Hello, everyone. About three weeks ago, my 2008 Nissan Rogue with 69,300 KM started creating a turbo spooling noise when depressing and releasing the gas pedal. I initially thought the Serpentine belt might be the culprit, but found it odd that the noise was emanating near the gear shift instead of the engine bay. The noise progressively got worse after a week, to the point that you could hear a whine at 50-80 km/h with the radio on. Three days ago, I visited a Nissan dealership to have a mechanic inspect my vehicle. Since I was well informed about Nissan's policies, thanks to the head office, I was able to negotiate the Inspection Fee of $105 + HST with the Service Manager...which I ended up getting for FREE. After going on a road test with the mechanic and duplicating the whining noise, we both agreed it might be the CVT. The mechanic was extremely considerate and ordered a new Xtronic CVT (~2011 edition) the next day. While my Rogue was in the shop having a new CVT installed, I got to be a soccer dad for a day. LOL. I rented a 2013 Honda Odyssey...because the only other option was a Nissan Versa, which I find to be gutless. After one day of CVT installation, I had my Rogue keys back in my pocket. I can definitely tell you that the Xtronic CVT is even smoother and a lot more responsive than the 2008 CVT. I cannot, however, say that it is any quieter because, well, it's a CVT. One thing that I have noticed is that the Xtronic CVT is quite smart when it comes to speed. Compared to my old CVT, the updated version seems to somewhat prefer lower RPM, unless your foot is made of lead. Overall, I like it! Cannot confirm if my fuel economy is any better since I got my Rogue today. The question now is: will the Xtronic CVT outlast the 2008 model?

from my understanding, its the same transmission from 2008 - to current day.

If you think a 2011 CVT is better than a 2008 CVT, then I can't imagine how painful it should be to drive a 2008 Rogue.

I hate the CVT transmission and I will NEVER buy a car with that stupid technology! Some of you guys love CVTs and think I am wrong. I respect your ideas but I am a typical car consumer with limited automotive knowledge (a typical member of the target user group I assume) and this is what I think:

At first I was enjoying the smooth acceleration (back at the dealer, during test drive, I fell in love). I still like how it slows down when I release my foot from the accelerator pedal (I feel like I am driving a manual transmission).

But...

I hate the lack of power when I really need (like entering highway or passing a vehicle) This is probably why they introduced "sport" mode in later models. My solution is to press the overdrive button, which I "feel" it is adding too much stress to the car

I hate the noise of the poor engine when I press the pedal, the rpm increases, but the car stands still. It sounds as if the car is manual and I fully press the clutch pedal and not shifting gears.

I can't tow even a small tent trailer. Because that CVT belt cannot handle too much torque!


I can live with these problems if that CVT technology saves fuel (what it is designed for). My Rogue is currently at 11.2 lt/100km and I am using ALL the fuel saving techniques.

I think (I may be wrong), CVT technology is like Hybrid/electric cars. The idea is promising, but it needs more time to reach to a certain maturity.

I think the CVT in the Rogue is great. I used to be a big hater on the CVT before actually owning one, but since I got the Rogue, I am very impressed. Smooth acceleration, engine braking when letting go of the gas, and no dramatic kick downs when asking for more power.

Hey OP, all Rogues have the older style CVT to my knowledge... The newer style is found in the '13 Altima and '13 Pathfinder. There are some problems found with the new ones too.

Qashqai wrote:I hate the CVT transmission

not a fan of it either, but it doesnt really effect me to much

I hate the lack of power when I really need (like entering highway or passing a vehicle)

its a 2.5L thats only pushing 170hp. thats the problem. you couple that into an AWD with large tires, and you are asking for a turtle.

This is probably why they introduced "sport" mode in later models.

they added the sport mode because the basic program (MAP) is designed to drop the engine RPM quickly, to save fuel - not because the car isnt "fast/powerful" enough.

