Howdy, Stranger!

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

Nissan Rogue Real World MPG



  • pitkeyspitkeys Posts: 18
    Agreed re the sticker MPG and current EPA methodology.

    I was somewhat intrigued by the '09 Forester. We had a '97 and thought it was a fine ride. I've also had about five other Sube wagons since they started selling in the states and generally like the marque for where we live.

    The '09 I drove was the 2.5 without the power upgrade as I don't want to be forced into premium fuel (I forget the actual model handle).

    From a utilitarian standpoint I think the Sube may be a better choice since it has more cargo room. However, it measures a bit less ground clearance which is important here. I found it to be a dog upon entering the Interstate compared to my old '97. I think the 4-spd auto is way out of date and very dull to drive. Part of the allure to me of the Rogue is the seven speeds with the paddles. It also seemed doggy compared to the Rogue (with proper use of paddles, anyway).

    I never gave the CRV serious thought as it doesn't seem what we want, although our Honda dealer (we have a FIT) is fairly decent.

    The Rogue feels more fun to drive than either the Sube or RAV, although the RAV is OK for a utility.

    Having had some pretty extensive experience with the RAV, I'd say it might be my first choice when/if they ditch the side opening gate...provided I wanted to pay more up front and have slightly worse MPG. But the RAV was no MPG hog. We consistently did about 25 overall. Given the V6 very handy power/acceleration, it has some advantages. From a utilitarian viewpoint we found it OK, too, especially with all the ways they pack in cubbies and cupholders. To us, the RAV has the most user-friendly cabin layout of anything in the class for day-to-day livability. However, we found it very uncomfortable on long trips with an annoying hobby-horse ride and seats that don't support very well.

    It may very well come down to which brand has the best dealer experience. My son has an Outback and has not had good dealer experience, unfortunately, so I chose to stay away. But I do think the '09 Sube is an excellent choice. I just hope they bring it more up to date.

    Re the hard tire thing: It's true that way over-inflation will cause excess center wear, but a Dunlop rep has told me that 3-5 lbs over the auto maker's sticker won't cause enough center wear to worry about. 45 lbs. probably would. And frankly the Rogue feels better at 5 lbs. over.

    IMO, regarding tires, there is a serious ding against the Rogue: The OEM tires.

    All the new ones around here are coming through with Continental 4x4 Contacts with only 6-8 tread depth. That's about 1/2 of what you'll get shopping for your own tires. The OEMs won't last very long. If one cares about that, then you need to crank in extra $$ for trading out of the Contacts at delivery. We recommend getting a quote on that before signing the papers.

    So we suggest you measure tread on anything new you're tasting. It's a real PITA to have to shell out several hundred $$ in only a year or so for new tires.

    Re the Rogue: Also be aware that there is an issue with paint scraping and wearing on the rockers under the doors. There could be a recall on that, but not so far. It is a problem on every one we've looked at and requires you do some work to preserve the paint. (If anyone is interested about that, check the NICO Rogue forum for pix and solutions).
  • mlmcgaheemlmcgahee Posts: 102
    The chrome grill inserts are a Nissan dealer I installed the kit myself. I also installed body side molding from SportWing and had my dealer install the rear spoiler.

