar

Can't speak to Tony's window sticker, obviously. The CVT models here in the S.E. USA showed up rated 30/36 on the window when we were shopping. As noted before, we bought a 6-speed S which was rated 30/34 and has gotten 29 and 27 on the first two tanks.

wulfgar

Sorry I commented on the Dodge's on a Versa forum and this will be my last comment. The acquantice I spoke of drives a new, V8 Durango SUV 2WD which is rated 14/19 AT BEST. I think we all realize the EPA numbers are rarely,if ever, met in the real world. I am not questioning a sole here but I would find it a fanciful dream to average 26 MPG in the S.E., in July, with the ac running and five people and their luggage on board. Most individuals who make these claims are reading one instant in time over the digital display, not a true average. This has always been the basis of my skepticism regarding others MPG averages - that and not filling the tank to the very top.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic........

wulfgar

Sorry I commented on the Dodge's on a Versa forum and this will be my last comment. The friend I spoke of drives a new, V8 Durango SUV 2WD which is rated 14/19 AT BEST. I think we all realize the EPA numbers are rarely,if ever, met in the real world. I am not questioning a sole here but I would find it a fanciful dream to average 26 MPG in the S.E., in July, with the AC running and five people and their luggage on board. Most individuals who make these claims are reading one instant in time over the digital display, not a true average. This has always been the basis of my skepticism regarding others MPG averages - that and not filling the tank to the very top.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic........

bendupre

Here Here!

Filling til the pump shuts off is also not a reliable way to tell fuel economy either. The pump shuts off when gas foam (not gas) backs up the fill pipe to the nozel. The ammount of foaming of the gas varies greatly on temperature and on th edynamics of the pumping nozel. I always fill mine until I can see gas, and I can usually get another gallon in the tank if I do this. A gallon less fuel in my calculation would yield more favorable mileage, of course.

Mileagre computers I think are much more acurate than filling and dividing—IF you read the average—because the ECU has a much better view of how much fuel the vehicle has consumed. Even filling til I see gas is not totally accurate. The computer in our Quest does not show the "immediate" mileage like some do. Good move NISSAN. The "immediate" number is utterly meaningless.

Either way, the MPG of the Versa that I've observed and that others have reported, is somewhat disappointing. I know my driving habits contribute more to my MPG than any other factor, but I'm never going to get in the car and drive 400 miles at 45 miles/hour without stopping or speeding up or slowing down and with the air off, etc. The EPA needs to totally overhaul the protocall used for testing MPG. It comes from the days of 55mph speed limits and when only luxury cars had air conditioning.

I think I read somewhere they are working on this.

Ben

w9cw

bendupre wrote: "It comes from the days of 55mph speed limits and when only luxury cars had air conditioning."

During the time of the 55MPH limit, and long before, many cars other than luxury cars had A/C. My 1970 Volvo 144S had A/C, so did my 1985 SAAB 900. The EPA ratings were invalid back then, just as they are now.

okcmitchell

I now have almost 3000 miles on my Versa SL with CVT and most are driving with the cruise control set at 80 with the a/c on in 100+ temp. I've made a 400 mile round trip to Texas from OKC 6 times during the last month, and the mpg has been about 28 on average. I'm not disappointed because the car is so quiet and smooth at those high speeds.

thegraduate

I now have almost 3000 miles on my Versa SL with CVT and most are driving with the cruise control set at 80 with the a/c on in 100+ temp. I've made a 400 mile round trip to Texas from OKC 6 times during the last month, and the mpg has been about 28 on average. I'm not disappointed because the car is so quiet and smooth at those high speeds.

Amazing thing is, I get 36 MPG in my Accord in those same conditions.

bendupre

Is anyone starting to think there might be something wrong with this engine?

There's some grumbling going on over in the Yaris forum too but most are satisfied. Is it possible that some identical engines get different mileage, or is it all just driving habbits?