My solution is to press the overdrive button, which I "feel" it is adding too much stress to the car

its not stress per say. but i wouldnt do it every day. all you are doing is simply downshifting as its designed too - but it refuses to do it because its designed to save fuel by keeping the RPM's down.

I hate the noise of the poor engine when I press the pedal, the rpm increases, but the car stands still.

again, thats all programing. the MAPs that are in the computers are shooting the engine up, and slowly engaging the transmission.
if you allowed the engine and tranny to engage at a high RPM - you'd blow your AWD system out. its a small SUV - what did you expect?

I can't tow even a small tent trailer. Because that CVT belt cannot handle too much torque!

its not just the tranny. its the awd system. like every car, we have the engine & tranny right? well in our small AWD we have a tiny transaxle(which takes the transmissions spinning gears and robs some of the power to send it to the rear wheels via a shaft). from there you have the rear differential with a clutch-pack that cant take too much abuse, and gears. connected to the rear differential are 2 CV-Joints.

I can live with these problems if that CVT technology saves fuel (what it is designed for). My Rogue is currently at 11.2 lt/100km and I am using ALL the fuel saving techniques.

the CVT isnt all about saving fuel. the CVT is about removing weight, moving/spining pieces of metal, and reducing the complexity of a transmission. if anything - its a cost savings for Nissan. the real fuel savings comes from the PROGRAMING of the MAPs. like on my racebike, i hook it up to a computer and i can re-map the whole computer on the bike to run like a fuel burning beast, or a tame fuel sipping p****-mobile.

I think (I may be wrong), CVT technology is like Hybrid/electric cars. The idea is promising, but it needs more time to reach to a certain maturity.

BINGO.


in conclusion: the current market of buyers wants 2 things: INFOTAINMENT, AND GOOD MPG's. with the two, will come pluses and minuses. with the two will come new technology and issues. BUT LETS FORGET THE INFOTAINMENT ASPECT OF THE CONVERSATION AND FOCUS ONLY ON THE MPG's. part of the issues is working out the bugs. well in the engine design room - the bugs have been pretty much worked out since this engine has been around for a while. hell, engines have only slowly changed in design, thus allowing engineers to foresee issues- in any car maker. the transmissions have been changing drastically year after year. because at the end of the day - the drive-train (aside from the engine) is still a relatively growing field. unlike engines, there is still a TON of room for advancement and growth. there is still a TON of things that can be done to improve "cars" in general. from awd advancements, to slip-systems, electronic sensors, and how each is positioned were, engaged how/when, etc = the art and design or transferring engine power into making the car move = is absolutely F-ing insanely complicated. and the more modern things become - the more complicated it gets. and the more people demand better fuel economy, the more stress is placed on drain-train components - why? because the modern engine is pretty much as good as it gets. its my honest opinion that we wont be able to squeeze much more out of our engines in order to appease the MPG hunting crowds. 70% of power is already wasted in a modern engine, i dont see that changing anytime soon. so the only place left to advance and change is the transmissions. and since every year or so a new transmission is created and used = you have new issues.

specifically in our rogue, i see this issue: the population demanded BETTER FUEL ECONOMY - and the nissan engineers over reacted by placing MAPs in our car to drop the engine RPM(thus using less fuel), thus increasing the stress on our transmission - which creates a new set of problems = the transmission is then forced to be in specific gear ratio's that will allow the engine to not bog down. so what you have is an engine & transmission thats programed to drive at a turtles pace, the driver then over-compensates by apply even more throttle - causing the transmission to re-hunt a new gear ratio and the engine reacts by shooting the RPM up.

bottom line is this: NISSAN OVER COMPLICATED THINGS. THEY TRIED TO CREATE A HARMONIOUS, SLOW, FUEL SAVING SYSTEM, HOPING PEOPLE WILL NOT CRAVE THE 'NEED FOR SPEED'. NEWS FLASH: nissan used the wrong engine in the rogue (which has a RPM dropping transmission & electronic programing(maps) to add to the problem!) if the engine had more power powerful, it would be able to keep the RPM's down while still able to have high power, thus allowing the transmission to turn as slowly as it craves, and wouldnt require the driver to stomp on the throttle to achieve normal driving speeds.

