The 2.5 altima isn't going to make 35. It'll be downrated when the official EPA figures come out: Just like the Versa was. Remember the 38MPG combined figure floated earlier this year?
Oh yes, which reminds me of what a relative of mine said. He has an old Mercedes. He has been putting synthetic oil in that car for sometime. And he claims that as the car grows older, the mpg IMPROVES !
I am a big fan of Star Wars, so pls pardon me if I like to use Star Wars phrases / analogies.
In Versa's case, remember in the Return of the Jedi, when the Death Star blew up Allied frigates. The Allied fleet Admiral wanted to retreat, but Lando protested " Admiral, we will never have another chance like this again. Han will have that shield down. We got to GIVE HIM MORE TIME ! "
So for Versa owners, even those who already had 1000+ miles, you got to give yr Versa more time. She will improve as her engine's mature.
Here's a suggestion to improve mileage, and to test how good her mpg can be at this moment. Other than changing to full synthetic oil (I recommend max 30 weight oil, no more than that), those with automatic / CVT (I don't drive a manual, so I can't say whether this is easy to do with stick), can try to be really gentle on the gas pedal. I tried and found that in an automatic car, a gentle foot can really even prevent the rpms from exceeding say 2200. Even when accelerating. It will just delay your travelling time a bit.
I have said before, not to be obsessed with the tachometer. But for this testing exercise, one can initially get a feel of how gentle on the gas pedal by observing the tachometer with yr gas pedal pressure, and once you got the feel, you can drive without looking at it anymore.
I think this synthetic / gentle on gas pedal exercise can push the Versa highway mileage to almost 40 ! Why ? Recently I got a " low fuel " light on. But I got several urgent errands to do. By the time I finished, I realize that low fuel light have been around for sometime.
And since the nearest gas station is not too near my home, I decided to be really gentle on the gas, and I never exceeded 2200 rpm. To buy myself more time.
And true enough, even though I feel my car could quit anytime, this gentle approach appeared to really boost my mpg, and finally bought me enough time to refuel !
I feel that if I had driven normally, I would have been stuck in the middle of the road, calling SOS for gas. And to help things, I made sure the AC is at minimum speed, with thermostat just enough to keep me comfortable.
Your analogies have been discredited based on how you treat your brand new car. Intentionally driving around with the low fuel light on is just plain stupid. If there is any sediment in the tank where do you think it's located? :confuse: If there is any water condensation in the tank where do you think it's located? :confuse:
I just passed the 750 mile mark in my Versa and I still have to say that I love it.
My mileage is getting ebtter bit by bit and this past tank, a full roadtrip to the coast I got 33.3 miles per gallon. Not quote the 35 - 36 I was hoping for but I know it will get better in time.
Either way, this is wayyyy better than my 15mpg I used to get in my truck (which I traded in for the Versa). :shades:
So what? Sediments and water sink in a full tank just like they do in an empty one.
KC,
Thanks but I already feel geriatric enough keeping the rpm below 3K.
One more thing for you: that knob with blue on one side and red on the other controls the mixing baffle in the air plenum. It's not a thermostatic control for the air conditioner. Your air conditioner doesn't work any less hard when you turn that knob. In fact, it's a net energy waste to mix AC air wih Heated air, but either way it makes no impact on MPG whatsoever.
Please use your trip meter and or odometer as your primary gas gauge.
Having seen the carnage of a family of three killed when they rear ended a vehicle that ran out of gas (and tried to make it to the center median on a busy interstate) I asked you to think carefully about trusting the gauge and idiot light in a new vehicle. Check each fill and learn your cars useful range. Then use that range as the primary source for judging when its time for a fill up.
Tank 1. 28.5 MPG. About 80% interstate at 75. Tank 2. 27.8 MPG. About 70% interstate and 75. Tank 3. 30.2 MPG. Mostly highway, some stop/go traffic.
I'm still not happy. In general I'm not conservative. I shift between 3&4k in 1/2 gear and then try to keep it close to 2k in higher gears. I decided to screw the break-in period and do some spirited starts revving above 5k during the last tankful and to my surprise, the mileage number has increased. Either the engine is benefitting from breaking in or the interstate mileage at 75 is just that bad. I have a feeling it's more the latter.
Time will tell. I'd still like to achieve averages closer to 35, but I won't ever be the one holding traffic back at the stoplight.
Help, I am very close to purchasing a Versa, with the salesperson and owner of the dealership telling me that the mpg are: city 42, highway 48...the sticker says: 30 and 36. I was planning on buying the SL with CVT. What are people now getting for MPG?
I thinik if you read this thread fully you well get a understanding what we are getting as far as real world MPG, personally, if a saleman is telling you that the car will get better then the window sticker, that is a good indication that is a dealership I wouldn't want to do business with...
>>with the salesperson and owner of the dealership telling me that the mpg are: city 42, highway 48.
Just ask these people at the dealer to put what they have told you in writing, and tell them that you'd insert your own language that you are not buying the vehicle but for their words, and make the document a part of the contract.
Okay, so does anyone have experience with the Matrix or the Vibre 2006 models, in terms of comparing it to the Versa? I am down to the safety ratings, which we don't have on the VIBE yet and the MPG. I find the Vibe and Matrix have bigger cargo space, and lays flat, but an uncomfortable back seat...looks like a little bench stuck in there. The MPG is 28 and 33 and of course, the infamous quote of , "people are getting much better than this". And my girlfriend is getting close to 40 going to and from Flagstaff in the mountains and Phoenix roundtrip.... :confuse:
I have seen the tv commercials for Versa and they present this car as having a very large amount of back seat floor foot room. Is this true? I have noticed there seems to be a good amount of people unhappy with their MPG. What would be a conservative number of MPG to look at? We are just looking at this point at this car, the Jeep Compass and the Jeep Patriot. Any input would be appreciated.