Ben

backy

That's strange... you posted in a different discussion that you get 32 mpg with your Accord at 75-80 mph. Fuel economy is worse at 80 than 75, so I don't see how you could get 36 mpg at 80 mph but only 32 at 75-80 mph. :confuse:

thegraduate

If you'll notice, in that particular discussion I stated I got 32 MPG including rush hour Atlanta interstates, with downtown Atlanta city driving too. Other trips (beach runs with little traffic) I typically get 36-38 MPG.

backy

Well, actually you said nothing about rush hour or downtown driving, but thanks for the clarification!

thegraduate, "Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread" #6066, 12 Aug 2006 9:45 pm

flightnurse

why not slow down and see what kind of mileage you well get at lower speeds

I have been averaging 28 with combined driving with mine, and you are getting that at a constent speed, doesn't sound very good to me.

I'm driving over to San Diego in 2 weeks, I wont go over 70 for my trip, and I'll report what I get.

Tony :shades:

thegraduate

Forgive me, I posted in two places, and told more of the story elsewhere. I'm terribly sorry for the mixup, but, since I am definitely at fault for the confusion, it was 32 MPG with about 280 hwy miles (average 75-80), and about 60-70 city miles (averaging 10-30 MPH).

VERY SORRY!

It's kind of off-topic in here anyway, so I'll keep my mouth shut now!

I guess I was trying to point out that smaller doesn't always equal better mileage than bigger, especially on the highway.

Forgive me?

backy

Don't kill yourself over it!

It is important though in these "real world mpg" discussions to know how the mpg are calculated, so we don't make unfair comparisons from one car to the next. For instance, I've achieved over 40 mpg in my mid-sized hatchback, a bigger car than the Versa, with a bigger and more powerful engine, but that was under ideal conditions and above what I typically get on the car. Under ideal conditions, including a broken-in engine (which probably no Versa owner in the U.S. has yet), and with a driver who knows how to drive for fuel economy, the Versa might get mid-to-upper 30s or better also.

wulfgar

Backy

I agree wholeheartedly. I have gotten to the point that I am cynical about anyone's claims to MPG. Driving conditions and driving styles ( along with some people's overall desire to have a "better" car than your or I) seriously impacts MPG claims. I personally take all MPG statements with a grain of salt.

bendupre

26.325 I really tried to granny around this time. driving 70 on the interstate, 60 on the ecounty roads. Not letting the rev's get above 3K during acceleration. No eating my lunch in the car. Air on for every mile.

This last tank is about the most conservative I can be. The car now has 1475 miles on it. It should be well broke-in by now, although I'm not sure how a broke-in engine gets better fuel economy.

My daily commute (RT) is 6mi county road, 20mi interstate. 0.25mi city street, one light. I usually drive 2-3 mi city from the office to where ever I eat lunch.

It's just me in the vehicle, although I weigh 300lb.

Doubt I'm ever going to get better number than this, but I will keep posting.

Ben

skoobahead1

750 miles on my Versa with the CVT
Averaging 25MPG with mostly around town driving. VERY disappointed! My 1997 Nissan Maxima gets 22 around town!
30/36 on the sticker....NO WAY!

bendupre

I'm starting to think there's something wrong with the tuning. This little engine SHOULD be getting better numbers. It's only 2-3 MPG better than engines 50% greater in displacement.

Anyone know what the typical mileage was for the 1.8 in the Sentra?

Ben

skoobahead1

You may be right. Only way Nissan will check into this is if bombarded with complaints. Maybe a computer software upgrade?

bendupre

I checked over in the Sentra forum and it seem the average MPG I observed in the posts was about 25. The cars weigh about the same, but this is a new engine. Maybe the problem is associated with the drive-by-wire throttle profiles? Maybe everything is optimized and this is the best we're going to see?

Ben

skoobahead1

I don't know about you Ben, but the reason I purchased the Versa was because of the way it compared to others getting *similar* EPA mileage.
When comparing the Yaris/Fit/Versa, the Versa was hands down the winner. That was with the assumption that the mileage was close to advertised. If I had known the mileage was so far off of the EPA and was posted as 25/30(reality) I probably would have looked at others with those numbers. Nice car, but feel Nissan bumped the ratings because of publics desire for super high mileage cars.