the rogue is a total pain in the @ss. its small, so you cant put too powerful of an engine (like the vq3.5). it would simply twist the uni-body frame to much and blow out our transmission. you cant put too powerful of an transmission to compensate for the 3.5L power you want, it wouldnt have the room for both. and at the same time you want all of those features, plus awd, and to save gas. something has to give. so they chose this CVT program. it works. but the programing sucks. if they changed the programing(maps) the MPG's would go down.

again, you cant have it all in this small sentra based SUV.

ImStricken - you may be right as I cannot find out the manufacturing year through the part number. Having all this said, the mechanic told me Nissan usually swaps older CVT generations with more refined ones. Which is why he suggested my new CVT will be a 2011 edition.

Qashqai - CVT's are definitely not for everyone. Yes, they are not made for towing or even brutal acceleration. However, their ability to save fuel for both large and small vehicles while also offering good acceleration time are some of their strong points. While I drove the 2013 3.5L 248 horsepower Honda Odyssey with a regular transmission, I noticed the power was there and it shifted gears pretty smoothly....but you had to floor the car to get on the highway. At the end of the day, car manufacturers are trying to achieve fuel efficiency...which is why even Honda, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Jeep, and Chrysler are embracing CVT technology. It will take time, but I bet they will eventually be able to handle proper towing and the delay in the acceleration will be removed.

This is why I love this forum. I write something and get a response in minutes. It is like a real conversation!

Thank you guys. I understood what you wrote and as I said, I am just a regular consumer.

I agree with you. It is a Sentra based, small SUV. I am not expecting too much. But I rent a Volkswagen Tiguan, it was 2.0 liters, AWD, 200 hp, automatic transmission and turbocharged. I love the way it accelerates, responds to my input and it is consuming less than my Rogue.

At the end of the day, it "looks" like my Rogue although smaller than my Rogue.

Instead of trying to drive a 2.5 lt, 170 hp, AWD, CVT Rogue I prefer to drive that.

I mean I wish I purchased something else...

i hate this engine. its was great in a FWD sentra SER specv back in 2003 - and thats it. if that.
this engine is out-dated and underpowered. thats a HUGE aspect of the problem with the rogue. and you want proof that the engineers are screwing around with us? the Nissan Rogue & Altima have the same engine. the Rogue has 170hp, and the Altima has 182hp. EXPLAIN THAT NISSAN!?

a powerful engine works easier, thus using less fuel. a transmission geared and programmed to not drive as fast (lets say max speed of 100mph) could EASILY have amazing reaction and torque when needed.

tell me why our cars are geared to drive 140mph, 160mph? higher end speed takes away from acceleration power. NISSAN NEEDS TO PULL ITS HEAD OUT OF ITS ANAL ORIFICE AND START RE-ORGANIZING ITS TEAMS WITH SMARTER PEOPLE, VERSUS "YES SIR" TYPES.

Qashqai wrote:Instead of trying to drive a 2.5 lt, 170 hp, AWD, CVT Rogue I prefer to drive that.

I mean I wish I purchased something else...

I find the Juke (been in a couple test drives), with the CVT, to "feel" quicker than the Rogue. So I'm not too sure that the problem you have is with the CVT itself because I think the Juke is a good example of a CVT-based car that gives you the "feel" you want and it's from the same manufacturer. Rather it's a problem with the Rogue.

Whether it's the programming, engine itself, etc... who knows. But don't dismiss all CVTs based on just the Rogue. I know I have an Outlander as my rental right now while the Rogue is repaired and it "feels" faster with the CVT and manu-matic (or whatever you call the manual shifting on the CVTs), yet it has AWD (my Rogue doesn't).

programming the MAPs is a HUGE part of whether the car is lame or hot. the rogue designer clearly acted out in a desperation to appease the masses and solely focused on great MPG numbers - versus good mpg & fun to drive. but with this under-powered engine, heavy car, it was a challenge.

