How's Your Gas Mileage?

[jeremyrowell]

Out of Curiosity, with the scanguage, what is you Air intake temp and your water temp?

[DejaWiz]

I think this one........

** snip **

.....or cause the engine startup problems.

I have a feeling it's something to do with the programing code of the ECM.

[RobsPages]

I have a feeling it's something to do with the programing code of the ECM.

I think there may be something to that. Are most of the folks with significant mpg issues on the CVT? Some factory may be setting the ECU to the wrong mappings for that transmission.

On the 6spd I get pretty consistent mileage.

[srellim234]

It could very well be. But why would that programming error, hard coded, be only throwing off a few cars and not others? I'm not an expert by any means, or even knowledgable about the intricacies of that type of programming, but unless there are variations in the program why would there be variations in the output? Don't they download the same software package into each car?

I still tend to think it might be hardware tolerances related. I hope you're right, though, because the fix might be as simple as a software patch if they can find it. It would beat having to tear the engine apart for a recalled part. Maybe Nissan engineers have found it but the recall and fix would be too expensive. Maybe we'll never know.

It's going to cost them some customers. The question is, how many?

[srellim234]

Robs- your post got in before mine. Thanks for identifying a possible answer to my code question before I had time to ask it..

[DejaWiz]

It could very well be. But why would that programming error, hard coded, be only throwing off a few cars and not others? I'm not an expert by any means, or even knowledgable about the intricacies of that type of programming, but unless there are variations in the program why would there be variations in the output? Don't they download the same software package into each car?

Maybe the vendor mislabeled some ECU's or the factory installed the incorrect units. There's eight different modules, after all:

courtesyparts.com/betasite/kb_search_result.php?keywords=[22611]+\(c11x&cPath=6382_6383_6409_6413

[srellim234]

So how do you figure out which one they put in your car?

[repind39]

Just got back from my 1st fill up (car has 17k miles BTW and auto trans).... got 289 miles out of 11.7 gallons = 24.7 MPG. I am greatly dissapointed as this car was mainly to save money on gas.... I have 95 Nissan Pickup, 4X4, stick shift, 150k miles with the classic KA24 that gets a solid 20 MPG so getting a little under 25 MPG on a relativly new Versa is a complete joke.

I might add that this first trial was with using the AC 100% of the time, not much highway driving but not "city" either... just regular roads that average around 35 mph with stop lights every 1/4 mile of so.... I also drive normal, consistant acceleration, do the speed limit etc. I'm hoping this MPG reading will go up when the AC won't be used.

But even so with the AC on and the conditions I described above, a little under 25 MPG is still a complete joke. I'm pretty mad so hopefully when I cool off I'll try to find some positives about owning this car and not feel like I made a huge mistake. A car like this needs to get at least 30 MPG to justify its cost.

[Ever Victorious]

I might add that this first trial was with using the AC 100% of the time, not much highway driving but not "city" either... just regular roads that average around 35 mph with stop lights every 1/4 mile of so.... I also drive normal, consistant acceleration, do the speed limit etc. I'm hoping this MPG reading will go up when the AC won't be used.

By auto, do you mean the traditional 4 speed automatic or the CVT? If it's the latter, I'd expect your readings due to the type of driving you do.

CVTs are made for highway cruising. The theory that they change their pulley/belt configurations constantly to achieve the best RPM for the situation unfortunately seems to work against them, in that heavy "city" (accelerating/decelerating) driving expends SO much energy reconfiguring itself, that it's actually less efficient than the 6-speed it's trying to beat.

if it's an auto... damn, that sucks.

I just finished tank #3 with the Spectra, and it's once again rock steady in the 29's, still higher than it's supposed to get. That was with a little more flogging than usual. If I restrain myself, I should be able to break the 30's in a 2.0L 4-speed auto that out-weighs the Versa by 300 pounds.