You are going to get a bucket full of answers to the mileage question. The backseat area is large. It's as big or bigger than a lot of full size sedans. Gas economy is a line between, "I hate this car's mileage," and "better than I was expecting." I have a Versa with CVT and it averages about 32 with a combination of city/rural driving. I'm conservative with my driving and am in no hurry to get anywhere. I have not had a good chance to check out Freeway/Highway travel. I suspect it will get near the advertised number of 36. A lot will depend upon the load you have, whether a/c is used, and the speed you travel
Many "hot-footed" individual on the forum say they don't get good mph and don't know why. I bet I could guess and be very close.
Best advice is to drive on on a demonstration drive. I did and that is what sold me. I had not even considered it until then.
Yes the Versa was designed from the inside out so this really maximizes the amount of room in the car. I have a co worker who is 6'5 and I have him sit in the back seat for a trip between Phoenix to Tuscon (about 90 miles), so I could get a true sense of the room in the car he was total amazed on how much room he had sitting behind me (i'm 6') so there is A LOT of room in the car.
I test drove the Versa, Matrix and Vibe all three this week. I love the Versa handling, it is so easy to steer, even the 6 speed manual was so easy to drive, but I would not buy it. I am a old Saab lover and love my stick shifts, but this one takes lots of shifting due to 6 speeds. I think the back seat of the Versa is more comfortable than the matrix, and less bouncy. The bench seat in the matrix and Vibe looks like a bench...not good for kids on long trips. I am leaning toward the Vibe becauase it has a larger cargo area..like 5 cu. feet more, and the surface is flat when the back seat is laid down. However, if it is truly bumpier than the Versa, I will be reconsidering that choice. My daughters will test drive with me and I will know that answer tomorrow, they are quite tuned into an uncomfortable drive. Versa ends up costing around $18K when you add in the CVT, and the ABS brakes. I can't believe we have to ADD ABS brakes in on these vehicles. AND another complaint: the VIBE and Matrix don't usualy have the side pass airbags NOR head curtain. I am adding that to the Versa and it still comes in around $18k.
here's the comparison of head room etc. first numbers Vibe, second Versa overall length 171.9 169 width 69.9 66.7 overall height 62.2 60 front track 59.6 58.3 rear track 59.1 58.5 wheelbase 102.4 102.4 rear seat down- cargo cap. 54.1 cu. ft. 50.4 cu ft rear seat in place 19.3 cu. ft 17.8 cu ft interior volume 111.5 cu ft, 94.7 cu. ft (difference of 6.8 cu. ft) front shoulder room 53.2 vs. 53.5 rear shoulder room 52.6 vs. 50.7 frontn headroom 40.6 vs. 40.8 rear headroom 39.8 38.3 front hip room 51.7 48.8 rear hip room 47.8 47.2 front leg room 41.8 41.4 rear leg room 36.3 38.0
So, we get more leg room in the rear and lose 1.5 in the rear cargo with seats up. with seats down wee lose 3.7 cu. feet on the Versa vs. the Vibe.
Below I listed my milage for every fill up since purchase. I also just returned from the dealer after having them check out the car. I have posted previously on this blog about my extreem dissatisfaction with the vehicles milage. I had hoped that "my discombobulator pin was loose" and therefore was repairable. ... No such luck so far. I like 'bendupre' received a no defect found. A/F alpha was 101%, all sensors "in factory specified range" unlike bendupre, I had a note on my service statement that read "Cleared self learn control and performed idle air volume learn procedure". There was not really anything else interesting on the service statement.
To Nissan's credit every single person that I have dealt with has been top notch. Everyone from the salespeople to the lady at 1-800-Nissan1 to the mechanic that did the work have been sympethetic, non judgemental, and very open to the idea that there is a problem. I have not once felt shut out as a "he's a lead foot" like some on this blog might seem to believe.
The service department manager, the mechanic and the customer service rep at the repair facility all discussed with me the possibilities and factors that might affect mileage. I was told that the poor milage was most likely due to (lead foot aside) the seasonal blend of the gasonline. He said that as winter comes the gas is blended differently and that should improve the milage, ... uh hu, well see. He also stated, like others on this page, that even though the break in of the engine should be mostly done by 1500 miles, there could be a supstantial improvement as the engine "fine tunes" its wear pattern up to 10000 miles. He said that as much as 5 MPG could be seen, again I am not so optemistic.
The mechaninc also said that while synthetic oil may help, changing the plugs is not advised and that any aftermarket products would likely negatively impact the milage.
The mechanic recently bought a new Versa 4spd auto, he is on his third tank and also expressed dissatisfaction with the milage, albeight he is getting about 27mpg as compared to my 25. The mechanic seemed to have a genuinely vested interested into looking at the issue.
I have been unable to find anyone willing to put the vehicle on a gas analyzer. Almost everyone I spoke to said that these vehicles are so low in emmisions that they typically do not register with the standard test equipment. (I mentioned this in a previous blog, in theory poor milage and bad emission go hand in hand).
I have reserved my review of the car any where publiclly other than this blog until I returned from the dealer today. Now that I have to accept that my 30/34 car is really a 22/26 vehicle I feel I can honestly and objectively say to would be buyers that this vehicle is not the wisest purchase. If the primary reason for purchasing this vehicle is economy, it has not performed for me or several others on this blog. If the primary reason for purchasing this vehicel is the spaciousness, I would assert that you can get a sedan with more room, more power and the same milage.
I intend to try something different this week. How bad is bad? Many on this blog have suggested that the milage that I and others like me have received is primarily do to the ambiguous "driving conditions may vary", principally that we have lead feet. So this week I intend to find out how bad is bad. I intend to drive as poorly as I can, unnecessarily revving, accelerating more than necessary, wasteful breaking, anything I can do to get poorer milage. I will try to find the bottom (at least as close as I can without being a danger to others, I wont drive exceedingly fast or in a blatently wreckless manner. I got limits, sorry )
"So this week I intend to find out how bad is bad. I intend to drive as poorly as I can, unnecessarily revving, accelerating more than necessary, wasteful breaking, anything I can do to get poorer milage. I will try to find the bottom (at least as close as I can without being a danger to others"
You're not calculating your average corectly. Add all the miles: 2175 and divide by all the gallons: 99.0446 you get 21.9598. SORRY
Before you set out on your oddesy of bad driving, I might suggest continuing to take it easy to see if the idle air volume learn procedure helps correct the problem.