    As far as gas milage.... I bought my Rogue in November and now have 19500 miles on it. I work out of my Rogue and drive 300 - 400 miles a week. I am getting 25 - 26 MPG running 70% city and 30 % highway.
  • phil53phil53 Posts: 54
    Have to agree on the OEMs. My main concern is that they are very much a highway tire and don't even look like they'd be much use in the snow. The problem is, the tire size on the Rogue is a bit odd, so there aren't a lot of tire choices out there. About the only thing that doesn't qualify as a 'touring' tire is the Yokohama Geolander AT. And that's a bit more aggressive than I wanted to go on this vehicle. If I decide to buy the Rogue, though, I may do that. I'd really hoped for something in between, like the Michelin Cross Terrain
    On the clearance, though, the specs on the Edmunds web site says the Forester has more clearance than the Rogue.
  • kenn2kenn2 Posts: 11
    13000 miles on my Nissan Roug AWD
    I have complained about the gas milage since the start, Nissan Service Dep. stated since there was no trouble light on the dash panel there was nothing wrong with the car.
    Long story short, my Rouge is now at Nissan getting the transmition replaced.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    stated since there was no trouble light on the dash panel there was nothing wrong with the car
    how stupid this sounds! - we're degenerating into a bunch of mindless idiots that look to a silly computer for answers to everything - and your Nissan Service techs are apparently in front of the line!
    Ultimately this sounds logical though - if your tranny is 'slipping' somehow (or if the tranny computer) is selecting gear ratios that are too high - FE would be effected. The question is, of course, why those 'trained' service techs wouldn't have been able to diagnose this with a simple test drive :confuse: It's not like Nissan hasn't built a CVT before.
    My Rogue (SL AWD) manages 25+ mpg overall (60% highway), runs great, and can turn as low as 2100 rpm at 70. Sorry to hear about your problems and would be interested to know if the tranny replacement is the real fix.
  • kenn2kenn2 Posts: 11
    I saved your reply and will let you know, I am hoping to get 25+ mpg as well.
  • goroad1goroad1 Posts: 2
    With our 3 week old loaded SL AWD Rogue our worst Hwy mileage was 25mpg driving somewhat agressivly around 65-70 mph.
    Driving in light traffic 55-60mph (DC Area) I averaged 29.2mpg,,keeeping the RPM's below 2k really made a difference in the mileage and possibly the engine and drive train breaking in as well.
  • phil53phil53 Posts: 54
    Thanks; that's good information. Around here (KC area), 65-70 isn't really seen as aggressive - unless you're in a 55 zone. 60 to 70 is the speed limit on most highways. Driving to work, I generally run 70 -75 on the highway portions of my commute. But 25 mpg isn't bad. That's about what I'm hearing about the Forester too.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I am also seeing 25+ mpg overall (SL AWD) - about 60% highway and also at higher (75+) highway speeds. The engine turns right at 2200-2300 rpm at 70. Have a friend with a 06 Forester and he averages about the same albeit with a higher percentage highway. Think that overall the Rogue does a bit better FE wise and is a bit quicker acceleration wise all probably because of the CVT.
  • lindaw2lindaw2 Posts: 12
    I've had my 2008 Rogue for about 2 weeks and do almost all city driving. I am getting 23MPG's. Maybe that is as good as it is going to get without the highway miles?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    although your FE should improve very slightly as the engine 'loosens up' I would tell you that 23 mpg overall in the City is quite good.
  • phil53phil53 Posts: 54
    That is quite interesting. This is actually the first time I've seen any evidence that the Rogue gets better fuel mileage than the Forester. I agree that, with the CVT (vs. the 4AT), the Rogue should get better fuel mileage than the Forester. I can tell you that it does seem to accelerate better and shifts (with the paddles) very quickly and crisply. The transmission is probably the Forester's weak point. Thanks.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    an aside - it is that 'electronically controlled/ learning ' Forester tranny that he had to take back to the dealer to get reprogrammed - the car was developing a helluva hesitation problem. The TSB did work though, haven't heard any further complaints.
  • I bought a 2008 Rogue 3 days ago in Colorado and the first 400 miles I got 25-26 mpg. Then I filled up in KS and it plummeted to 13-15 mpg. At 700 miles I filled up again and it still only got 13-15 mpg for the next 80 miles driven. Everyone's reviews I read about says they get from 23-28 mpg. I drive 17,000 miles per year with 2/3 of those miles on the highway. I can't take a hit on my gas budget like this. Any ideas on what is wrong and what I need to do about it? Thanks.
  • I bought a 2008 Rogue SL AWD 5 days ago in Montreal and for the first 900 miles I got 25-26 mpg (US). Same hils, about 95% highway at 70 highway speeds
    A/C on
    cruise control used about 50% of the trip