• i think the rogue is a huge failure on many aspects:

design = lame, plain, not adventurous/sporty/inspiring at all
power = underpowered. engine not tuned to expose true potential
MPGs = in reality, it sucks because the numbers nissan writes, are if you drive like the snail they programed this car to be -> which is not realistic.
features: aside from the 4 cam-reverse feature - what does it have that makes it stand out? NOTHING. non-nav models dont have a color touch screens. no heated rear seats. no rear a/c vents. no projector headlights. no LED accented exterior. HECK MY SANTA FE HAS ALL OF THOSE FEATURE PLUS LED ILLUMINATED DOOR HANDLES:



JUST WAIT TILL NISSAN DESIGNERS GET A HOLD OF THE NEW SANTA FE TUIX EDITION COMING OUT. THEY'LL HAVE A HEART ATTACK:

Qashqai wrote:I think (I may be wrong), CVT technology is like Hybrid/electric cars. The idea is promising, but it needs more time to reach to a certain maturity.

I've had nothing but good experiences with both. CVT on our Rogue works great. I have no complaints regarding lack of power. Our RX 400h gets better gas mileage than the RX 350 and it's faster. Obviously, YMMV. There's no right or wrong. Your preference is your preference. The only wrong thing is that you ended up with the wrong vehicle.

ImStricken wrote:again, you cant have it all in this small sentra based SUV.

^ This.

Hate to burst everyone's bubble, but this thread was not intended to compare one car manufacturer to another. We're getting off topic now...

Take the Murano for a test drive and you'll experience an example of good power-to-weight ratio, engine and trans programming, and all-around driving pleasure. The Murano is slightly larger than the Rogue but has a much more substantial VQ3.5 V6 good for 260 horsepower, and much more low-end torque. It can be done, but like ImStricken said, they missed the mark a little bit with the Rogue.

I don't mind the Rogue powertrain, but I don't love it either, there are lots of valid points made here outlining some of the shortcomings. If this thing runs reliably and never leaves me stranded I won't complain, but I have to admit I've got my eye on something more refined like the new Pathfinder, although there is a lot of excellent compeition out there to check out.

takeshi wrote:Our RX 400h

quick side note:
does your car have the standard 3.5L in it? my parents have the 2007 rx350 and i took out the spark plugs from the front cylinder head and found oil pooled around. obviously the seals went. lexus refuses to do anything about it, claims its "normal" (WHICH ITS NOT!). but its their car and i cant fight their battle

kerrton wrote:Take the Murano for a test drive and you'll experience an example of good power-to-weight ratio, engine and trans programming, and all-around driving pleasure. The Murano is slightly larger than the Rogue but has a much more substantial VQ3.5 V6 good for 260 horsepower, and much more low-end torque. It can be done, but like ImStricken said, they missed the mark a little bit with the Rogue.

BINGO.

kerrton wrote:I don't mind the Rogue powertrain, but I don't love it either

same here. like i stated earlier, it doesnt bother me that much.

Qashqai wrote:This is why I love this forum. I write something and get a response in minutes. It is like a real conversation!

Thank you guys. I understood what you wrote and as I said, I am just a regular consumer.

I agree with you. It is a Sentra based, small SUV. I am not expecting too much. But I rent a Volkswagen Tiguan, it was 2.0 liters, AWD, 200 hp, automatic transmission and turbocharged. I love the way it accelerates, responds to my input and it is consuming less than my Rogue.

At the end of the day, it "looks" like my Rogue although smaller than my Rogue.

Instead of trying to drive a 2.5 lt, 170 hp, AWD, CVT Rogue I prefer to drive that.

I mean I wish I purchased something else...