[Mubbly]

Just got back from my 1st fill up (car has 17k miles BTW and auto trans).... got 289 miles out of 11.7 gallons = 24.7 MPG. I am greatly dissapointed as this car was mainly to save money on gas.... I have 95 Nissan Pickup, 4X4, stick shift, 150k miles with the classic KA24 that gets a solid 20 MPG so getting a little under 25 MPG on a relativly new Versa is a complete joke.

I have the same problem. I have a real hard time getting past 300 miles on a tank.. unless I'm on the freeway.

[repind39]

if it's an auto... damn, that sucks.

Unfortunatly, the "auto" that I meant deals with the above quote.

I know this is only 1 trial so I really shouldn't take it to the point of that its always going to be like this.... but in the trial the only variable was the AC and I don't think it'll improve by 5MPG by turning the AC off so I'm worried I'm stuck with this until I dump the car. Since the car has 17k miles I'm gonna assume that the air filter has never been changed but thats reaching hard that it'll do anything.

I'm just gonna hope the car is reliable because thats the only thing that seems to make owning it worthwhile. I been a Honda owner for about 6 years (mostly Civics from year 99, 2001 and most recent one 2004 that I got rid off for the Versa) and after having the Versa for a few weeks it seems as if Honda spoiled me... the Versa has a weak A/C, crappy suspension, flimsy steering and now it seems like I'll be getting 25 MPG which is a huge down grade from a consistant 33 MPG from the Civic. I just have a crappy feeling that getting rid of the 04 Civic might of been a bad decision but time will tell, sorry for the rant, still a little pissed off at how things are unfolding.

[DejaWiz]

I just have a crappy feeling that getting rid of the 04 Civic might of been a bad decision but time will tell, sorry for the rant, still a little pissed off at how things are unfolding.

I can understand your frustrations, as I'd be feeling the same way if I were in a similar situation.

I suppose it's what use the Versa was bought for. My wife and I have a Rottweiler that loves to go "bye bye", so we needed a vehicle with ample cargo room that still gets very good fuel mileage. We are also planning on having kids in the next couple years, so we also wanted a vehicle that had exceptional rear seat room including getting things in and out of the rear doors. In that regard, the Versa turned out to be the best available vehicle for what our needs are.

If I were buying the vehicle solely for fuel economy and creature comforts at a given price point, I'd be very disappointed with the Versa, as I did expect to get more fuel mileage out of it. But, I can certainly live with what it provides since it meets all our needs.

Other hatchback vehicles we looked at:Honda FitKia RondoKia Rio5Kia Spectra5Scion xDMazda3Suzuki SX4
Modified by DejaWiz at 4:44 PM 7/22/2008

[Ever Victorious]

Deja... just read your planned usage for the car, and I just wanted to let you know that despite the good rear leg room, room up near the top rear of the front seat isn't quite as good. I mention this because for the first year or so of a child's life, they have to be sitting in a rear-facing car seat. Unfortunately, rear facing, our Britax Marathon fit no better in the Versa with tons of leg room as the Tucson, which has significantly less.

So when you go car seat shopping, an important thing to know is how deep it will be, front to back.

On the plus side, the LATCH system in the Versa is WAY easier to use than in the Tucson.

[dr.zed]

Well.. I must say I have to join in on the disappointed crew. We purchased our 2008 Versa SL manual 6 speed two weeks ago. It had 250 kms on it when we go the car.

That night we drove (with the AC on) a 100% highway ride for about 150 kms. We lightly varied the revs.

Two nights later the car ended up getting about 420 kms for 35L. The low fuel light comes up it appears with 15L of fuel left (50L tank?).

Our car now has just over 3000 kms. Wife put in 38L and the tank got 450 kms, then 35L and the car got 470 kms. She is filling up right when she sees the fuel light.

We will see where this goes.

[longo]

dr.zed, I ran a few conversion calculations on your fill ups and once you put them into Standard numbers, you are not doing all that bad...282 miles on 9.2 U.S. gal gives you about 30 MPG's. The EPA read-it-and-hope numbers are 33 mpg highway on the Versa, so you are not that far off.