Just my .02

micweb

The numbers people are reporting sound about right based on Consumer Reports "more realistic" testing of city mileage for small cars.

Right now everyone is focusing on mpg and that is why people are complaining.

I wonder if people checked how much mileage they were really getting with their old vehicle...I am sure the Versa is much better than what most people had before.

wulfgar

We spent the last tank with an eye towards better gas mileage. This means shifting by 3,000 rpm when possible and slowing my wife down to the speed limit (where possible!). This does not mean going 55 mph with no AC and the tires pumped up to 45 psi. We hit an average of 29.8 over the last 320 miles - 60% highway/40% city in a 6-speed S with the AC on max in the S.E. USA heat.

bendupre

I don't have a subscription to CR. How did the competition fare?

Ben

bendupre

Versa is definitely the most comfortable of the "sub compacts" but is it really a "sub" compact? It's bigger and heavier than Yaris and Fit and has a larger motor. I expect it's going to get a little worse mileage. I never expected 10 MPG below the highway rating though. And I expected I'd get at least City rating on the Highway.

I've been reading a broke-in engine will get better economy. Anyone know just how broke-in it's gotta be?

Ben

thegraduate

Driving conditions and driving styles ( along with some people's overall desire to have a "better" car than your or I) seriously impacts MPG claims. I personally take all MPG statements with a grain of salt.

Most certainly. I'm gonna leave this alone, I promise, but my father has a 2005 Accord similar to my 2006, and the way he drives, he averages 23mpg or so, while I, in a car that's about identical, get about 28mpg in mixed suburban driving. Driving styles make a HUGE difference, and he's often in the 4kRPM + range, while I like to stay under 3k RPM as much as possible.

Thanks for being nice, guys... I'd drive a smaller car (I liked the Fit and Versa), but at 6'4", I couldn't do it!

bendupre

I'd drive a smaller car (I liked the Fit and Versa), but at 6'4", I couldn't do it!

Give the Versa a sit, you might be surprised.

Ben

flightnurse

I second that, I have a co worker who is 6'5 and he sits in the back seat with NO PROBLEMS... I'm 6'1 the car is very large on the inside.

Tony :shades:

sngwrtr

I've been following these discussions for a while now. I have a Versa on order - Black SL, CVT, floor mats, mud flaps and ABS. Out of curiosity I checked out the FIT MPG boards also and many people there are complaining about thier MPG but the are also talking about Idle Learn. Supposedly this is approximately a one hour process that should be done by the dealer as part of prep. Some of the FIT owners have gone back to the dealers to get this done (some have done it themselves) and claimed their MPG improved significantly. I don't fully understand what the process does (related to software or drive by throttle???) but I am wondering if there is a similar process for Versa's that could improve some of the MPG's I've seen here. I have an 80 mile round trip commute and I'm driving a 2000 Chrysler 300M with a V-6 and 130K on it that is getting 23 mpg. I will be very disappointed if my Versa, when I finally get it in September, only gets 26-28 mpg.

bendupre

What you read is likelespecific to Honda's ECU modules.NISSAN may have a similar procedure, but I can't find any reference to it outside of NISSAN's dealer extranet. There are articles to be read on NISSAN's ECCS, which does employ self-learning. Generally, disconnecting the negative battery terminal will erase the ECU's self learning, forcing it to start over. But I can't find any reference to a idle-learning initial programming procedure.

Any NISSAN service technician could answer this question, cause if it's a practice to do this on new vehicles, it's not just on the Versa.