I've had a VW Passat, my mother-in-law has a New Beetle, and my boss has had a Tiguan and Touareg. In all of the vehicles (which is my entire universe of subjects for this conversation), they have had multiple electronic components to go bad which all but render the vehicle useless. And on the Touareg, it was within a few months of the vehicle being brand new. For my Passat and my mother-in-law's Beetle, these electrical components always costed between $400-$600 to repair. So, as they say, the grass isn't always greener...

daltonvol wrote:I've had a VW Passat, my mother-in-law has a New Beetle, and my boss has had a Tiguan and Touareg. In all of the vehicles (which is my entire universe of subjects for this conversation), they have had multiple electronic components to go bad which all but render the vehicle useless. And on the Touareg, it was within a few months of the vehicle being brand new. For my Passat and my mother-in-law's Beetle, these electrical components always costed between $400-$600 to repair. So, as they say, the grass isn't always greener...

aside from ALL german car being very-very problematic, vw/audi are extremely well know to have serious oil issues & electrical messes. i wouldn't buy a vw/audi if it was free (its a shame, because audi designs are gorgeous in my opinion)

To keep things in perpective here, the Rogues two major competitors are the top selling Toyota RAV4 and Honda CRV, and they have almost identical power and torque numbers as the Rogue, around 175 hp, and there is no V6 option, just like the Rogue (2013 redesigned RAV4 dropped the V6).

In 2008 when I purchased my Rogue I wasn't able to test drive a 4-cylinder RAV4, the salesman told me it was a really poor, underpowered engine and they only order the V6. The V6 AWD RAV was way out of my price range, so the Rogue really satisified my need with its reasonably powerful, efficienct 4-cylinder at an affordable price.

Bottom line: Nissan did achieve some great things with this powertrain, in particular 5 years ago when the competition was pretty poor all around, or you needed big bucks to get in to the quality units. 5 years later I agree its time for a redesign/upgrade or refresh, and Nissan should be stepping up with a much improved Rogue next year. I'll be very curious to see if they play it safe and make incremental improvements, or if they swing for the fences and design something completely new and revolutionary.

Looking at the redesigned Altima, I think the same QR25 engine will soldier on, although I'm not sure if it has received any new tweaks/updates. Also looking at the redesigned RAV4 and CRV, they have a basic 2.5 4-cylinder so I assume NIssan will match their offering and its quite possible there will be a hybrid electric version too.

NIssan has put all its money and its fate in to the next-gen CVT transmission and basically ignored new engine technolgoy development like many competitors. I find this really interesting, Ford is full in to the direct injection and turbo charging of small displacement engines to increase efficiency without losing power, Hyundai/Kia is fully adopting direct injection engine tech for added power and efficiency (look at their 3.3 L V6, it is much more powerful than the Nissan 3.5 typically at 290 hp compared to Nissan's 260 in the Pat.). Honda uses cylinder deactivation, etc., etc. Nissan may have the right strategy, I don't know, there is something to be said for sticking with reliable, proven engine technology.

kerrton wrote: I'll be very curious to see if they play it safe and make incremental improvements, or if they swing for the fences and design something completely new and revolutionary.

I just hope it won't be too revolutionary. The completely removed all character out of the Altima with the 2013, and I hope we don't see that with the Rogue too..

I'd personally prefer a reliable engine over direct injection/deactivation/turbo/hybrid configurations which would pretty much be new territory for Nissan and is bound to come with hiccups.

kerrton wrote:To keep things in perpective here, the Rogues two major competitors are the top selling Toyota RAV4 and Honda CRV, and they have almost identical power and torque numbers as the Rogue, around 175 hp

hp means little to me when it comes to street cars like ours. its the gearing that's super important.

if you mate a 175hp engine with a tranny designed/geared to reach 160mph(ROGUE) you loose acceleration, for the ability to reach faster speeds. then if you take that same 175hp engine and mate it to a transmission thats only going to achieve 140mph(RAV4), you gain acceleration while loosing some top speed power.