Now if you convert into the Canadian B.S. numbers of over 40 mpgs' (20% higher than U.S.) then you are still at 36 mpg.

Maybe you got lucky and got one of the Versas that actually might ...someday.... after 15 or 20,000 km's , hit those elusive window sticker numbers.

My observation that the same 1.8 ltr displacement Toyota Corolla is a much better engine for mpg's..if that's what you need/want.

Personally I think right now..July 2008 is the WORST posible time to buy ANY new car.

The 85 and 100+ mpg'ers are on the horizon, or just a couple of years away. They will make our 34 mpg'er the new Gas-Guzzlers.

Honda now has a 2.2 ltr deisel engine in a full size car coming to America in 09' that is 50 state emmision approved puting up 44 in town and 54 mpg highway.

Google X-Prize info and see what's really happening.

[Alphahawk]

I test drove all the so called "little cars" before I bought the Versa. I don't know what is meant by crappy suspension....weak AC....bad steering. My steering is fine....I bought it because of the suspension as it was a much softer ride than the other cars in that class. I liked the Civic for accelerating.....better fuel economy and it was fun to drive but it was not as comfortable and could not carry fishing rods...golf clubs....coolers as conventily as the Versa. The Honda Fit could carry anything...except me....LOL....I was not comfortable in the drivers seat and knew I would be miserable if I bought it. It was the same with Scion XD. I agree with one post on here about the CVT. I think that there is something in the computer that controls this and it sounds like some cars may need what in the computer world is called a "firm ware update". I have never gotten under 31 US mpg since a very small break in period. My car now has 9,000 miles after only a few months. I do have to drive conservatively to get my 40+ US MPG on the interstate and a lot of times that MPG is only 37...and not at 75mph either. This post is for people who may be on here trying to find out about the Versa before buying. I drove lots of cars before making this purchase. In all of them except one.....the Mazda 3 hatch......I was wishing for more room in the drivers seat. But the Mazda 3 mileage was not where I thought I wanted to be. Plus I was looking at 5 grand more. I am not married to this car and if something great comes out in the next year or two I will eat the loss and trade. If you have not bought a Versa yet read this forum closely. While I am happy with my car way too many posts on here are having major problems and if I had read that I would have been scared and not bought it. I follow this forum closely and as I find out new things about the car I am hoping that these problems do not show up for me. If you have never driven a CVT before beware. It is different. In some ways I think it hurts MPG and yet on the open road I know it does help MPG. But the breaking resistance of this transmission is weird. If you will read up on the CVT some articles will tell you that it is programed to make the driver feel a clunk when you put it in gear....that without that programming feature you would not feel it engage when you put it into drive. I don't know......just read up on it. It is definitely different.

[dauphine]

I hope that some of the 10,000 plus views of this thread include a few Nissan execs, perhaps it will inspire a bit of investigation into the Versa's inconsistent fuel economy issues. Hope springs eternal.

[srellim234]

I hope that some of the 10,000 plus views of this thread include a few Nissan execs, perhaps it will inspire a bit of investigation into the Versa's inconsistent fuel economy issues. Hope springs eternal.

Don't keep your fingers crossed. I sent a couple of emails to Nissan customer service and a few other Nissan contacts with links to both this forum and certain threads that would hold a lot of value to them as to what their customers are saying about Nissan and its Versa. References to problem threads, too. They absolutely ignored me, not even acknowledging that they got my emails. Even though they're not #1, I guess they're still too big to care about the customer.

Funny thing is, business usually grows or shrinks to an equilibrium level as to what the company can handle. Nissan apparently has a lot of shrinking to do.

[repind39]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...lated

Looks like Nissan invested most of the R&D money into the new GT-R instead of making sure that their bread and butter cars in this economy are stable in terms of their selling perspective.

Still bugs me knowing that a car like a Versa, your typical aluminum can econo-box, can't even achieve its most important selling point; consistant fuel economy. While it is the rommiest and most comfortabel car in its class, I wish I would of done a little more research and picked up on this inconsistancy in gas mileage, would of made me really think about buying one since it seems thats is basically a coin flip.

