Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I'm very happy with my Versa, it drives like a much bigger car in the last 4 tanks I have averages 32 MPG, this is mostly freeway driving @ 70 with the AC on..
Tony
P.S. I grew up in San Diego (Lemon Grove)
The current TDIs are too expensive and still relatively maintenance intensive. Comparing the much cheaper cost of our Versa to this (and some other competitiors) will buy a tremendous amount of gas. For what we needed (safe, efficient commuter with room for two large car seats in the back) we are very pleased.
I think I'm a conservative driver but run the AC a lot and probably drive a little bit so as to not hold up the flow of traffic.
Have kept pretty good records for over 400k miles and there is always a difference of 2-3 mpg between winter and summer.
SL CVT.
The 2-3 mpg difference sounds about right though.
) and rarely managing better than 28 MPG mixed city/road even when being more economy mindef. Has anyone had similar mileage? I've talked to my dealer, but he doesn't seem to take this seriously.
When I was younger and driving stick, my mileage was never very good. It wasn't the stick, it was my driving habits.
David
I have come to the conclusion that the Versa with CVT should get mid-40s mpg, if driven moderately. This conclusion is based on two experiences I've had with the previous-generation Sentra; one of them was today. The Sentra had a 1.8L, 125 hp engine and a 4AT. The Versa has a 1.8L, 122 hp CVVT engine. It weighs about 150 pounds more than the Sentra 1.8S with AT.
I drove a rented Sentra 1.8S 4AT from Denver airport to Boulder. Speed range was 60-70, with posted speeds between 55 and 65. Conditions: 94 degrees, sunny, west wind (I was driving west). A/C was on all the way (duh). Terrain was rolling hills and prairie. I reset the mpg meter at the Hertz lot. When I pulled up to my hotel in Boulder, about 40 miles away, it read 43.2 mpg. Last year I rented a Sentra in KC, and on a similar kind of highway jog it got over 40 mpg also.
Now, according to Charles Ghosn, Nissan's CVTs are supposed to be about 10% more fuel efficient than regular automatics. That would mean that a car the Versa's size, with a 1.8L, 122 hp engine that (I think) is related to the Sentra's engine, but is probably more advanced, should easily get mid-40s on this kind of trip, even though it weighs a little more than the Sentra.
But I don't see many (any?) reports of Versas with CVTs getting mid-40s mpg on the highway. I wonder why. Maybe everyone is driving faster than I do? :confuse: Anyone have any ideas? Would the fact that these two Sentras I drove were broken in (the one I have now has 22k on it) have anything to do with it?
David
Heck, my '81 Sentra got mid 40's around town and I hit 54mpg on the highway with it. Maybe it's emmissions stuff.
Of course, the mag comparo showed something else in the end.
Those seem like realistic numbers for a sensible driver.
David
But my car was a stripped model, no a/c, power-nothing, 4sp stick. The Versa has far more accoutrements and safety features.
I think Nissan should offer a stripped Versa model, with a/c only, but no power options and no power steering. I'm convinced power steering robs a lot of engine power.
BTW, CarandDriver compared the Versa CVT and autobox. There was no appreciable difference in mileage. :confuse:
On www.fueleconomy.gov you can find one Sentra owner who reports 39 MPG but his driving is almost 100% highway.
It is possible to obtain 47 MPG but that would be no AC and 100 highway at 56 MPH (according to my cars computer). 58 MPG is possible at a steady 37 MPH but who would dare to do that for an extended period of time?
That would be dangerous and considering other drivers speed and agressive behaviour, a pretty dumb thing to do.
This is true if the PS is hydraulically actuated. The Versa has an electric PS, so it is not supposed to be a factor.
OTOH, the hydraulic actuator for the CVT pulleys does sap some power.
I think one reason cars from the '80s got such great fuel economy is that they were relatively light compared with compacts of today. Cars like the Sentra, Civic, Corolla back then were around 2000 pounds. Today they are nearing 3000 pounds; the Versa is not quite 3000 but pretty close. Also the engines back then were much less powerful--tuned more for fuel economy than power. My '97 Sentra 1.6L had only 115 hp, for example. My '85 Civic 1.5L had about 70 hp I think. No wonder cars like that could easily get over 40 mpg.
But it is still odd to me that the Versa, which has the latest engine and transmission technology, cannot get at least as good FE as a Nissan that is one generation older and has an engine of the same size and about the same power, with only a 150 lb. weight difference. It appears we are going backwards in fuel economy, even as gas tops $3.00/gallon in the U.S. and much higher in other countries.