so one is going to accelerate better, but max out at a lower number, while the other one is going to accelerate slower, but reach a faster number in the end.

so while in the most simplistic way- yes they are both only 175hp and might seem similar, in the scientific/engineering aspect of things = the rides could be worlds apart. am i saying the rav4 and rogue are worlds apart, and the rav4 is this responsive tire shredder? no lololol.... but i just wanted to clarify the just because the engines are the same hp(or off by 5-10hp), that must mean that they are equally going to be unresponsive/responsive = false

I agree, fuel efficiency isn't the only thing buyers care about, quality and reliablity are number one for most people. Follow Toyota's lead, they don't rush new technology to consumers just so they can brag about high efficiency numbers, they stick to proven technology and are slow to adopt new until it has been proven reliable in the lab testing. Look at the RAV4, this is the first year that they ditched the 4-speed tranny and finally adopted a 6-speed!! The Jeep Cherokee comes standard with a 9-speed tranny, and the Grand Cherokee (and Durango) has an 8-speed standard across the board this year. Sounds great on paper but will it be reliable? I'd go with Toyota's 6 over Dodge/Chryslers 8/9 speed for reliablity sake.

And say what you will about the QR25DE engine, but it is very reliable after its last round of upgrades in 2007 I believe, in part due to its simplicity. I have never read or heard of any maintenance complaints such as oil consumption, leaks, or failued components. Yes it could use some more refinement and 20 extra hp would be nice, but first and foremost I appreciate that I can count on it.

kerrton wrote:The Jeep Cherokee comes standard with a 9-speed tranny, and the Grand Cherokee (and Durango) has an 8-speed standard across the board this year. Sounds great on paper but will it be reliable?

i wouldnt go near those - if they were free. all the problematic cars use them LOL

the 8 speed is used by:

Audi

Audi A4 North American version
Audi A5 North American version
Audi A6[8]
Audi A7[9]
Audi A8[10]
Audi Q5 8AT version[11]

Bentley

Bentley Mulsanne (2010)
Bentley Continental GT V8
Bentley Continental Flying Spur (2013)

BMW

BMW 1 Series
BMW 3 Series
BMW 5 Series
BMW 5 GT
BMW 6 Series
BMW 7 series
BMW X1
BMW X3
BMW X5
BMW X6
BMW Z4

Chrysler

Chrysler 300 V6[12] (2012+ MY)

Dodge

Charger V6[13] (2012 MY+)
Dodge Durango V6[14][15](2014 MY+)

Jaguar

F-Type
XF
XJ

Jeep

Jeep Grand Cherokee (WK2) (2014 MY+)
3.6 (845RE)
3.0, 5.7, 6.4 (8HP70)

Lancia

Thema V6

Land Rover

Discovery 4/LR4
Range Rover
Range Rover Sport

Maserati

Maserati Ghibli III
Maserati Quattroporte[16]

Ram

Ram 3.6 L V6[17][18][19] (2013 MY+)
Dodge Ram 5.7 L V8 (2013 MY+)

Rolls-Royce

Rolls-Royce Ghost
Rolls-Royce Phantom (2013)
Rolls-Royce Wraith (2013)

Volkswagen

Volkswagen Amarok[20]

the 9 speed is used in:

Applications
Jeep

Jeep Cherokee (KL)

Land Rover

Range Rover Evoque[2][4]

Tranny's are designed by German tranny company ZF. The problem is that each car manufacturer produces their own electronics and control programming, and in the case of Dodge/Chrysler they will manufacture these tranny's themselves, so no matter how good the design is in theory, you're still relying on Chrysler's manufacture and QA/QC processes, and their electronics which affects everything!!

kerrton wrote:Bottom line: Nissan did achieve some great things with this powertrain, in particular 5 years ago when the competition was pretty poor all around, or you needed big bucks to get in to the quality units. 5 years later I agree its time for a redesign/upgrade or refresh, and Nissan should be stepping up with a much improved Rogue next year. I'll be very curious to see if they play it safe and make incremental improvements, or if they swing for the fences and design something completely new and revolutionary.