Ben

kdb4221440

I have over 1000 miles on my CVT Versa and it everage between 30-31 MPG with mix driving (40% city and 60% highway) with AC on most of the time.

leahcol

I've got 750 miles on my Versa (6 speed MT). I got 34.27 MPG on my second tank, which I am very happy with. Air on 60% of the time, conservative driving. I try not to go past 3000 rpm when poss. and stick fairly close to the speed limit. I drive 120 miles a day to get to and from work on a two lane country highway. I love the car and picked it over the Yaris due to its interior space. (I'm a 6'1" woman traveling with two kids and two standard poodles) And am happy so far with the MPG although it still doesn't do as well as my last ride - an '81 Volkswagen Diesel Pickup.

tab00

I have gotten the following milage

Date Mile Gallons MPG
7/25 0234 ------- -------(first fill up)
7/27 0581 11.7970 29.4140(from Houston to Dallas)
8/02 0810 11.1036 20.6240(testing performance)
8/05 0944 05.2830 25.3640
8/06 1232 10.6270 27.1200(trip to Austin, TX)
8/10 1546 10.4940 29.9210
8/17 1789 10.2850 23.6200

avg 26.0105 since purchase

Now I know that you might think, that I am a lead foot or I drive like a maniac, typically I don't. I initially drove the car from Houston, where I purchased it, to Arlington, where I live. I did "rocket" the first tank trying to feel out the car (and got 20 mpg for it), after that I made an effort to drive conservativly. To define that; top speed under 70, shift at ~2700 rpm, no had accelerations (absolutely no tire spin), AC always on. I work 11.6 miles from home. 10.4 of which is "on the highway" (as opposed to highway milage) I would estimate that I safely drive 50% "Highway" milage. I have been absolutely blown away by everything about the car except the millage. If the sticker had been more accurate I would probably have reconsidered. I do feel some what lied to. It is inexcusable that with effort I can not attain the "City" MPG. By my calculation my actual overall milage with highway driving reflects a 13.3% error off of the lowest city mpg. This is deplorable.

I am curious to see how ambient temperature affects the car, cars tend to milage better in cooler weather, presumably due to the higher oxygen density.
I am also curious to see how the AC affects millage. I do notice a perceptable draw on the engine when it is on.
I will also try shifting at 2400 rpm as opposed to 2700 as their site states that 90% of power is at 2400 rpm.
I will also try to keep the top speed at 60 (which is how the EPA rating is derived for Highway driving).

The topic of this thread was milage, in every other aspect this car is by far the best ride I tested. I did the same circuit that most everyone else did (Yaris, Matrix, Xa, Focus, Fit, etc). By comparison this car beat the other hands down in tearms of comfort, power, styling, handling, options (extept for maybe Scion), and general lifestyle fit. I am a heafty 6'2" 254lb speciman of machismo (he he). I do very much love the car but if you are considering purchasing this car take my message to consideration about the millage. (I hope Nissan reads these messages) If the sticker had read "City 22, Highway 26" this car would not sell. To me that is deceptive at best, at worst a knowingly blatent lie (you cant tell me that Nissan did not test drive for actuall millage, ever). Nissan does a disservice to themselves. I will need a new car for my wife in January, it will not be a Nissan.

bendupre

All cars drive the same protocol for the EPA tests. The problem is that the EPA protocols don't reflect real-world driving. It's been a known problem since the 1970s when the EPA first started requiring manufacturers to rate cars for mileage. Having said that... some makes get closer to their ratings in real-world conditions than others do. Surprisingly, hybrids are farthest off their EPA ratings than any other class of car. There is a gret article in CR about it. A link is elsewhere in this forum: read up.

Ben

tab00

I completly understand that the test itself is not "real world" however when the car company chooses to slap that label on the window and then shout from the roof tops that they are selling a 30+mpg car it is extreemly deceptive. The actual milage of this vehicle so far does not even meet CAFE requirements (a bit of a streatch of an argument, I admit).

I sincearly hope that lowering my shifting driving habits and making the other considerations will help. I do know that my wife drove it to Austin and she tends to shift much sooner than I would (about 500 rpm sooner). She has scored the highest milage to date, but even that was under the estimated Highway MPG rating.