As a few have mentioned here and there in this thread, this seems to be an electrical flaw some where... either one of the sensor readings is off and its running too rich or something because this inconsistancy people are getting is probably a minor bug somewhere that needs to be addressed. My friend had a 96 Civic that had a bad O2 sensor, thign was getting crappy MPG, after a new O2 sensor was put in it went back to low 30s.... just an example of what a small electrical component can do. There is really no reason for a car of this weight, engine size and power to be getting MPG in the mid 20s; mid 20s is a full size sedan gas mileage.

[Shad0wXCalibur]

My mileage isn't the best but it's not bad. The most miles to a tank I've managed to get is around 320 miles. Maybe that will improve as it gets driven more. I am just a little bit disappointed that an 08 car is not any better designed for gas mileage than my piece of crap high mileage Neon from 12 years ago. That thing managed 370 miles to a tank twice before and it has a big slow 3 speed automatic.

[RobsPages]

While something like MPG should be very easy to calculate - there are different methods each with their caveats. How exactly are people gauging their mileage?

Personally, I don't trust myself with math, so I have an excel sheet where I enter the odometer mileage and the number of gallons of gas I bought at each fill-up. It ends up looking something like this:

[srellim234]

I track mine in a little auto expense book from Office Depot and keep in the console of the car. I do my calculations, then post my mileage and fillups at fueleconomy.gov and let their calculator do the math again for verification. No mistakes.

Fueleconomy.gov allows you to download your own records in spreadsneet form so that's when I bring it into Excel. I don't have to key it in twice that way.

[srellim234]

My mileage isn't the best but it's not bad. The most miles to a tank I've managed to get is around 320 miles. Maybe that will improve as it gets driven more. I am just a little bit disappointed that an 08 car is not any better designed for gas mileage than my piece of crap high mileage Neon from 12 years ago. That thing managed 370 miles to a tank twice before and it has a big slow 3 speed automatic.

Miles per tank is pointless in a discussion of gas mileage numbers. You could be filling up after 9 gallons or 11 gallons. Big difference on mileage depending on which it is. It's necessary to do the math to see what you are burning per mile.

I routinely get over 400 miles per tank out of my six cylinder, 7 passenger Buick Rendezvous, but that doesn't make it an economy car simply because it has a bigger gas tank.

[RobsPages]

Thanks for the the tip. I check out the site and their numbers correspond with my own, which is nice.

I think it's a good tool for people to use to get their mileage in way that's easily comparable.

[longo]

I now think some of the wildly varying MPG's posted on this forum are as a result of bad math.

If you are not dividing the number of miles driven by the gallons you just put in to re-fill, then you will never get a correct MPG reading on your car.

Even if you do the calculations right, that number only represents that one tank. You could have just had a very milage-favorable trip, of nearly 100% Highway, add a little tail-wind and a reasonable speed and you should have a very nice number.

So if you want to know the best MPG's your Versa will get, that's the way to do it.

If you want to know what the car does on a tank of normal city, stop and start conditions...then do the numbers on that, and live with it.

But it seems some Posters on this Forum try to figure out the MPG's based on how many miles they got on a fill up without dividing the gallons used into the miles they got....

Fill-ups are not created equal due to many variables at the pump, neither is the statement "I always fill up when the fuel light goes on".....

Always? Really?

At the exact time the light goes on..or when you finally find a gas station with the best price?

I do think there is some really Bad Math on this forum.

[repind39]

I do think there is some really Bad Math on this forum.

I agree, the people who posted getting 40+ MPG had to do something wrong... I would go as far as to say that its not impossible, but very improbable.

This was probably mentioned in this forum a dozen times but the easiest way to calculate gas mileage is to top off your car to a point where gas almost spills out (or squirts out a tiny bit), drive a X amount of miles (100+ miles to get a decent reading) and then top it off again at the same gas station and see how many gallons went in which is shown on the pump.... then divide X by # of gallons that went in.

