Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Nissan Versa Real World MPG

11213141618

Comments

  • jacksan1jacksan1 Member Posts: 504
    Nissan may very well have met its sales goals with the Versa.

    That cannot be. When you plan and build a plant like one at Aguascalientes, you do not plan to have it idle at any time. You have to amortize the investment just as soon as possible, and you cannot do that by idling the plant. What idling a line does is to raise the manufacturing cost of each unit to roll off the plant, and that happens literally every minute the line is not moving, without any exaggeration. Therefore, when a line has to be idled, the earlier sales goal no longer does any good, since you now have to build and sell more to recoupe the same amount of capital invested in the facility (unless, of course, you can raise the price of vehicle, but that would kill you too, only in a different way). The sales goal, then, becomes a moving target.

    It's a vicious cycle - you idle the plant because you are not selling well, but if you do that, you now have to sell more than ever to amortize the investment made. This problem is, needless to say, not unique to Nissan, as we all know in this day and age.
  • bookiebobbookiebob Member Posts: 3
    I've been interested in getting a versa for gas mileage reasons, however some of you are scaring the hell out of me. I realize that driving habits,temperature,tires, etc. have an affect on the performance. However, what I don't hear/read is the terrain of the land. For those of you who are getting poor mileage, are you in an area that's a high altitude? Hilly or mountain area, going up steep inclines? how about those of you who live on a fairly level or flat area? or along the coast where there are no hills, just basically at sea level? Is your mileage what you thought it would be? I would like see some responses on this.
    Thank you.
  • winkie733winkie733 Member Posts: 14
    hi bookiebob
    I've gotten poor mileage in my 07 Versa sedan with auto CVT transmission. I live in Philadelphia, Pa., at sea level and do moslty highway driving. I have yet to crack 26 mpg. Yesterday i filled up and got a whopping 23.5 mpg. I now have @ 7500 miles on the car, enough for post-break-in to have happened.
  • bookiebobbookiebob Member Posts: 3
    Hey winkie, sorry to hear that you haven't cracked 26 mpg yet. What does the dealership say about that?. Just out of curiosity, what speeds are you driving at?
  • alphabritalphabrit Member Posts: 8
    Bookiebob,
    S. Texas flat terrain, mild winter, 20 of 75 miles to and from work are city miles. I usually pick it up a little in the morning but do 60 mph on my way home to (psychologically) compensate. = 32-33 mpg
    Driving the white mountains of N. Arizona both in cold weather (snow) and spring weather =.28-30 mpg
  • g35johng35john Member Posts: 12
    This past weekend my wife and I took a road trip to Las Vegas. It was about 300 Miles from home. Driving about 75 mph on the way there, and doing lots of stop and go driving over the weekend we averaged 32.5mpg. I think that is pretty good. It will easily top the 33 mpg hwy advertised. Normal 50/50 driving I still only get about 28mpg though.
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Member Posts: 504
    The Versa is a really comfortable small car that offers a lot of room and nice equipment for the price. However, it is not known to be a high mileage getter, and if your focus is to get a good MPG, it probably isn't the right car for you. Yes, the Versa can get a good mileage here and there, but it does not get the best mileage if compared with other cars such as the Yaris and Fit.

    But if you are balancing comfort and mileage, the Versa, in my opinion, is not bad. However, be sure to look also at the Corolla, Civic, and maybe Elantra as well, as the Versa is actually in this segment. And these other cars tend to get good MPGs.
  • willleung_0willleung_0 Member Posts: 1
    Just get a tank of 17mpg with all way "laid back" driving, keep the engine rev between 3000 to 6000rpm, lol~ But the best tank I can get is around 36mpg with all highway.
  • alphabritalphabrit Member Posts: 8
    p.s. bought my Versa December 21, 2007 already have 12, 000 miles ! :blush:
  • bobmc2bobmc2 Member Posts: 1
    Versa base HB with Power Pkg and 6spd manual.
    2000 miles on my 2008 and I get 36mpg HWY and 34 overall. Suburban driving; not alot of close city driving.
    Average terrain: some flat, some hills.
    I drive carefully, anticipate areas where I can coast, do not generally drive above 2,000rpm, except for a burst to get on the highway and the 2,800+ rpm to drive 60-65mph.
    I do not downshift to brake often, but I do enjoy the advantages of a manual tranny.
    I am not a hypermiler; I drive carefully with the flow of traffic.
    Hope this helps for info.
  • patrevopatrevo Member Posts: 4
    Versa SL 6sp hb 2008, 2500 miles