Again, I may be painting an overly bleak picture of this car. I love mine. It is the SL in Blue Onyx with a 6 spd manual. I got the conveniece package which was well worth it. I got it tinted, have accented it with some underdash led lighting. It is an extreem pleasure to drive and when I leave my stressful 10-12 hour work day at the office, I can feel the tension melt away as I cruise home. That said the milage sucks for a car of this size, weight, and power.

kc7

I noticed many are whining abt the Versa's not as good as expected mpg figures. For me, I try to remember these things :

1. Manufacturer's claims usually are too optimistic. Not just Nissan, but so do many other brands. And as someone said, hybrid mpg claims are even more off-the mark.

2. Versa is still new. Engine not fully broken in yet. Give her more time.

3. Remember Newton's law of motion : An object at rest will remain at rest till an external force is applied upon it. Corollary to this law, as applied to the Versa, pls remember that Versa is BIGGER, HEAVIER, and the engine size is BIGGER.

Thus how can we expect Versa's 1800 cc engine mpg figures to even come close to Fit and Yaris's 1500 cc ? If you want a better mpg Versa, ask Nissan to sell the 1500 cc Versa, and when that happens, I expect people to whine again " Not enough power to haul such a big car. "

You want your cake and eat it ? Well, we don't get such wonders often in life. Especially design. Design is said to be about compromises. You want bigger space, more power same mpg, same price ? Who doesn't ? But thats just not possible. Even hybrids still come at a premium, even though assisted by tax incentives.

Thus its only logical that more fuel is needed to move the bigger, heavier and bigger engine Versa from rest. Remember that Versa's engine is not a hybrid, Newton's Law of motion rules.

Anyway, is a difference of say 26 and 35 mpg REALLY THAT painful ? How many miles do U drive a day ? Let's say you drive 50 miles a day.

Thus the Versa will drink 50/26 = 1.92 gallons x 3 = $5.76 of fuel per day.

If you had bought the Fit / Yaris, yr fuel cost will say be 50/35 = 1.42 gallons x 3 = $4.26.

So EACH month the Versa will cost you EXTRA ($ 5.76-4.26)x30 = $45 in gas money.

So it depends on you. Do $45 EXTRA each month REALLY hurt you, considering you get MUCH more space, more power, more comfort etc. Is $45 extra for all these really unacceptable ? Of course if the Versa is as small as Fit, then I will also feel the pain.

If yes, then you should have bought the Fit / Yaris. If you regard the extra $45 a month as extra payment to enjoy more room / power, then pls be fair to the Versa.

I have not been to Fit's forums, could someone tell me can the Fit / Yaris's mpg figures hold up at 35 or above consistently ?

Moreover, some Versa owners even managed to achieve 30+ mpg, which makes the per month gas money difference even less meaningful. Lets do another maths. For Versas who achieved say 31 mpg, and assume Fit can do 37, using 50 miles a day again, the difference is 50/31x3 = $4.83 - 50/37x3 = $4.05 = $0.78 x 30 = $23.4 EACH MONTH.

Is $23 each month extra painful ? I don't know. Depends on each individual. Just remember, you can afford a bigger, more powerful $13k to $16k Versa, and does $23-$45 extra in gas money each month THAT painful ?

Want better mpg for yr Versa ? Here's my suggestion. Once your Versa has achieved say 600 miles, go for an oil change, fill her engine with FULL SYNTHETIC 0W30 oil (Amsoil, Valvoline, etc yr favourite oil brand), and watch Versa's power and mpg improve further !

Try it and see !

bendupre

I know, it's a dirty game, but if your competitors do it, than you sort of have to follow suit. It's not a lie to publish the EPA numbers. The TEST vehicle (singular) actually did acheive that mileage. If you read the sticker closely they do post some more honest numbers on it and warn you that your results will vary. I am disappointed in the mileage also, but I'm told it will improve as the engine breaks-in.

My Versa has CVT and it's geared (programmed) taller than the 6-speed and therefore rated 2mpg higher. Although my numbers are no different than what people are posting for the manual. Afterall the city ratings for both trannies are the same.

Car is definitely comfortable and the convenience features are cool. I have to remind myself that I bought the larger, heavier car and therefore traded some comfort for some mileage.