I'm surprised to learn there are procedures for calibrating the computer program. That's exactly what I asked the service manager at my dealer about and got told "The computer doesn't learn"
Perhaps you are right about the "how bad is bad tactic" I think I may give it a couple of tanks and see if there is any improvement. I can always fin out how low it will go later.
In fairness though I think the milage calcs were right I have personally placed 2522 mile on the car, and used 99.04 gals = 25.4 mpg. (On my chart the Mile is the OD reading, sorry if that was not clear)
I have the service statement if you need me to fax you a copy
I am seriously thinking about buying an ISO 9141 OBD II cable and the software necessary to read and log the engine outputs in real time. I dont know that this will prove anything, but being the "bit fiddler" that I am I may notice something. I have priced it out and think I can pull it all in for about $350. In any case it might be fun to watch. I'll keep you posted. By the way what part of the country are you in bendupre?
You said you used 99 gallons to go 2522 miles. At $3.00 per gallon it would cost you $297.00. If you got 34 mpg you would have used 74 gallons at a cost of $222.00 a savings of $75.00. Why would you spend $350.00 just to get a readout? How will that help you get better mileage? Most cars do better after a break in period. Enjoy the Versa.
I was suspecting a possible defective O2 sensor, but it sounds as though the service dept. checked that out as well. I feel bad for you. Just as you say, if the primary reason to consider this vehicle is a high mileage, then your experience is a strong indication against getting a Versa.
My wife and I wanted a Versa, but dropped it in favor of the Honda Fit for this very reason.
The ODB II kit is not just to get this fixed (assuming there is a problem to fix). I am just a one of those tuner/techno/tweeker geeks that likes stuff like that.
But to take you analogy further, assuming a savings of $75 in the two months that I have owned it, thats $450 a year, or $2250 over the life of my loan, assuming that gas stays averages at $3.00 a gallon for the next 5 years. I would not count on that. Even if my savings were half that estimate, and that I could find a fix, I could come out ahead.
But really I just want to know what makes it tick, or possibly, in this case not tick correctly.
As I said on my official review, to be posted on Edmonds soon I hope, give this car high marks on every aspect except milage. To me the car barely meets the middle of the road on that account, in my case anyway.
I have to agree with bendupre at this point. If there is a problem with the vehicle it is programatic and likely not mechanical or electical in nature.
One thing I have noticed is that the few people that I have personally met face to face that own this car have all complained of poor milage as compared to the sticker, Manual, Auto, and CVT transmission alike.
This could be a regional issue with the fuel, I have to plead ignorance on that account as currently I know litle about how gas is made, delivered, stored or anything else. Currently I am reading up on summer vs winter blend fuel to see if what the dealership told me has any validity. I have also read a few articles on various mandated additives that have been show to affect mileage. Who knows.
I thought this might be relevant. I happened to get a 2006 Sentra 1.8S as a rental today. I just drove it about 35 miles on urban freeways (mostly) and some suburban roads (with a few sits at stoplights). I reset the mpg meter before setting out. It reads 40.6 mpg now. The high was 42.8, when I exited the freeway. Speeds were between 60-70, only a little congestion for a few miles but no stop-and-go. No A/C. The car has 16k miles on it.
The Sentra has a 4-speed automatic and a 1.8L engine--same size and about the same power as in the Versa. So I am wondering... if the Sentra 4AT can get fuel economy like this, without trying hard, why is the Versa getting considerably lower numbers--at least based on what I read here?
I'll keep track of mpg through the week--with lots more suburban driving--and report back.
I missed the first 234 miles when I subtracted. Point was, and I don't think people realize this, averaging the MPG figures themselves compounds the error. Did the car have that many miles on it when you bought it? Hope some of the test drivers didn't beat it to hell.
I am in Iowa where every station sells E10 blend (not every pump). I NEVER use the E10. I learned years ago it gets poorer fuel economy and when you look at emissions data, the difference in carbon and nitrogen is negligable. Ethanol is nothing more than a farm subsidy disguised ad an environmental policy. The non-ethanol blend costs between 2 and 10 cents more per gallon here, but I gladly pay it.
Gas here just sunk to $2.17/gal for E10 and $2.22 for regular BTW.
Winter gas is supposed to have more O2 in it. Don't know when the refineries switch, probably not until OCT or NOV.
My dealer checked both the o2 sensors (one is in the manifold and the other is downstream of the CAT) and the MAF sensor on my car. Here's the diagnostic: "We took three readings and the numbers are different so it looks like they are working" Brilliant!
You have to consider the ammount of fossil fuels burned in the process of making ethanol and then you realize it's a net loser for the environment. The price of E10 gas has carried a $0.02 per gal federal subsidy sine the 1980's and guess how it got there: You can thank your senators from Iowa where they grow what? CORN. You bet it's a farm subsidy. And guess what else they grow here? SOYBEANS. Did I hear someone say biodiesel?
Hydrogen will also be a net loser unless they can make it using solar/wind/or nuclear power. There hasn't been a new nuclear plant built since 3-mile island melted down.
I've got 4100 miles on my Versa SL, CVT. Today I drove to Dallas and back to OKC. Bucking a 15 to 20 mile an hour wind with the A/C on down there and with calm wind coming home at 7:00 pm. I set the cruise control at 72 going down and at 78 coming home. Got 32 mpg.
I've done the same trip several times going 80 mph both ways and it hurt to mpg down to 27 or 28.