    377.17 miles for 10.57 gallons 35.68 mpg
    Mostly highway 60 mph. I work 30 miles from home.
    I accelerate without passing 2200 rpm.
  • daniknightdaniknight Member Posts: 15
    Your idiot light doesn't come on 'till you hit about 415 miles?? That's got to be the best mpg of any Versa out there.

    Can you remind me which Versa you have?

    I've got a 07 HB with CVT (about 7000 miles on it) and I thought I was doing good with my best numbers being 29mpg town and 37mpg hwy (all flat terrain, near sea level (East Coast)). To see how driving style might change the mpg, I drove a lot more aggressively on my last tank (mostly town, some very short hwy)... quick take-offs from lights, getting up to speed faster, punching it more... etc... basically having a lot more fun. :-) I managed 28.4 doing that. So not much less than when I drive conservatively.

    FWIW, I always wait until the light goes on before I fill up. I also let the pump run full speed until I hit about 9 gallons. Then I stop it and run it real slow. Then at the first click, I remove the nozzle.
  • wxwatcherwxwatcher Member Posts: 1
    You guys think you got hosed, I bought the car in August 2006. The sticker mileage then was 37MPG highway. By the time 2007 rolled around that number was hanged to 33 MPG. Talk about false advertising. I was getting about 27 miles per gallon until recently. I moved down to Florida and for some reason I am getting between 32-33 miles a gallon down here. I had the dealer run multiple diagnostic and everytime they said the engine was fine. Needless to say the dealer has also said essentially "sorry the sticker was that then now its this and tough luck". Over all I like the car but feel that they still owe me something.
  • winkie733winkie733 Member Posts: 14
    Do you have a HB or sedan? I get the feeling from reading the blogs that HB Versas get better mileage due to their more aerodynamic design and lower drag coefficient. I have a sedan and can't break the 26 mpg barrier regardless of the type of driving I do. And, I've had the dealer run diagnostic tests and check for leaks. The good news is that I will eventually move from Philadephia to Florida in retirement, so maybe, like you, I'll start getting better mileage. Here's hoping.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    If you are going to complain to someone, it should be the EPA. They are the ones who run the FE tests that are posted on the window stickers (which Nissan and every other automaker is required by law to do in the U.S.), and they are the ones who changed the way they calculate the estimated FE numbers starting with the 2008 MY. They did it to make their estimates closer to what people get in the real world.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I second that, backy.

    It isn't just Nissan... look at the EPA website to see that all vehicles were affected; some by larger margins than the Versa.
  • patrevopatrevo Member Posts: 4
    366 miles for 9.97 gallons on supreme gas.
    I average 35 mpg with regular.
    I do like to try supreme gas on my cars. With my Ford Focus 2002, i save at least 10% of gas on supreme gas. In the winter though there is no difference.
    62 mph on highway.
    I work on evenings, no traffic.
    I do some city driving maybe 10% of my driving.
    I love the car more and more, confortable for a small car.
  • highmiler650highmiler650 Member Posts: 75
    I am sorry, but would Nissan not mandate Supreme if the reward is getting 10% higher mileage?

    Why don't you try to drive the same stretch of highway twice, the first time using Supreme and the second time using Regular. Make sure the weather, traffic, time of the day and speed are the same. But wait, that is not possible, isn't it?
    It is very hard to duplicate driving conditions in order to isolate the cause of better mileage.