Ben

tab00

thanks for your reply bendupre. WOW I think I ruffled kc7's feathers a bit. This thread asked about milage, I'll restate, I LOVE this car, but it is not what it was touted as. I saw the question as to what other cars similar to this one got. Look what I found (sorry tables don't display well on this page)

____________Fit__Aveo__Focus__xA___Yaris__Versa
EPA City ___33___27____27_____32___34_____30
EPA Highway_38___35____37_____37___40_____34
Act Miles___34.1_33.4__29.9___34.1_37.6___26.1
Num Report__9____2_____7______2____5______me

EPA ratings according to Edmunds
actual according to reported users at http://www.fueleconomy.gov
(as mentioned elsewhere on this thread)

Every one of the above vehicles were reported on the fueleconomy.gov site as being within range. Now I realize that there are few reported values, but I did not make up this data, nor did I omit any part of it.

When I was shopping for a car I looked most closely at the Scion Xa and the Versa. Both had similar stylings, both had rich options, comparable price, etc. In the end I chose Versa because I too was willing to "trade" the estimated 2mpg City difference for the additional 20 horses and the roomier interior. If however the MPG rating were more accurate, and reflected the 6 mpg instead of the 2 mpg difference. I would probably have chosen otherwise.

"but if your competitors do it, than you sort of have to follow suit". I completely disagree, it is called integrity, what is more according to the data I found "they" didn't do it. The competitors reported estimated EPA values and delivered a vehicle capable of achieving roughtly that, no one came in under. My experience is that the Versa is inexcusably lower in actual versus Estimated mileage. I don't think it extreeme to demand that car manufactures (or any industry for that matter) deliver what they represent.

Let me pose the question, if the estimated City MPG is 30, at what actual MPG would you consider their to be a mechanical/electrical problem and try to get it fixed?

I have always been diligent in every vehicle I have owned, to write the milage, dates of oil changes, any mechanical work etc. I can tell you exactly what milage I got from my Mitsubishi Expo at any point during the 3 years that I owned it. I do not know what the original estimated milage was, but I consistantly got between 25 and 27 mpg on the Expo. It also had a 1.8 ltr, all wheel drive, weighed more, and had a larger profile (therefore presumably more drag). Can't Nissan beat that?

In fairness, I do only have 1750+ miles on it, and every driver has to re-learn how to drive a car the way it needs to be driven, for effeciency and performance. I may yet learn better and break 30mpg. But right now the odds don't look good, I hope I am wrong, and to suger coat it by 'sucking it up' or not "whining" about it does a disservice to the next guy that reads this blog earnestly look for the answer to the question, what does it really get.

I am a programmer by trade for one of the countries largest retailers. We use a lot of contractors to write code under short timelines (I know boo hoo to me). But if one of my contractors continually finished projects 20% over the deadline, that contractor would not work for me very long. I am simply saying the same about Nissan, deliver what you report or you won't work for me. If you can't deliver, don't report that you can.

In any case to any one else reading this, if you are interested in the Versa, every aspect of this car is truely great, except the mileage. just know what you are getting into and enjoy it for what it is, not what it is touted as being.
Thats my take (hey thanks again bendupre I appreciated you reponse)

"If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got" -corny but true, demand more!

kc7

No, my feathers are not ruffled. All I want to do is to calm down Versa owners who did not do the Maths, and think that their Versa will cost them lots of gas money compared to Fit and company. I don't want Versa owners to feel that Versa may after all burn a big hole in their pocket.

And I just feel that for Versa who is still so young, having just born recently in USA, I think early mpg figures are a bit premature. OK. No harm for early reporting by early owners, but pls just remember. Most Versa owners have at most a few thousand miles. Whereas the Fit and Yaris, and other models used to compare are more mature, older models whose engine has been fully broken in.

Anyway, just a reminder for those who had changed to full synthetic oil, before you start measuring again, remember to also double check your tire pressures. Make sure everything is in tip top condition, then you are ready.