I think this point is what a lot of people miss. Vehicles go through a lifecycle and towards the end of the lifecycle they are not comparable to the competition if the competition has recently redesigned. Features are added that are easy to integrate without changing the tooling/process within the plants (360 degree view for instance) but features that would be challenging (new engine) are left out because of the high cost. The goal is that the manufacturer is able to get the most life possible without losing a large amount of sales/loyalty because of the massive cost with redesign. It's just not that easy to say "let's put in (feature x)" this year to keep up with the competition.

We can't fault Nissan for sticking with a reliable powertrain for the life of the current model Rogue. We can fault them if, when it's time to redesign, they ignore moving forward ahead of the competition for "same old same old".

Interesting read. Thanks for all the opinions. I'm going to cut against the grain and say the 2012 Rogue mating of engine and CVT programming works for me. I have never driven at 140 MPH, so a vehicle able to acheive those speeds would be of little value to me. Furthermore, when i exceed 70 MPH, the front end of my rogue begins to vibrate ( I assume because of the SUV tires). I would shudder to think what would happen at double that speed. For me mileage and a good sound system are far more important than performance. I drive 2 hours each day round trip to work and the difference in fuel cost more than offsets the bit of "fun" i would get accelerating at neck snapping pace onto the highway. I have used the sport mode button only once, to see what it did (not a difference i could notice) I'm sure at middle age my driving habits have changed considerably ( my teen age son gets 25 MPG in the 2005 Altima, I regularly got 29 before i turned over the keys) My Altima had the same engine and it still takes a moment for me to acclimate myself to the more responsive throttle. The only major mechanical repair I ever did to my Altima was to replace all 4 motor mounts, but at 180K miles, I have no complaints on longevity. Wanted to balance the preponderance of opinion with my voice, since I suspect there may be a Nissan engineer or 2 lurking in the shadows. Also, remember that the Rogue is likely aimed at the fuel economy market. Those that prefer better performance would likely choose the 6 cylinder engine in the Morano. Now, lets talk about adding an inside fuel door release.....

ras_oscar wrote:Interesting read. Thanks for all the opinions. I'm going to cut against the grain and say the 2012 Rogue mating of engine and CVT programming works for me. I have never driven at 140 MPH, so a vehicle able to achieve those speeds would be of little value to me.

thats exactly why i said: "tell me why our cars are geared to drive 140mph, 160mph? higher end speed takes away from acceleration power." acceleration power is also what can help us achieve better, more realistic MPG's in such a little SUV.

ras_oscar wrote:when i exceed 70 MPH, the front end of my rogue begins to vibrate ( I assume because of the SUV tires).

thats a very slightly imbalance, that gets more pronounced at higher speeds. it could be from your rotors, tires, rims, or it could be a ball-joint issue. id get that looked at.

ImStricken wrote:

ras_oscar wrote:when i exceed 70 MPH, the front end of my rogue begins to vibrate ( I assume because of the SUV tires).

thats a very slightly imbalance, that gets more pronounced at higher speeds. it could be from your rotors, tires, rims, or it could be a ball-joint issue. id get that looked at.

Agreed. My 2012 Rogue rides smooth as can be at 85 on I-10

mine gets carried away by the slightest of cross-winds. the steering is very sensitive with the short wheelbase as well.

ImStricken wrote:mine gets carried away by the slightest of cross-winds. the steering is very sensitive with the short wheelbase as well.

Not to mention serious drag in headwinds. Really kills the MPG's.

Man I guess I don't really notice... And I drove her 1600 miles this last weekend round trip (06/08/13). I think it feels better then my Lancer on the highway speeds. Sure the wheelbase is a little short, but that's why I can't wait to put my 18's on it Lower offset ftw.