  • That is perplexing. You don't have the OD turned off do you? Or does yours have that feature? Even that should not account for the drop you're seeing. Maybe the difference in fuel (are you running 10% ethanol?), but again, you should not see that big of a reduction. I'd suggest you check with your dealer, but previous posts have led me to believe that would be futile. Go back through the string and you'll see one or two posts similar to yours (although not so extreme). My personal conjecture is that there's a 'glitch' in the CVT and/or fuel management programming. But, since it's evidently not throwing a code or lighting a light on your dash, the dealers aren't doing anything about it. There is a sequence for resetting the computer, but I'm not sure what it is. It's something obtuse like, disconnect the battery and turn the key to the 'on' position 6 times. And I don't know what other effects that might have, so not sure I would recommend it without talking to someone more in-the-know than I am. Still, it won't hurt to register your complaint. If enough people do so, maybe Nissan will do something about it.
    Quite frankly, posts like these are one reason why I've chosen to focus on the Forester. While there is some disparity in mileage returns on that thread, no one has reported anything like this or the issues one or two other have seen. Everyone over there is getting 20 to low 30s, depending on driving style, speed, type of traffic, terrain and road conditions - which is within the realm of reason. Aggressive stop and go city traffic versus steady state highway cruising makes a big difference in these little 4 cylinders.
    The only decision for me now is whether to go with Forester or go with a mid-size sedan - the Malibu LTZ. The Bu does not offer the utility or AWD of the small SUV, but it does offer much better mpg (33 mpg highway with the 4 cyl, 6AT) and even better creature comforts than either the Rogue SL or Forester Limited. I even like it better than the Altima 2.5 SL and the Altima is a very nice car.
    So, I probably won't hang around this thread much longer. But I do appreciate all the good information I've gathered.
    Good luck to you.
  • No, the overdrive is not turned off. I have driven it mostly highway for another 75 miles and now it is registering 20 mpg. That is much better than what I was getting, but I am still hoping to get back to the 25 mpg I had during the first 400 miles. As far as the rest of it goes, I think my 2.5 SL AWD Rogue has nearly all of the amenities my 2006 Altima 3.5 SL had. The one thing I am finding I really miss, though is no automatic headlights that turn off or climate control AC. The leather seats are very nice and are heated like the Altima. The biggest difference is my Altima got 30+ mpg on the highway and combined mpg was around 24. I really detest the break in period on a new vehicle. The other thing is, my husband has a tendency to go 80 mph on the highway, which coupled with crosswind probably kept me from getting very good mpg on the last half of my trip (I am guessing). I am sure he won't slow it down without an argument. He is also having a little trouble getting used to the CVT transmission, as he always loved to shift the Altima himself, although it was an automatic. Anyway, right now it seems there isn't any consistency to the mpg, so I will just have to keep an eye on it. I did register a complaint with Nissan, however. Thanks for your response, Phil.
  • I too have a bit of a heavy foot, so I've been taking that into consideration as I read these posts. The Rogue SL I drove had paddle shifters on the steering wheel, which would force the CVT to emulate a 6 speed. Interestingly, I noticed that when I shifted it out of that mode into full automatic at highway speed, it would actually shift to an even higher ratio than the "6th" gear of the manual mode, which means you need to be in "D" when crusing on the highway to get the best mileage. I will say this about the CVT in the Nissan, be it Rogue or Altima, it feels more like a 'normal' automatic than the unit Ford puts in the Escape/Mariner twins. I was also disappointed that they had no climate control. In fact, I would really prefer a dual zone. I have it in my truck; I'd think these vehicles would have that feature. Good luck with the mileage thing.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    which means you need to be in "D" when crusing on the highway to get the best mileage
    apparently true - have observed 70 mph to be at approx 2200 rpm if the tranny is left in 'D' BUT over 2500 rpm in '6th' a significant difference that logically would effect FE. The CVT while it does take some getting used to, is phenomenally smooth in the Rogueand cetainly 'smoother' than any AT I've ever had in any car - really don't understand why anybody would want to paddle shift it - after all it is no 'sports car' and overiding the computer gear 'selections' hurts FE???
  • just finished driving RT to Washington DC along I-95 about 300 miles. most of the trip, caught the "draft" of trucks. would not recommend this to everyone unless you have nerves of steel, quick reactions and someone to watch for state troopers to make sure that you don't get caught tailgating. but averaged about 30-34 mpg going about 70 mph. (don't know how truckers feel about this...having a little Rogue trailing them closely).
  • bdymentbdyment Posts: 569
    Well, truckers don't like tailgaters at all. If I were you I would stay away from truck stops. Seriously this is a very dangerous practice.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    If I were you I would stay away from truck stops
    yeah, no kidding - I think that those same truck stops might also have a different definition of 'justifiable homicide' ;)
    'drafting' (to be truly effective) requires that one follow any vehicle much too closely to be safe! They can and do write tickets for this kind of thing?
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    don't know how truckers feel about this...having a little Rogue trailing them closely