I think those are good numbers considering how stable, quiet, comfortable this car performs. Coming from a Scion xA, this is heaven.
I am amazed (and jealous) that you are getting that kind of mileage with your Versa SL manuel. I have the same car and am getting about mid 20s and it appears to be getting worse? I have no idea why. I do drive mostly in the city but there is some highway too. Mine seems to strain a little in 6th gear, at 65 mph, at 3000 rpms, and feels almost like I need to change gears again. Overall it is a comfortable car and fun to drive. But I traded in a mini van to downsize and my priority was to get better mpgs. It is not that much better than my old Mazda MPV.
I am amazed at what some of you consider good mileage. I have a 2006 VW Passat 3.6L with automatic transmission. This week I drove from El Paso to San Antonio with my cruise set at 86 mph. I got 30.4 mpg.
Does anyone here get his/her Versa to reach at least 30 MPG when driving approximately 50/50 city/highway, with a bias towards the city?
We have a Honda Fit on reserve, but it won't show up for another three months. We looked at the Versa before and liked it a lot, but wrote it off due to the reports of only so-so gas mileage.
Earlier today my wife and I went to look at a Versa again, and as before, we test-drove an SL with a CVT. We again liked it a lot. In terms of comfort, the Versa win hands-down over the Fit (in terms of lugging things, the Fit is the hands-down winner). It is going to be my wife's car, and since she drives a lot for her work, it would be nice for her to drive a comfortable vehicle. And yet precisely because she drives a lot, and on city streets, a good MPG is essential.
Does anyone on this board get 30 MPG or above driving a Versa at least 50% city?
Getting a 30 MPG driving mostly highway does not work for us, as our Subaru Forester gets almost 29 MPG doing the same thing. The same Subaru gets about 24.5 when doing 50/50.
We like the Versa. If the MPG is good, we will cancel the Fit and buy a Versa. But it sounds as though people are working awfully hard to get a good mileage out of it, especially when the city driving is involved. We just want to know, for the last time I guess, whether anyone is getting above 30 MPG combined.
It's a crapshoot. Some are getting better than others. If you want to do more research, check out nissanversa.org, the NICO forum for versa has a RWMPG thread and most over there are getting above 30.
I am averaging 27.5 over the last 1200 miles. I calculate by dividing all my miles by all the gas I put in. There are surprisingly myriad ways to screw up a mileage calculation so you have to take some of what you read with a grain of salt.
My mileage has been slowly improving since I've owned the car. It started out at about 24. My car has the CVT. I drive mainly conservatively, working the pedal to keep the revs below 3000.
Lately I've been worrying less about how I'm driving and enjoying the car. I've been letting the car rev a little higher on the onramps, getting up to speed a little faster, and it hasn't seemed to make things any worse.
One thing I did change aboutmy driving behavior when I bought this car: I no longer sit in the car idling while I eat my lunch every day.
Followup: I would up driving the Sentra 110 miles and got an overall fuel economy per the trip computer of 32.9 mpg. About 65 miles of that was urban highway in two long trips, with a little congestion on each trip. Half of it was with A/C on. The rest was suburban driving, with quite a few stoplights. I didn't do anything to try to get good fuel economy on the suburban driving. I noticed the fuel economy for that part of the trip was poor, close to 20 mpg. The first run on the freeway was great, over 40 mpg. The 2nd freeway trip was not as good (A/C on, more traffic) but still around 35.
I appreciate your message, esp. about other forums. I have visited them and deciphered certain trends. I do agree that caution is in order when reading people's posts about the MPG. Mentally, I drop the wildly high and pathetically low, and try to find out a normal distribution.
The thing about the MPG of the Honda Fit is that I drove a JDM 1.5 4WD Fit in Japan for about 10 hours in a very bad driving condition (stop-n-go 10 mph city traffic plus stop-n-go steep mountain climb for hours, never reaching North American highway conditions) and still got about 28 MPG equivalent. Granted that this was a JDM model, using a CVT, but I got a very firm understanding that with my driving style the Fit would not get much worse mileage than this under many circumstances.
With the Versa, I just got an impression that you basically have to have an ideal driving condition to reach or exceed 30 MPG. That is why I am curious about the actual MPG biased towards the city driving, with a starting split of at least 50/50 city/highway. Although I am not 100% certain, I have a suspicion that many people who are reporting good numbers over in the NICO forum who claim to be driving city may have a different definition of a city drive. If you are averaging 40 mph, that's not a city driving to me, but some people may still call it that. (By the way, this is true for any car reported, Versa, Fit or what-have-you)
Anyway, I do understand that what I am looking for will always be more or less subjective data. I would still appreciate hearing from current Versa owners who drive city a lot about their mileage experience.
Does anyone here get his/her Versa to reach at least 30 MPG when driving approximately 50/50 city/highway, with a bias towards the city? My second tank was pretty close to 50/50. I filled up in Raymond, Washington and drove to Portland, Oregon. That was about 60 miles of windy country roads and 80 miles of freeway. The rest of the tank (200 miles or so) was to work and back. That was 31.4 mpg.
I am amazed at what some of you consider good mileage. I have a 2006 VW Passat 3.6L with automatic transmission. This week I drove from El Paso to San Antonio with my cruise set at 86 mph. I got 30.4 mpg.
I'm not sure if Texas has paved roads, but I once drove from Billings to Missoula and averaged 51.3 mpg in my honda crx with both windows down. Of course, I don't drive from Billings to Missoula every day so I guess that doesn't count as "real world numbers" as this forum's title suggests.
"Does anyone here get his/her Versa to reach at least 30 MPG when driving approximately 50/50 city/highway, with a bias towards the city?"
I agree with Bendupre that people appear to really have to baby the Versa to get above 30 MPG even with the 6sp. I've averaged about 29 MPG without being too conservative. I don't like being left behind at stoplights so I rev to 4k in 1rst gear often. On the other hand, based on my numbers so far even with spirited driving (28 MPG) is encouraging at least that maybe smaller engines are more forgiving on the lower limit mileage (comparing lead foot to egg-on-the-petal).