    I could swear that every time I put new synthetic oil in my car I save at least 10%, if not more. Reality is that for some reason I tend to be a little easier on the gas and that is all it takes to get better mileage.
  • jkev2jkev2 Member Posts: 2
    I have read some of the hypermileage techniques including putting the car into neutral when going down hill. Does this put additional stress on a CVT to say shift into drive from neutral at say 40 - 50 mph. Sounds like an easy way to squeeze a litle more MPG out of the car but I don't want to damage the trannie. Thanks for the help.
  • winkie733winkie733 Member Posts: 14
    I've complained in this forum about not getting advertised mileage (26-33mpg) in my 97 Versa auto with CVT. However, at last fill-up, I put in 89 octane and, this is probably more important, I controlled the nozzle by putting the gas in SLOWLY. I've heard that when you put gas in quickly, it evaporates and gets sucked back out of your car, which means you are paying for gas you are not getting. So far, i've driven @ 90 miles and the gauge is hardly off the full mark. Ordinarily it would be down to the 3/4 full mark. The care seems to run smoother on 89 octane too. Here's hoping my final mpg improves. I'll keep you all posted at next fill-up.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    I've heard about this technique before and still think it's one of the more dangerous things I've ever heard of anyone doing. Doesn't exactly sound like a smart thing to do to remove your abilty to be able to accelerate if you need to.
  • jkev2jkev2 Member Posts: 2
    Yes, I agree that at the wrong place and time its a dangerous thng t do. But what are the mechanical drawbacks to coasting with a CVT
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Plus coasting downhill in neutral is illegal in at least some states... probably because it is so dangerous.
  • pixel1pixel1 Member Posts: 14
    Just completed an 1838-mile trip through Idaho, parts of Montana, and Oregon in our '07 Versa SL w/CVT and used 50.85 gallons for an overall 36.1 MPG. Most driving was on 2-lane rural roads averaging 50-60 mph, with around 25% interstate at 60-70 mph. Only used AC for maybe 100 miles. We're really pleased with the mileage and performance, and now have over 19,000 miles on the car.
  • patrevopatrevo Member Posts: 4
    428.7 miles
    12.35 gallons
    I was trying to get 700 kms (435) with a tank. I was a little to close to a empty tank. I got into the traffic for one trip ( 1/2 hour of traffic ).
    A lot of highway ( 62 mph ).
  • patrevopatrevo Member Posts: 4
    402.6 miles
    11.05 gallons
    30% City and stop and go.
    The gaz light wasn't on before i filled.
  • rcosrcos Member Posts: 4
    I drive at sea level, in 60-ish temps, and fill with 87 regular. I saw no difference using premium, so save the 50c per gallon for more important things. Since I received this 4sp auto 2008 hatchback six months ago, I have gotten the following mileage (Canadian car):

    liters km's l/100km mpg

    43.0 430 10.0 28.2
    45.4 367 12.4 22.8
    44.0 440 10.0 28.2
    44.6 422 10.6 26.7
    45.3 415 10.9 25.9
    46.4 435 10.7 26.5
    43.2 425 10.2 27.8
    19.9 241 8.3 34.2

    The last figure is the only pure highway rating, but driven twice over a 7500ft mountain pass during the trip. The rest are 20% highway numbers.
    I measure tank to tank, and always fill to the second click, so these should be accurate. I would peg this car at 25/36 under my local conditions.
    I have to admit I too was disappointed at the ratings compared to the misleading sticker of 33/45. But, as was pointed out before, the room, power and comfort of this small car are very pleasing. Compared to the 2.5s 4sp auto 2005 Altima we also own, this car feels much less heavy (duh:) and gets 4 mpg better overall. (and 20 better than the 77 mustang :)
  • g35johng35john Member Posts: 12
    I just achieved 35 mpg on my 08 SL CVT hatchback. Thats including 30% stop and go traffic in Los Angeles.
  • winkie733winkie733 Member Posts: 14
    Hello all. Well, it's only taken me 9300 miles in my 07 Versa SL sedan with CVT to finally get decent mileage. Today I got 29.3 mpg! And, no changes in driving habits were involved. I have even been running the AC. Up to now, my best mpg was just under 26. If I can keep it at 29 or even push it to 30 I'll be a happy Versa owner. Hopefully this is not a fluke.
  • fishshtickfishshtick Member Posts: 5
    206 miles
    5.4 gallons

