Using the 2008 test specification:http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...r.jsp

6-speed:26 City31 Highway

4-speed auto:24 City32 Highway

CVT:26 City33 Highway

Now stop your bitching.

That's about exactly what I'm getting on average. Although my freeway is a little lower when I drive over 70... as expected.

Some others:

'04 Accord became 21/31 (same as I was getting)

'03 Toyota Corolla became 28/37 (I beat that regularly)

The Honda Fit manual is now 28/34

Yaris manual is now 29/36

Matrix manual (more our car's size) 26/33

Aveo manual - 23/33

Hyundai Accent - 27/32

Suzuki SX4 - 21/26

It looks like most vehicles dropped fairly consistently. The biggest impact is on city driving. Overall the Versa is on par for it's weight, dimensions and it's engine size.

What also interesting are the EPA mileage on E85. The Suburban for example gets 14/19 on gasoline and only 10/14 on E85. That's a 28% drop! Last I heard... the NET energy output of producing ethanol is 20%... so we'd actually increase our total energy useage running all ethanol. Hmmm... geee.... that's a good sound energy policy,


Modified by motoguy128 at 7:00 PM 2/23/2007

I saw the story on headline news and rushed over to see the new numbers. I was a little sadden.....well for others. Mine seems to be way over the new EPA numbers. An average of 34/31 since I've owned it over the winter months I expect to get a slight jump once the warmer months come and when I install an intake.

I'm still not sure what the big deal is. The only cars that have significantly better mileage, have less power, better aerodynamics or are lighter. The Honda Civic, Fit, Yaris and Corolla are the only 4 with substantially better numbers. 3 are more expensive, the other is 600lbs lighter and in a different class. The Versa is about average in it's size/weight class.

Yeah and those three still can't beat the Versa in overall quality+mpg so i'm happy with my mpg

so I'm right on. I get 27.9 city and highway with the CVT. it's darn close to getting this all the time. not much change.

I am very pleased with the mileage from my Versa. 31-33 mpg combined consistently.

The Versa honeymoon is over for me. I just did a little cruise to town yesterday, put on 120 miles....100 of that on the highway at 65 mph and the top up took 5..5 gals when I got home!

That's 21.8 MPG.


Modified by longo at 4:56 PM 2/25/2007

I'm thinking that the lower lower fuel eco may be related to speed/rpms....oddly. I drive between 68-73mph normally and my mpg stay up pretty high. When I took a trip earlier this year, I averaged 34mpg at 74mph on the road. On a leg I decided to become more conservative to see if the mpg would increase, but the opposite happened avg 31 at 65 mph. I picked my speed back up (running low on time) and the mpg went right back to an avg of 34.

Also, I'm driving a man so you have to factor that in.

Proxim, the laws of physics are the same for you as they are for me....if the Versa motor is running higher RPM's, it's using more fuel. At higher speeds the wind resistance gets worse, creating the need for more gas, and higher rpms to overcome the air pressure on the front of the car. The Versa is not the most aryodynamic vehicle anyway, mine sort of looks like a big white refigerator tipped over with wheels. The other thing I should mention is the 65 MPH I was driving yesterday, was already 5 mph OVER the posted speed limit.Any faster and I am Radar Bait. BTW I have noticed that Consumers Reports who actually drive the test cars for fuel useage, reported 20 MPG, in town milage, so the "new" EPA Versa ratings are still too high. However, when I get out on the interstate I will test your system of driving like a Bat out of Hell, to use less gas.


Modified by longo at 4:43 PM 2/25/2007

longo wrote:BTW I have noticed that Consumers Reports who actually drive the test cars for fuel useage, reported 20 MPG, in town milage, so the "new" EPA Versa ratings are still too high.

They are still too high (slightly). I'm averaging 22.9 (4-speed auto) after 3 months of in-city driving.

Still beats the MPG I was getting in my old beat-up Civic though.

Yes I know the laws of physics apply to my car also. I'm fully aware that driving faster uses more gas. I'm I was simply what I experienced in my car, something that you can not challenge. Thanks.

Proxim,

So then we both agree that "driving faster uses more gas" fine, the only thing left to explain why that doesn't apply to you then, is your other 'factor'"driving a man" That I can't figure into the equasion, but it must work for you.I am always driving my wife, but that seems to make no differece to the milage.

Just made a 600 mile trip yesterday, and our CVT continues as it has so far in its 17,500 mile history. With 3 adults (4 adults for 100 miles) at 60-78mph depending on rain and speed limit it still averaged about 30.5mpg.

Looking forward to the change back to non-winter fuel composition, as that should add back the 2mpg I lost when it switched in.

I just filled my first full tank with my Versa and got 31 mpg. I am hoping that it's due to the "break-in" period as I have less than 400 miles on it.

I've read and personally verified that gas mileage results are not MPH but RPM. Specifically, starts and stops can either help or hinder your other driving habits.