Where I think that this car is especially weak is that IT DOES NOT APPEAR SO FAR THAT I'LL EVER ACHIEVE A 40 MPG FIGURE ON THE INTERSTATE as it appears can be achieved with some of the previous gen economy sedans.
BTW, I think that some on the forum may be confused by what some consider 'city'. Some consider suburban commutes 'city' while others are really driving in cities where they stop ever other block. There will be a HUGE difference in these numbers and I believe that the EPA estimates lean more toward the true city vs. suburban.
I am trying to collect as much data as I can to "prove" that my car does or does not have an issue. (The dealer says it is fine by the way)
What I am curious to know from the group is what is the best, worst, and overall average since your ownership of the car? Also what city do you do most of your fill ups in, what do you guess is your average city/highway percentage of driving, and what transmission plant do you have? I am going to try to tabulate from previous posts but if it others were to repost it then it would save me a lot of time.
Me best - 29.9 worst - 20.00 overall - 25.3 fill up - Arlington, TX est cty/hwy -60/40 trans - Manual 6 spd
There will be a HUGE difference in these numbers and I believe that the EPA estimates lean more toward the true city vs. suburban
I have read somewhere that the EPA city mode does allow a momentary velocity as high as 56 mph (with a mean of 20 mph). If so, at least from this tidbit, the EPA city sounds more suburban-oriented, as no downtown traffic lets you get to that speed unless you are shooting a Hollywood action film.
This may offer at least one of the reasons why it is so difficult for many true city riders to achieve or come close to the EPA city rating.
Vehicles are driven over identical driving patterns by professional drivers in controlled laboratory conditions on a dynamometer, which is like a treadmill for cars. The conditions that occur during driving, such as wind drag and inertia are accounted for on the dynamometer. There are two types of tests that are conducted: city and highway tests.
The city test is approximately 11 miles long and simulates a stop and go trip with an average speed of about 20 miles per hour (mph). The trip lasts 31 minutes and has 23 stops. About 18 percent of the time is spent idling (as in waiting for traffic lights). A short freeway driving segment is included in the test. The engine is initially started after being parked overnight.
The highway test simulates a 10 mile trip with an average speed of 48 mph. The vehicle is started "hot" and there is very little idling and no stops.
City ratings are reduced by 10% and highway by 22% to account for wind drag, cold temperature, A/C use, etc.
I don't think 30 MPG is that good for such a small car. My 1999 Nissan Altima averages 26 MPG - mostly city driving. And my Altima has about 170,000+ miles, larger motor and automatic. I was thinking about getting a Versa, but now have doubts whether the trade-off in size vs economy will be worthwhile.
Comments
Ben
I am a big fan of Star Wars, so pls pardon me if I like to use Star Wars phrases / analogies.
In Versa's case, remember in the Return of the Jedi, when the Death Star blew up Allied frigates. The Allied fleet Admiral wanted to retreat, but Lando protested " Admiral, we will never have another chance like this again. Han will have that shield down. We got to GIVE HIM MORE TIME ! "
So for Versa owners, even those who already had 1000+ miles, you got to give yr Versa more time. She will improve as her engine's mature.
Here's a suggestion to improve mileage, and to test how good her mpg can be at this moment. Other than changing to full synthetic oil (I recommend max 30 weight oil, no more than that), those with automatic / CVT (I don't drive a manual, so I can't say whether this is easy to do with stick), can try to be really gentle on the gas pedal. I tried and found that in an automatic car, a gentle foot can really even prevent the rpms from exceeding say 2200. Even when accelerating. It will just delay your travelling time a bit.
I have said before, not to be obsessed with the tachometer. But for this testing exercise, one can initially get a feel of how gentle on the gas pedal by observing the tachometer with yr gas pedal pressure, and once you got the feel, you can drive without looking at it anymore.
I think this synthetic / gentle on gas pedal exercise can push the Versa highway mileage to almost 40 ! Why ? Recently I got a " low fuel " light on. But I got several urgent errands to do. By the time I finished, I realize that low fuel light have been around for sometime.
And since the nearest gas station is not too near my home, I decided to be really gentle on the gas, and I never exceeded 2200 rpm. To buy myself more time.
And true enough, even though I feel my car could quit anytime, this gentle approach appeared to really boost my mpg, and finally bought me enough time to refuel !
I feel that if I had driven normally, I would have been stuck in the middle of the road, calling SOS for gas. And to help things, I made sure the AC is at minimum speed, with thermostat just enough to keep me comfortable.
Try it and see.
If there is any sediment in the tank where do you think it's located? :confuse:
If there is any water condensation in the tank where do you think it's located? :confuse:
At the bottom
My mileage is getting ebtter bit by bit and this past tank, a full roadtrip to the coast I got 33.3 miles per gallon. Not quote the 35 - 36 I was hoping for but I know it will get better in time.
Either way, this is wayyyy better than my 15mpg I used to get in my truck (which I traded in for the Versa). :shades:
All I am saying is I got several things to do in a HURRY and it just happens that by the time I am almost finished, the light comes on.
Normally I refuel when a quarter of the tank is left.
Gues what else is at the bottom of the tank?
THE OUTLET
So what? Sediments and water sink in a full tank just like they do in an empty one.
KC,
Thanks but I already feel geriatric enough keeping the rpm below 3K.
One more thing for you: that knob with blue on one side and red on the other controls the mixing baffle in the air plenum. It's not a thermostatic control for the air conditioner. Your air conditioner doesn't work any less hard when you turn that knob. In fact, it's a net energy waste to mix AC air wih Heated air, but either way it makes no impact on MPG whatsoever.
Ben
Actually it's:
THE INTAKE
And even though it's protected by a sock or strainer I won't be driving my Versa around with a half gallon of fuel in the tank.