    I have a 2008 SL hatchback with CVT. I drove it off the lot yesterday with 12 miles on the odometer and a "full tank" to stay with family overnight (I got a really good price buying out of state) about 15 miles away. Today I drove the odometer to 218 miles from NH to Maine over a heavily rolling landscape with very heavy rain for about 40 miles (thus 206 since leaving the lot). I refilled the tank (with a top-off) at 5.4 gallons near Bangor. I ran the air conditioner off and on during the rainy period to help defog the windows (about 20 min). Outside air temperature was about 71F. About 15-20% of my mileage was in-town driving and the rest would be reasonably classified as highway. My mileage, assuming the tank was similarly topped-off by the dealership - which is probably a conservative estimate) was thus 38.14 mpg without any break-in period! As a late season 2008 my car had the EPA mileage estimate of 2/33 mpg highway so I am extremely pleased with my actual mileage.

    Keep in mind that I set the cruise control to 60 mph because I didn't want to be too rough on the car during the break-in phase. I've heard a lot of rumors that the key to sucking the most mileage out of the CVT is to use cruise control and I have to say it works.

    Am I wildly optimistic to think that with a break-in period I could reach 40 mpg? I have to say that I am more than willing to drive a 60mph if that is some sort of sweet spot for mileage (my rpms held just below 2k for almost all of the highway time).

    Awesome car for the money!
  • highmiler650highmiler650 Member Posts: 75
    I would average MPG over at least 5 tankfuls. I do not believe you will achieve 40 MPG consistently, maybe 1 tank once in a while.

    To break in the engine in your Versa, the worst you can do is use cruise control over the first few thousand miles. You should vary speeds and rpm's and let the transmission do much of the breaking, to properly seat the rings.

    If you are very light on the gas, you will achieve MPG in the 32 to 38 range.
  • daniknightdaniknight Member Posts: 15
    You can't judge gas mileage by a fill-up of only 5 gallons. The less you put in to fill it, the higher (and more inaccurate) your mpg will be. My understanding is that you need to run the tank down below a quarter and then fill it to accurately gauge mpg. I always run mine down 'till the idiot light comes on.
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Member Posts: 504
    I agree with others in that your mileage figure was derived with insufficient data. With a snapshot data capture, your number can look disproportionately high. Even larger cars like the Accord or Camry can achieve and have recorded mid- to high-30 MPGs when using snapshot datum.You need to do a full tank at a minimum, and preferably, multiple tanks as others say, before your MPG figure becomes more realistic and statistically meaningful. I hate to burst your bubble, but it is quite likely that your MPG figures will now be going downhill from what you posted above.
  • fishshtickfishshtick Member Posts: 5
    Hi folks,
    thanks for the insights. You make some valid points, and I appreciate the pointer about not using CC too much at this early stage (do CVTs have rings?). That said, as a statistician I cannot see how my estimate would be much of an overestimate since I used a conservative estimation technique (e.g., it would be difficult to underestimate the amount of gas used, unless the dealership has some way to get much more gas in the tank than me). Sampling error would decrease somewhat in going from 5.4 to 10 or more gallons. but not by a huge amount (like going from 1 to 5 gallons). Indeed, a much bigger factor in any mileage estimation would be the fact that with more driving one would sample more of a mixture of city and highway driving conditions which will obviously reduce the mean highway value. We call this temporal averaging in my field and it is somewhat problematic in that it confounds variation with the mean and can obscure very important trends within the data. If one ideally wants to obtain a highway estimate of mileage then the mileage should only be estimated for the portion of a tank that represents highway travel and the same could be said of city driving. I don't know about you folks, but its a pretty rare event that I burn off a whole tank on a highway, much less 5 tanks (I believe that would probably get me roughly from Maine to Montana). If one wants to reduce sampling error it would be much better to calculate the mean of several estimates for purely highway trips (fill at the on-ramp and refill at the off-ramp). This would provide an estimate of the pure highway value and and estimate of what we call the standard error of the mean (different than the variance of the data itself). This value is useful in that it allows one to actually quantify statistically whether one mileage estimate is higher or lower than some expected value (like the EPA estimate). One could of course do the same thing for city driving.