While we can't always avoid sudden stops, one's starting speed is entirely under our own control. To get the best MPG, it is suggested that you push the pedal no more than 1/2" down or stay at or below 2,000 RPM whenever possible while you accelerate (from both a standstill and highway).

Clearly this is a huge adjustment for most drivers and you will no doubt have those behind you that appear as if they are going to drive right through your back seat but pay them no mind. You do this and I promise you will see a dramatic result.

I commute 80 miles a day roundtrip in mostly city type driving conditions but still beat most highway driver MPG. I've tried both Conservative and Mad Maxx style driving and I find that I either save or lose no more than 10 minutes on my commute but gain plenty of MPG and $$$$'s.

Meh. I'm not sure why it works, but it seems to work for me. Stranger things have happened. Like XterraVersa getting 42 mpg with mostlytraffic and he has the same engine/configuration as everyone else that's complaining about low mpg.

The EPA numbers on new car windows are more like..'Make a Wish'. Finally, after threats of congressional investigations, in 2008, the EPA are having to revise testing methods that have been the joke of the industry for 30 years or more. Unfortunatly the joke has been on us new car buyers! They have been getting away with posting the results of a dynamometer test in a closed building, no vehicle air conditioning on, no hard acceleration, 75 degrees F, and a brief top test speed of barely 60 mph. and then, for legal reasons, adding the fine print..."your mileage will vary" New car buyers gaze longingly at these unworldly numbers and nervously hope their mileage doesn't vary. It wouldn't, of course, if you just gently ran it in the garage on a dynamometer. In Canada, to make the numbers look even more impressive to the new car buyer, they print the 'Buyers Hope List' in "Imperial Units". (20% more MPG's than U.S. gallons) EPA numbers on my VERSA SL still show 36 mpg in town, and 46 mpg highway on the window sticker! When was the last time you were able to fill up with "Imperial Gallons"? We have had the Metric System for nearly 35 years, but boy, do those inflated U.K. gallons and miles numbers look great on the window sticker, compared to the Metric readings (for which we still don't even have a word for (liters per hundred kilometers)... 'Kilamidge?'... 'LiphKers'? much less a practical application without converting back to MPG's. Sorry, LiphKer Lovers, the rest of North America is still measured in miles, not Kilamidges. In 2008 the EPA numbers are grudgingly backed off a little, due to new EPA testing regulations in effect for all cars. In the U.S., for the Versa, it's now 26 and 33...still too high, by the way, but a small concession to the angry Hybrid Owner mobs with burning torches at the EPA doors. Consumer Reports are the only ones doing any honest testing. They secretly BUY all the cars they test, to avoid any Manufacturer's "Hanky Panky" or Car/Auto/GearHead Magazine affiliations with the Manufacturers, at the first stage of testing. Then Consumer Reports drives them like the rest of us do every day on the way to work, cold starts, Mad Max conditions in rush hour "stop and go" driving, with the a/c blasting from time to time. They also use different drivers so no one fudges the test results by driving like Gramma on the way to Sunday School. Under Real-World, In-Town test Conditions, the CONSUMER REPORT VERSAS get 20 MPG!


Modified by longo at 11:32 AM 2/26/2007

I too am struggling a bit with my mpg. Im averaging about 27 mpg. more highway than city driving. Dont ask specifics, but at one point I had to carry about 210 lbs of frozen chicken in my trunk, on highway. Again quick reiteration of physics. More MASS = MORE gas to push right? I qot about 33 mpg easy, maybe even 35. I didnt understand unless its the traction on the tires, but it shouldnt jump it up that much. I did get a little spike in average when i switched from the 93 gas to the 89 I read here i think it was that the ethenol in 93 actually makes gas suck

off topic, but funny how you live in Pasadena Cavalier . . . *COUGH COUGH*

Welcome to the board.

GoodbyeCavalier wrote:I too am struggling a bit with my mpg. Im averaging about 27 mpg. more highway than city driving. Dont ask specifics, but at one point I had to carry about 210 lbs of frozen chicken in my trunk, on highway. Again quick reiteration of physics. More MASS = MORE gas to push right? I qot about 33 mpg easy, maybe even 35. I didnt understand unless its the traction on the tires, but it shouldnt jump it up that much. I did get a little spike in average when i switched from the 93 gas to the 89 I read here i think it was that the ethenol in 93 actually makes gas suck

Well you should be using 87 as suggested by Nissan. You should only use higher octane if you have an engine with a higher compression ratio. An octane level determines how much compression fuels can take before igniting from the compression alone. In case you're buying the higher grades because it's "better", it's actually not. All 3 or 4 grades provide the same amount of power. Ethanol, which has 34% less power than gas, is used to boost the octane level. This is why you're struggling. You will get your best mileage once you switch to 87 because this is what the engine was designed for.