In addition, fuel is what cools and lubricates the pump.
Running the tank to near empty isn't wise.
I won't deny it's stupid to run down to fumes, simply because you might get stuck somewhere.
As long as the pump is pumping, it's lubed and cooled enough. Sucking air is another story.
ben
Having seen the carnage of a family of three killed when they rear ended a vehicle that ran out of gas (and tried to make it to the center median on a busy interstate) I asked you to think carefully about trusting the gauge and idiot light in a new vehicle. Check each fill and learn your cars useful range. Then use that range as the primary source for judging when its time for a fill up.
I now cede use of the soap box.
Tank 1. 28.5 MPG. About 80% interstate at 75.
Tank 2. 27.8 MPG. About 70% interstate and 75.
Tank 3. 30.2 MPG. Mostly highway, some stop/go traffic.
I'm still not happy. In general I'm not conservative. I shift between 3&4k in 1/2 gear and then try to keep it close to 2k in higher gears. I decided to screw the break-in period and do some spirited starts revving above 5k during the last tankful and to my surprise, the mileage number has increased. Either the engine is benefitting from breaking in or the interstate mileage at 75 is just that bad. I have a feeling it's more the latter.
Time will tell. I'd still like to achieve averages closer to 35, but I won't ever be the one holding traffic back at the stoplight.
30 and 36. I was planning on buying the SL with CVT. What are people now getting for MPG?
Tony :shades:
Just ask these people at the dealer to put what they have told you in writing, and tell them that you'd insert your own language that you are not buying the vehicle but for their words, and make the document a part of the contract.
I can just imagine their reaction.
:confuse:
We are just looking at this point at this car, the Jeep Compass and the Jeep Patriot. Any input would be appreciated.
Farout
Many "hot-footed" individual on the forum say they don't get good mph and don't know why. I bet I could guess and be very close.
Best advice is to drive on on a demonstration drive. I did and that is what sold me. I had not even considered it until then.
Ben
Tony :shades:
I am leaning toward the Vibe becauase it has a larger cargo area..like 5 cu. feet more, and the surface is flat when the back seat is laid down. However, if it is truly bumpier than the Versa, I will be reconsidering that choice. My daughters will test drive with me and I will know that answer tomorrow, they are quite tuned into an uncomfortable drive.
Versa ends up costing around $18K when you add in the CVT, and the ABS brakes. I can't believe we have to ADD ABS brakes in on these vehicles. AND another complaint: the VIBE and Matrix don't usualy have the side pass airbags NOR head curtain. I am adding that to the Versa and it still comes in around $18k.
Anyone know about crash ratings?
overall length 171.9 169
width 69.9 66.7
overall height 62.2 60
front track 59.6 58.3
rear track 59.1 58.5
wheelbase 102.4 102.4
rear seat down- cargo cap. 54.1 cu. ft. 50.4 cu ft
rear seat in place 19.3 cu. ft 17.8 cu ft
interior volume 111.5 cu ft, 94.7 cu. ft (difference of 6.8 cu. ft)
front shoulder room 53.2 vs. 53.5
rear shoulder room 52.6 vs. 50.7
frontn headroom 40.6 vs. 40.8
rear headroom 39.8 38.3
front hip room 51.7 48.8
rear hip room 47.8 47.2
front leg room 41.8 41.4
rear leg room 36.3 38.0
So, we get more leg room in the rear and lose 1.5 in the rear cargo with seats up.
with seats down wee lose 3.7 cu. feet on the Versa vs. the Vibe.
I hope this helps people.
Pat
A/F alpha was 101%, all sensors "in factory specified range"
unlike bendupre, I had a note on my service statement that read "Cleared self learn control and performed idle air volume learn procedure". There was not really anything else interesting on the service statement.
To Nissan's credit every single person that I have dealt with has been top notch. Everyone from the salespeople to the lady at 1-800-Nissan1 to the mechanic that did the work have been sympethetic, non judgemental, and very open to the idea that there is a problem. I have not once felt shut out as a "he's a lead foot" like some on this blog might seem to believe.
The service department manager, the mechanic and the customer service rep at the repair facility all discussed with me the possibilities and factors that might affect mileage. I was told that the poor milage was most likely due to (lead foot aside) the seasonal blend of the gasonline. He said that as winter comes the gas is blended differently and that should improve the milage, ... uh hu, well see. He also stated, like others on this page, that even though the break in of the engine should be mostly done by 1500 miles, there could be a supstantial improvement as the engine "fine tunes" its wear pattern up to 10000 miles. He said that as much as 5 MPG could be seen, again I am not so optemistic.
The mechaninc also said that while synthetic oil may help, changing the plugs is not advised and that any aftermarket products would likely negatively impact the milage.
The mechanic recently bought a new Versa 4spd auto, he is on his third tank and also expressed dissatisfaction with the milage, albeight he is getting about 27mpg as compared to my 25. The mechanic seemed to have a genuinely vested interested into looking at the issue.
I have been unable to find anyone willing to put the vehicle on a gas analyzer. Almost everyone I spoke to said that these vehicles are so low in emmisions that they typically do not register with the standard test equipment. (I mentioned this in a previous blog, in theory poor milage and bad emission go hand in hand).
I have reserved my review of the car any where publiclly other than this blog until I returned from the dealer today.
Now that I have to accept that my 30/34 car is really a 22/26 vehicle I feel I can honestly and objectively say to would be buyers that this vehicle is not the wisest purchase. If the primary reason for purchasing this vehicle is economy, it has not performed for me or several others on this blog. If the primary reason for purchasing this vehicel is the spaciousness, I would assert that you can get a sedan with more room, more power and the same milage.