    In addition to that little Rogue being a danger and an annoyance, any fuel savings that you might get out of it is coming at the expense of the trucker. It's tough enough for those guys to stay in business without having to shell out extra cash from their own pockets just so you can feel good about cutting your own fuel costs. Moreover, the rest of us end up paying more for the products they deliver. There is no free lunch.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 4,098
    "In addition to that little Rogue being a danger and an annoyance, any fuel savings that you might get out of it is coming at the expense of the trucker."

    I have not heard of this. The big rig is going to generate the suction behind the vehicle regardless - the same suction with a drafter as without. There is no magical connection back to the big rig, is there? Where did you read this?

    My understanding is that the drafter is entering into the suction zone where the air came off the big rig. But that zone is always present...

    The truck drivers don't like it because people follow too closely, and the drivers can't see them in the mirrors.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    The big rig is going to generate the suction behind the vehicle regardless - the same suction with a drafter as without.

    I'm afraid not. Flow patterns are changed and the truck has to do extra work. The notion of a perpetual motion machine still doesn't fly. :)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • My Rogue, which is abt. 6 months old has been stuck on 23.7 MPG going uphill, downhill, city, hwy. etc. since the day I purchased it. Anyone running into this problem. Should I bring in for service, are most of you using these gauges for the mpg you are posting, or figuring manually?
  • I'd bring it in if I were you. Mine changes constantly and has been anywhere from .2 manual miles off to 1.4.
  • kenn2kenn2 Posts: 11
    gas like it is going out of style.

    they acted like they could not heare the noise in my CVT, until it finnally needed replacement, now my AC knocks, they act like they cannot hear that as well.

    wen the dealer service dep did not acknowledg there was a problem with my MPG, they called the service dept that said 17mpg was normal on freeway and then called me an repeated what the mechanic told me.
    since then we found out my car needed a new transmition

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    just 'converted' my 08 SL AWD to Pennzoil Ultimate 5W-20 last oil change. Overall mpg has gone from 25.1 to 26.8, which sounds good.... BUT over the 3750 oil change interval recommmended by Nissan (too short for synthetic?) I will save approx. 9 1/2 gallons of gas. Even at $4/gallon,. I only recover about $40, at $2 less than $20. Are syn oil change more than $20 o(or $40 more costly - yep. Theerfore, it would seem, based on my experience, that gas would have to get up near $6 to cover the cost difference using the synthetic (in FE) . Is the more expensive oil better for the engine otherwise - maybe?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,571
    Nissan has a 3,750 change interval for the Rogue? Or is that a dealer recommendation?

    My '99 Quest has a factory oil change interval of 7,500 miles, and it's kicking along at 129,000 miles using regular oil at that interval (or longer :blush: ).
Sign In or Register to comment.