    Another way to handle error is to estimate bounds on the likely error and estimate what that would do to the final estimate. In my case, some quick calculations show that my estimate would not be off by more than two miles per gallon had I somehow put a full third of a gallon less gas in the car than the dealership was able to (and I did slow my fill near the end and topped off, which I usually do not do, to guard against this error and make my estimate somewhat conservative).

    I don't mean to be unrealistic and I hope you did not think that I was claiming that I expect my car will always get 38 mpg, I'm just happy to not get the really poor mileage that some folks reported (i.e., 20's for highway). I would still be very happy with a Versa that gets 36-38 mpg on the highway brand new. I should clearlyl get more chances to quantify mileage and provide the sort of estimate I described above.

    cheers,
    Mike
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    What we mean, talking about "short refills," is that the .25-.5 gallon "fill variation" based on pump shut off sensitivity and angle of the station floor is less significant when you are working with 10-12 gallons of fill than when you are working with 5 gallons of fill. Fill variation is the greatest single source of error in calculating mpg. That's why the recommendation to average over 5 tanks. Yes, you'll have to go on a holiday to get 5 all-freeway tanks. Yes, a small amount of city driving can really "kill" your apparent mpg.

    The engine has rings. Although modern cylinders have a "break in pattern" machined into the cylinder walls, the last two remaining pieces of advice - make that three pieces - are:

    1. Varying engine speed helps seat the rings. Thus city driving is better than freeway driving, and freeway driving with cruise is the worst.

    2. When cold,you shouldn't use more than 1/4 throttle.

    3. When warm, during breakin (first 600-1000 miles) you should use no more than 3/4 throttle - no "pedal to the metal." Speeds up to 80 or 90 are generally fine though, top speed isn't an issue so much anymore.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    ...and if you have a manual transmission, don't "lug" the engine during the break-in period. Lugging means letting the rpm get too low, close to the stalling point. Conversely don't leave it in 3rd on the freeway. Keep the rpm in the "sweet middle."
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Member Posts: 504
    And we have to remember that the number of gallons used equals the sample size. The fewer the number of gallons used to compute the MPG (the smaller the sample size is), the more susceptible the resultant MPG would be to data skewing. micweb's point about the five-tankful deal is essentially the same thing. You are spreading the fluctuations that occur at pumps over more gallons of gas, thus blunting the "data damage" of aberrant fuel-up experiences.
  • ttexastommyttexastommy Member Posts: 4
    I bought my 1.8 S automatic in July 2007. Averaged 31.8 mpg for the first 5000 miles. The mpg then declined gradually to a low point of less than 25 mpg in mostly city traffic with the AC always on. On a 1500 mile trip I got less than 29 mpg all highway driving. At 13,000 miles I went for an oil change. The tech inflated all tires up to 40 psi. EUREKA! In the last 2500 miles since that oil change I have gotten 34.4 mpg, about 70% highway driving with the AC usually on. Moral of this story is - keep your tires pumped up to maximum pressure if you want to get maximum mpg.
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Member Posts: 504
    I agree with you that maintaining a good tire pressure, or for that matter, a high tire pressure, does help with the fuel efficiency. However, I do note one problem with your comparisons. You first stated:

    The mpg then declined gradually to a low point of less than 25 mpg in mostly city traffic with the AC always on

    Then you wrote:

    EUREKA! In the last 2500 miles since that oil change I have gotten 34.4 mpg, about 70% highway driving with the AC usually on.

    I don't want to sound too picky, but from these descriptions you are not comparing your Versa in the like situations. There is a big difference between driving mostly city traffic and driving 70% highway. In fact, in some cars, a gain of 50% or more in mileage is not unusual when you go from pure city driving to highway driving even without raising the tire pressure.