I intend to try something different this week. How bad is bad? Many on this blog have suggested that the milage that I and others like me have received is primarily do to the ambiguous "driving conditions may vary", principally that we have lead feet. So this week I intend to find out how bad is bad. I intend to drive as poorly as I can, unnecessarily revving, accelerating more than necessary, wasteful breaking, anything I can do to get poorer milage. I will try to find the bottom (at least as close as I can without being a danger to others, I wont drive exceedingly fast or in a blatently wreckless manner. I got limits, sorry
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
8/21 2016 09.1250 24.8700
8/26 2249 10.1690 22.9120
9/03 2427 08.9000 20.0000
9/11 2756 11.2650 29.2100
avg 25.3025 since purchase
(mixed but, mostly highway driving)
this has dropped almost 1 mpg since my previous post
"So this week I intend to find out how bad is bad. I intend to drive as poorly as I can, unnecessarily revving, accelerating more than necessary, wasteful breaking, anything I can do to get poorer milage. I will try to find the bottom (at least as close as I can without being a danger to others"
Before you set out on your oddesy of bad driving, I might suggest continuing to take it easy to see if the idle air volume learn procedure helps correct the problem.
I'm surprised to learn there are procedures for calibrating the computer program. That's exactly what I asked the service manager at my dealer about and got told "The computer doesn't learn"
He got some splainin to do...
Ben
In fairness though I think the milage calcs were right
I have personally placed 2522 mile on the car, and used 99.04 gals = 25.4 mpg. (On my chart the Mile is the OD reading, sorry if that was not clear)
I have the service statement if you need me to fax you a copy
I am seriously thinking about buying an ISO 9141 OBD II cable and the software necessary to read and log the engine outputs in real time. I dont know that this will prove anything, but being the "bit fiddler" that I am I may notice something. I have priced it out and think I can pull it all in for about $350. In any case it might be fun to watch. I'll keep you posted. By the way what part of the country are you in bendupre?
My wife and I wanted a Versa, but dropped it in favor of the Honda Fit for this very reason.
But to take you analogy further, assuming a savings of $75 in the two months that I have owned it, thats $450 a year, or $2250 over the life of my loan, assuming that gas stays averages at $3.00 a gallon for the next 5 years. I would not count on that. Even if my savings were half that estimate, and that I could find a fix, I could come out ahead.
But really I just want to know what makes it tick, or possibly, in this case not tick correctly.
As I said on my official review, to be posted on Edmonds soon I hope, give this car high marks on every aspect except milage. To me the car barely meets the middle of the road on that account, in my case anyway.
One thing I have noticed is that the few people that I have personally met face to face that own this car have all complained of poor milage as compared to the sticker, Manual, Auto, and CVT transmission alike.
This could be a regional issue with the fuel, I have to plead ignorance on that account as currently I know litle about how gas is made, delivered, stored or anything else. Currently I am reading up on summer vs winter blend fuel to see if what the dealership told me has any validity. I have also read a few articles on various mandated additives that have been show to affect mileage. Who knows.
Tony
The Sentra has a 4-speed automatic and a 1.8L engine--same size and about the same power as in the Versa. So I am wondering... if the Sentra 4AT can get fuel economy like this, without trying hard, why is the Versa getting considerably lower numbers--at least based on what I read here?
I'll keep track of mpg through the week--with lots more suburban driving--and report back.
I missed the first 234 miles when I subtracted. Point was, and I don't think people realize this, averaging the MPG figures themselves compounds the error. Did the car have that many miles on it when you bought it? Hope some of the test drivers didn't beat it to hell.
I am in Iowa where every station sells E10 blend (not every pump). I NEVER use the E10. I learned years ago it gets poorer fuel economy and when you look at emissions data, the difference in carbon and nitrogen is negligable. Ethanol is nothing more than a farm subsidy disguised ad an environmental policy. The non-ethanol blend costs between 2 and 10 cents more per gallon here, but I gladly pay it.
Gas here just sunk to $2.17/gal for E10 and $2.22 for regular BTW.
Winter gas is supposed to have more O2 in it. Don't know when the refineries switch, probably not until OCT or NOV.
My dealer checked both the o2 sensors (one is in the manifold and the other is downstream of the CAT) and the MAF sensor on my car. Here's the diagnostic: "We took three readings and the numbers are different so it looks like they are working" Brilliant!
Ben
You have nothing to lose at this point. Try the E10. My parents had an Olds Cutlass that actually ran better on E10.
BTW - Not to start a tangent here but while Ethanol may not be the ultimate answer I find it far more than merely a farm subsidy.
I'm still lurking and waiting on the car front.
Jason
You have to consider the ammount of fossil fuels burned in the process of making ethanol and then you realize it's a net loser for the environment. The price of E10 gas has carried a $0.02 per gal federal subsidy sine the 1980's and guess how it got there: You can thank your senators from Iowa where they grow what? CORN. You bet it's a farm subsidy. And guess what else they grow here? SOYBEANS. Did I hear someone say biodiesel?
Hydrogen will also be a net loser unless they can make it using solar/wind/or nuclear power. There hasn't been a new nuclear plant built since 3-mile island melted down.
I digress.
Ben
1st tank 29mpg
2nd tank 31.4mpg
3rd tank 33mpg
4th tank 32.7mpg
5th tank 28.9mpg
That last tank included 60 miles of freeway and 270 miles city driving. After 5 tanks, I'm averaging 30.9mpg.
I've done the same trip several times going 80 mph both ways and it hurt to mpg down to 27 or 28.
I think those are good numbers considering how stable, quiet, comfortable this car performs. Coming from a Scion xA, this is heaven.
We have a Honda Fit on reserve, but it won't show up for another three months. We looked at the Versa before and liked it a lot, but wrote it off due to the reports of only so-so gas mileage.
Earlier today my wife and I went to look at a Versa again, and as before, we test-drove an SL with a CVT. We again liked it a lot. In terms of comfort, the Versa win hands-down over the Fit (in terms of lugging things, the Fit is the hands-down winner). It is going to be my wife's car, and since she drives a lot for her work, it would be nice for her to drive a comfortable vehicle. And yet precisely because she drives a lot, and on city streets, a good MPG is essential.