Also, all the research I have done shows the Versa M/T just will not achieve better mpg than the CVT version. So for those who want to really enjoy long term mpg figures, get the CVT. CVT's are said to boost mpg by about 10%.

Thus later I expect all CVT owners to report better mpg figures than the M/T versions.

Even though some said these early Versa mpg are not good compared to similar cars, may I remind all that Versa is in reality NOT quite similar to the models used for comparison by many members here. Pls remember that Versa owners are getting interior volumes not far from big luxury sedans. This factor alone I think is big consolation for getting a few mpg points less.

I remember a saying " You pay peanuts, you get monkeys ". So for those really fanatical about squezzing more mpg, my advise " Get a hybrid, or get a really small, very light weight, 1000 - 1500 cc engine car, and THEN you will get yr 38-45 real life mpg.

For me, if a fully broken in Versa, with her Infiniti Q45 like cabin, can achieve 30+ mpg, I think that's fair enough. If I am right, currently on this planet, you can't find another car with Versa's space that gives you that kind of mpg, for same money / same equipment.

Find me a NEW Honda, Toyota, or whatever that gives you big sedan space, cost less than $20k, 1800 cc engine, and achieves more than 30+ mpg. For those who want to ruffle my feathers more, try this exercise.

skoobahead1

The bottom line for this issue (at least for me) is that the mileage is WAY WAY WAY away from what Nissan put's on it's sticker. I think people understand that the sticker of 30/36 is a perfect scenario...The dream world.
The problem I have is that this car gets *NOWHERE* near these numbers. If the car was putting out 28/33 I think we all would be satisfied. Real world numbers unfortunately make us feel like Nissan took advantage of us. Personally none of my other new cars has really increased their MPG once broken in. I have 800 miles on my Versa and hope this vehicle is different.
Like others have said the Versa is a very very nice car compared to others in it's size. Unfortunately it will cost you a little more to feed than the others.
What really cooks my goose is that my 1997 Nissan Maxima with it's V6 is putting out real world numbers of 22/27.
Go Figure :confuse:

bendupre

Couple points to note:

1) the numbers on fueleconomy.gov are unverified user reports. Not necessaryily inaccurate, BUT...

2) The EPA figures represent a scientific (read controlled, repeatable) protocol for testing MPG. Be it somewhat nonrepresentative.

When all car makers comply with the same testing protocol you're supposed to level the playing field.

The problem here is not that NISSAN was dishonest in posting EPA numbers on their window stickeres, they complied with the law by doing so. The problem is summed up by the question: How come Versa's actual mileage is so much lower than the EPA tests revealed, when competitors appear to get closer to published numbers?

You can only ask this question once you make the assumption that drivers of competetive vehicles have the same tendencies (fair enough).

NISSAN knows their mileage in this vehicle sucks. They originally erred in releasing a figure of 38MPG COMBINED for the vehicle before it was ever tested in production configuration. They must have been dissappointed when the actual numbers came out WAY below that figure, which is probably Marketing's "target" number for the vehicle. Engineering did not deliver.

What might be an explanation for what happened (pure speculation), is that the final production cars were released with different software changed due to some unrelated performance issue. A tweak here or there can profoundly affect mileage. You have to think, that this engine, with different exhaust and radical software could probably produce 50-100% more horsepower and then you start to understand the delicate balance tuning an engine through software can be.

So my hope is that NISSAN will find the problem and issue a TSB with software update and we'll all see better numbers.

BTW... I think the expectation that anyone is going to see significant change in economy after break-in is folly. Besides engine break-in is traditionally 500-1000 miles. Most owners on this board are past that point now. Engine break-in involves primarily seating the piston rings and "super polishing" the crank and camshaft journals. It will reduce internal friction in the engine some, but not enough to squeeze 5-6 more MPG out of the vehicle. that's just rediculuous.

Ben

cristi01

For the record, for the first tank I got approx. 32 mpg (7.3 l/100km), mixed driving (50% city, 50% highway), AC on, 1.8 SL, man. 6 speed tranny. Not great but not that bad at all.