    I and many others know that raising the tire pressure is good for mileage. The question for your Versa is how much of the mileage jump is attributable to the tire pressure, and how much of it is the driving condition. It is a little difficult to isolate the two with your situation.
  • jlkgoodjlkgood Member Posts: 1
    @!! :mad:
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Member Posts: 504
    Consumer Reports did get 20 MPG on their CVT Versa SL in a pure city driving environment. However, you wrote that your 20 MPG had come from the combined city and highway. What would you say the breakdown is between the two?
  • fishshtickfishshtick Member Posts: 5
    Hi folks,
    just thought I would let you know that I am still very pleased with the mileage on our Versa. We now have over 1300 miles on the car with 4 tank fills (first fill was a bit small but later fills were large (9-11+ gallons). I have yet to get under 33.2 mpg including one tank that was entirely in city driving and one tank (my most recent) that was what I consider tough highway driving (80+ mph, AC on and passing numerous other cars). A mixed highway-city tank with plenty of AC use (ca. 50/50 each) netted us 34.7 mpg. Clearly, how you drive the car makes a big difference in mileage, but if our bottom end stays above 33 for all types of driving (as it has so far) we certainly couldn't ask for more (we are doing much better than the new EPA estimate for the SL CVT 30/33). The potential to hit 38+ with careful highway driving (60 mph with CC and no AC) is just icing on the cake. Hopefully I will get a chance to try to replicate those conditions soon.

    cheers!
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    That's very impressive mileage with the CVT. Early reports indicated the 4 speed conventional automatic actually delivered better gas mileage, around 30mpg, although the CVT had better pickup. It's good to hear that 32+ mpg are within reach with the CVT. Maybe for my next one I'll get the CVT instead of the 6 speed manual. So far my mpg on a mostly freeway commute has been 32 mpg, good but not any better than my former, much larger Dodge Caliber with 1.8 and 5 speed manual.

    The other car I use for my commute (I switch them off to keep the mileage lower) is a Honda Fit and has been consistently returning 37+ mpg on the same commute, but it is a much smaller, less posh vehicle.
  • g35johng35john Member Posts: 12
    I am now conssistanly getting 34-35 mpg on my SL HB CVT. I drive about 70% hwy. Some of that time is in heavy stop and go traffice as well.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    The reason you didn't see the fuel gauge move as quickly when you filled up slow is simply because you were able to put more gas in the tank, not because you're getting any better MPG.
  • rennie4rennie4 Member Posts: 55
    I just drove 466 miles on my 2008 nissan versa cvt. I pumped in 12.5 gallons (top off gas came out) of gas for an average of 37.3 mpg. half the miles were pure highway driving at 60 mph. about 40 miles in traffic. The rest of the miles were suburban driving on 1 lane roads and some city driving. I usually average 33-34.5 without ever touching a highway!!!
  • rennie4rennie4 Member Posts: 55
    BTW my versa is a 2008 cvt versa with 40,000 miles on the odometer if that means anything.
  • highmiler650highmiler650 Member Posts: 75
    That means that you have one of the Versas with the highest ODO numbers.

    I drive a 2007 Sentra with CVT, average 35 MPG so far and just reached 30k miles.
  • masa3masa3 Member Posts: 1
    Hi,
    I recently got a 2009 Versa SL sedan and am very happy with it except with the mileage. I have 650 miles and I am getting an average of 30 mpg with mostly highway driving and driving at 60 miles/hour without much throtling. Does the versa 2008 have better mileage than 2009 or is it because I am still in the breakin period? My other question is that the main front headlights have a orange reflector on the side but I think it doesnt work as the left and right indicator lights are loacted in the front of the headlight. Does anyone know if it is for the left and right indicator and is it that mine is not working or am I missing something here.
    Thanks,
    Mansa
  • comuteguycomuteguy Member Posts: 2
    Disappointed for its fuel efficiency after driving this car for 4 months. The engine is capable of delivering more MPG. The poor gearing ratio on the manual 5 speed is preventing 2008 Versa from delivering at least 34 MPG normal freeway driving with A/C on. The 6 speed is useless as it is set too low to achieve any real fuel savings as a properly designed overdrive should be. It is equivalent to the 4th gear on my manual 5 speed Toyota Corolla. This explains why folks on the forum often mentioning about the engine noise on freeway speed due whining from the low gear ratio at 6 speed. Do not buy this car, if you're looking for additional fuel saving from driving a stick shift. Not this car. The extra $3000 for a 2009 Honda Fit delivers more value not to mention much higher quality control built into the assembly process than the Versa.
Sign In or Register to comment.