Does anyone on this board get 30 MPG or above driving a Versa at least 50% city?
Getting a 30 MPG driving mostly highway does not work for us, as our Subaru Forester gets almost 29 MPG doing the same thing. The same Subaru gets about 24.5 when doing 50/50.
We like the Versa. If the MPG is good, we will cancel the Fit and buy a Versa. But it sounds as though people are working awfully hard to get a good mileage out of it, especially when the city driving is involved. We just want to know, for the last time I guess, whether anyone is getting above 30 MPG combined.
Thanks everyone!
I am averaging 27.5 over the last 1200 miles. I calculate by dividing all my miles by all the gas I put in. There are surprisingly myriad ways to screw up a mileage calculation so you have to take some of what you read with a grain of salt.
My mileage has been slowly improving since I've owned the car. It started out at about 24. My car has the CVT. I drive mainly conservatively, working the pedal to keep the revs below 3000.
Lately I've been worrying less about how I'm driving and enjoying the car. I've been letting the car rev a little higher on the onramps, getting up to speed a little faster, and it hasn't seemed to make things any worse.
One thing I did change aboutmy driving behavior when I bought this car: I no longer sit in the car idling while I eat my lunch every day.
Ben
The thing about the MPG of the Honda Fit is that I drove a JDM 1.5 4WD Fit in Japan for about 10 hours in a very bad driving condition (stop-n-go 10 mph city traffic plus stop-n-go steep mountain climb for hours, never reaching North American highway conditions) and still got about 28 MPG equivalent. Granted that this was a JDM model, using a CVT, but I got a very firm understanding that with my driving style the Fit would not get much worse mileage than this under many circumstances.
With the Versa, I just got an impression that you basically have to have an ideal driving condition to reach or exceed 30 MPG. That is why I am curious about the actual MPG biased towards the city driving, with a starting split of at least 50/50 city/highway. Although I am not 100% certain, I have a suspicion that many people who are reporting good numbers over in the NICO forum who claim to be driving city may have a different definition of a city drive. If you are averaging 40 mph, that's not a city driving to me, but some people may still call it that. (By the way, this is true for any car reported, Versa, Fit or what-have-you)
Anyway, I do understand that what I am looking for will always be more or less subjective data. I would still appreciate hearing from current Versa owners who drive city a lot about their mileage experience.
My second tank was pretty close to 50/50. I filled up in Raymond, Washington and drove to Portland, Oregon. That was about 60 miles of windy country roads and 80 miles of freeway. The rest of the tank (200 miles or so) was to work and back. That was 31.4 mpg.
I am amazed at what some of you consider good mileage. I have a 2006 VW Passat 3.6L with automatic transmission. This week I drove from El Paso to San Antonio with my cruise set at 86 mph. I got 30.4 mpg.
I'm not sure if Texas has paved roads, but I once drove from Billings to Missoula and averaged 51.3 mpg in my honda crx with both windows down. Of course, I don't drive from Billings to Missoula every day so I guess that doesn't count as "real world numbers" as this forum's title suggests.
I agree with Bendupre that people appear to really have to baby the Versa to get above 30 MPG even with the 6sp. I've averaged about 29 MPG without being too conservative. I don't like being left behind at stoplights so I rev to 4k in 1rst gear often. On the other hand, based on my numbers so far even with spirited driving (28 MPG) is encouraging at least that maybe smaller engines are more forgiving on the lower limit mileage (comparing lead foot to egg-on-the-petal).
Where I think that this car is especially weak is that IT DOES NOT APPEAR SO FAR THAT I'LL EVER ACHIEVE A 40 MPG FIGURE ON THE INTERSTATE as it appears can be achieved with some of the previous gen economy sedans.
BTW, I think that some on the forum may be confused by what some consider 'city'. Some consider suburban commutes 'city' while others are really driving in cities where they stop ever other block. There will be a HUGE difference in these numbers and I believe that the EPA estimates lean more toward the true city vs. suburban.
What I am curious to know from the group is what is the best, worst, and overall average since your ownership of the car? Also what city do you do most of your fill ups in, what do you guess is your average city/highway percentage of driving, and what transmission plant do you have? I am going to try to tabulate from previous posts but if it others were to repost it then it would save me a lot of time.
Me
best - 29.9
worst - 20.00
overall - 25.3
fill up - Arlington, TX
est cty/hwy -60/40
trans - Manual 6 spd
I have read somewhere that the EPA city mode does allow a momentary velocity as high as 56 mph (with a mean of 20 mph). If so, at least from this tidbit, the EPA city sounds more suburban-oriented, as no downtown traffic lets you get to that speed unless you are shooting a Hollywood action film.
This may offer at least one of the reasons why it is so difficult for many true city riders to achieve or come close to the EPA city rating.
How are Vehicles Tested?
Vehicles are driven over identical driving patterns by professional drivers in controlled laboratory conditions on a dynamometer, which is like a treadmill for cars. The conditions that occur during driving, such as wind drag and inertia are accounted for on the dynamometer. There are two types of tests that are conducted: city and highway tests.
The city test is approximately 11 miles long and simulates a stop and go trip with an average speed of about 20 miles per hour (mph). The trip lasts 31 minutes and has 23 stops. About 18 percent of the time is spent idling (as in waiting for traffic lights). A short freeway driving segment is included in the test. The engine is initially started after being parked overnight.
The highway test simulates a 10 mile trip with an average speed of 48 mph. The vehicle is started "hot" and there is very little idling and no stops.
City ratings are reduced by 10% and highway by 22% to account for wind drag, cold temperature, A/C use, etc.
My 1999 Nissan Altima averages 26 MPG - mostly city driving. And my Altima has about 170,000+ miles, larger motor and automatic. I was thinking about getting a Versa, but now have doubts whether the trade-off in size vs economy will be worthwhile.