I think that performance expectations do play some role in this reality. For instance, take the Versa. In Japan, 95% of the Versa (Tiida) sold there come with 1.5 L. Would it be slower than the Versa? You bet. But does it get a better mileage than the Versa? Since the JDM Tiida is not available here, we cannot directly compare. But the 1.5 L Tiida gets about 10% better mileage than the 1.8 L Tiida. In Japan, the 1.5 L is just fine for everyone. For North America, Nissan thought otherwise. Therein lies the price paid in reduced gas mileage.
The same goes with the Fit. At least 90% of the Fit sold in Japan are 1.3 L. Does 1.3 get a better mileage than 1.5, like the engine available in the NA Fit? In a comparision between the JDM Fit 1.3 and 1.5, 1.3 again gets about 10% better mileage. But Honda brought the 1.5 L to North America, probably because of the performance expectations of this market. At least, that's my theory.
But keep in mind the ECHO is also a light, low-powered car compared to the Versa--about 2000 pounds, about 100 hp.
One benefit of course for the extra weight of today's compacts is that they have better crash safety than the older cars. The Versa leads its class in IIHS scores. Maybe that is an acceptable trade-off for the relatively low fuel economy. But I'd really like to have both, if that is possible.
David
Yes, I agree that crash safety is something that the newer cars tend to be better in, and that is where the weight is going. An example in case: the 'kei'-class cars in Japan used to be all 360 cc. Then the regulations were changed, and a displacement of up to 660 cc for the same class was permitted, as were larger dimensions for the body. And the reason for this was precisely that - crash safety. Did the 'kei' cars get a better mileage when they were smaller? Yes. But are today's 'kei' cars safer? Definitely. I guess most Japanese drives are able to live with this trade-off.
The true test of technology now may be, given the same crash safety level, whether near-future cars can get a better mileage than today's cars. That may be a more valid form of comparision in a few years' time than to compare today's cars with cars of yesteryear.
Basing MPG from a 40mile drive and the car's trip computer doesn't tell you much. Try driving a few hundred miles and manually calculate the MPG and tell us what you get, and then do that a few times to get a real average.
So next time you rent a Sentra, fill it up. Drive it around for a week or however long you have it, record the gallons you put in and manually calculate your average based on the miles you drove that week. It's easy especially since you'll fill it up anyway before you turn it in.
I recently burst someone's bubble who thought they were getting 32mpg on a vehicle that had EPA estimated highway mileage of 25mpg. I told them that that seemed WAY too high, but they insisted they checked their mileage everytime they filled up. So I asked them to explain exactly what they did...
Turns out that the first time they filled up the car, it took 10 gallons to fill up and they assumed that's how much the tank held. Then they looked at how many miles they had driven since they last filled up and divided by 10 :confuse:
Their tank actually held a bit more than 13 gallons. Their true mileage was right in that 25mpg range!
That being said, there's no reason that a Versa should be expected to get any better highway MPG than a Sentra on these purely 100% highway drives at 65mph. Once any vehicle is cruising on the highway, aerodynamics plays more of a role in mpg over anything else.
I don't know the drag numbers for the '06 Sentra and Versa but just from the looks of them I wouldn't expect the Sentra to have a significant advantage there.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if anyone can achieve 43.2mpg in the Versa on a 40 mile drive from Denver to Boulder going the exact same speed as you
Actually, I'd like to see a report of that kind of mpg at a similar speed (average 65 mph) under ANY conditions--except all downhill.
I have yet to see it lurch when shifting from reverse to drive.
The A/C on the other hand is a bit over powered. If you are crawling in traffic, it could be weak. However if you are driving it gets rather cold. If anything the car needs more settings on the fans speed. I go between too cold and too hot real fast.
As for weird abrupt hesitation, No, never had it, but remember this thing is no Mazda. It is not built for speed.
As for your gas mileage, my experice is the versa does not like sitting around in traffic. Which is what it sounds like you are doing a lot of. The engine is much too big to sit around and just sip gas. Versa is no gas guzzler, but it is no miser either.
It sounds like you wanted a Mazda 3 (I love the 3) and bought the Versa on price alone. The Versa is not a less expensive Mazda 3. It's a very different vehicle with noticeably less power.
MPG has a lot to do with the driver. I've never gotten less than 27mpg but I don't have to routinely sit in bumper to bumper.
A very common driving habit is to give it too much gas in city conditions only to use the brakes moments later to overcome the acceleration. That kills mpg. I did it for years. It was a tough habit to break.
I LOVE my Versa.