[Alphahawk]

I don't know how other people do their math for MPG. Mine is done by dividing the miles driven by the number of gallons gasoline used....pretty simple. Yes the tank is topped off to the max each fill up. I have been doing this for years and not just to see how good my MPG is but if you do the check regularly and your MPG suddenly drops it can forewarn you of an upcoming problem in or on or around the engine....basically something is amiss with the car. As I have stated in other posts driving on the interstate in Tennessee with cruise set at 55 to 60 I can get 40 to almost 42 US MPG. I have done it many times in my 2008 Versa CVT. Just filled up after my week of golf which is a 46 mile round trip each day with 10 miles of that leaving a small town and coming into a small town with a few lights to go through. My US MPG for this tank was just over 34 US MPG. I know the Versa is not the best for MPG out there but some of these posts that I read with the MPG in the very low twenties makes me wonder what is going on. Can there be that huge a difference in the different cars coming off the same line?

[RobsPages]

I agree, the people who posted getting 40+ MPG had to do something wrong... I would go as far as to say that its not impossible, but very improbable.

This was probably mentioned in this forum a dozen times but the easiest way to calculate gas mileage is to top off your car to a point where gas almost spills out (or squirts out a tiny bit), drive a X amount of miles (100+ miles to get a decent reading) and then top it off again at the same gas station and see how many gallons went in which is shown on the pump.... then divide X by # of gallons that went in.

Umm. No.

You're gas tank has an overflow valve that spills gas onto the pavement should you push too much into the tank. Trying to fill it all the way to the top is a waste of gas and money. When the fuel gauge says "empty" the Versa should take about 11 gallons (the other 1.5 are "reserve") unless you realllllllly stretched it.

The rest of what you said is ok. If you record mileage and number of gallons at each "fill-up" (meaning anytime you get gas) you will negate any error introduced by not filling all the way up over time.

[srellim234]

Two ways to be getting over 40 mpg out of the Versa:

1. Serious hypermiling, of which we have one or two people on this forum.

2. If 99% of your miles are running at about 45-55 mph with no or very few signals and the ground is flat. I personally experienced 40 mpg up and down Highway 98 on the Florida panhandle on my trip there. The CVT cruising down a highway at the 1800-1900 rpm level will be right at about 40 mpg. Anything outside of that rpm range is going to kill the gas mileage a good 20-40%. This car's efficient operating range is really narrow.

As for fill-ups I let the pump run until it clicks off. I give it a few seconds to settle, then slowly fill until the pump clicks off again. That's usually another 1-1.5 gallons. I get consistent fill-ups that way without any spillage. Since I track every tank, any difference averages out over time anyway.

[RobsPages]

Two ways to be getting over 40 mpg out of the Versa:

1. Serious hypermiling, of which we have one or two people on this forum.

2. If 99% of your miles are running at about 45-55 mph with no or very few signals and the ground is flat. I personally experienced 40 mpg up and down Highway 98 on the Florida panhandle on my trip there. The CVT cruising down a highway at the 1800-1900 rpm level will be right at about 40 mpg. Anything outside of that rpm range is going to kill the gas mileage a good 20-30%. This car's efficient operating range is really narrow.

As for fill-ups I let the pump run until it clicks off. I give it a few seconds to settle, then slowly fill until the pump clicks off again. That's usually another 1-1.5 gallons. I get consistent fill-ups that way without any spillage. Since I track every tank, any difference averages out over time anyway.

Hypermileing scares the crap out of me - the car should never be turned off in transit or you're gonna have a bad time.

I avoid heavy traffic areas (which required a change in my commute routes) and try to keep it under 75 where the Versa seems to really drop off. Also, having the manual allows me to take it out of gear on hills or long stretches of slightly downward grade. I might be able to eek out 2 or 3 more mpg by not mashing the pedal and downshifting into turns and such - but whats the fun in that?