David
I took it to the dealer and they checked all the "alpha" ratings (whatever that means) and everything was within specs. I have contacted customer service as they advertise the cars "up to 33mpg" and I want to know how to get 33mpg? I have checked tire pressure (as advised by one forum writer) and it is fine. Any ideas on who might listen to this complaint and might have the power to do anything about it? Nissan seems to say that the Feds make up the gas mileage ratings, not the car companies.
Please advise.
Thanks.
Frustrated in California
David
First day, there was a 4 mile stretch of highway under construction where traffic was backed up to a crawl and got me behind schedule, so we ran the rest of the trip between 75-80mph to just get there on time.
on Thursday, no traffic backup in the construction zone, and we made the run between 65-70 mph.
I had filled up before and after the first run, and did the same on the second one.
Mileage for Tuesday, 32.7, mileage for Thursday, 35.1. Only difference, driving style.
That's an interesting theory - and you may be onto something there.
When you can have six gears in a car of this kind, you'd imagine that the auto maker would have five gears in a relatively close ratio for acceleration, and put the sixth on a very high gear ratio for cruising. However, a smaller-engine car like the Versa would not have enough torque to overcome such gearing under a severe load, thus requiring a downshift, which some drivers may take as an annoying inconvenience. By intentionally lowering the top gear, you'd have an RPM penalty, but that higher RPM would either put the engine in a torque sweet spot or produce enough of horsepower to make up for the lack of torque, thus reducing the need to downshift. I may be totally wrong on this, but your theory is plausible on this ground.
With 6- and 7-speed ATs, the top gear is always super-overdrive. But then again, these are automatics after all.
Well the way cruise works in a manual sort of shoots down that theory :P
I really prefer the way cruise functions in a manual vs. the way it works in an automatic. The automatic will downshift to maintain speed, and will do so on not overly steep grades where cruise in a manual will just motor on.
We rented a larger vehicle for vacation last year, and naturally it had an automatic. It drove me nuts on the highway as it was downshifting everytime we hit any upgrade. The speed would vary quite a bit.
In the manual, if I set the cruise when I'm at 65, we stay at 65. I stay at 65 on slight upgrades where cruise on an automatic would downshift. When I get to a grade (and it has to be fairly steep) where I need to downshift, the cruise kicks off and I take control again. Lazy never enters the equation, because if I decide to downshift on my own, it kicks off the cruise anyway.
In all the driving I do within 75 miles of my home, I have three grades where I know the cruise will kick off. And from experience, I know just about where on those grades it will happen, so I simply take over just before that point and downshift when needed.
Also, in cases where that would be true, that's because the manual has a lower top gear which lets it climb hills more easily while revving higher and using more gas. That is why many cars with manuals get lower highway MPG than automatics nowadays.
So what if the automatic downshifts to maintain speed on a hill? At least you don't have to keep resetting the cruise control.
Personally that's not a big deal and I think the gains in FE for a taller 6th gear would be worth some minor inconvenience, but I can't help but think that Nissan (and other car makers) make top gear such that it can handle most hills instead of making it super tall for maximum FE on the highway.
Just to validate myself here, I calculate this by driving about 30 miles past the gas light coming on, filling up my tank, and dividing how much I put in the tank (usually 11+ gallons) by the total miles driven on that tank.
I read your posting and was amazed at the mileage you are getting. I recently purchased a Versa Hatchback. Although, I love the car I have been very disappointed w/ the mileage. I am barely getting 260-290 on a full tank. I do drive more on the streets right now and was wondering how much you average driving in the city.
Thanks.
Almost all 1 year old and newer cars are "reliable" unless you have bad luck and get one of the lemons. Even that depends on what your opinion on what reliable means.
Someone will post saying they have a 2007 that has been perfect and someone else may post a laundry list of problems and both will mean next to nothing statistically.
I think one of the problem with people and the CVT is the way they drive them. Once you get use to driving the car with the CVT, then your mileage well improve. There is no reason to have the engine rev higher then 3000 RPM from a start, you well move briskly through traffic with no problems. But if you drive with your foot planted in the throttle and rev the engine to 4,5 or 6000 RPM then your milege well suffer...
Tony
My question is: Are there more cars on Indian School Road or people walking on the side of the road? Yikes. That place is crawling with pedestrians, every corner is jammed with people hanging out and/or walking really laid back and slow. It's too hot to do anything very fast.
In October I'm headin' up to Morristown to see legendary rock band Foghat. Can't wait...have you been to Morristown? Supposedly it's just 30 miles NW of downtown Phoenix on Hwy 60.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick