CHATROOM: MPG advice / complaints / tips

[darylzero]

I have a 2009 Nissan Rogue AWD that is burning too much gas, I bought this CUV because it had good EPA numbers and the real world mileage didn't seem to be far off from them. Unfortunately mine is burning as much gas as my V8 truck, these are my numbers:

City: 12.9mpg (my truck actually returns 13.5mpg!)
Highway: 26mpg
Mixed: 14.5mpg (same as my truck!)

I've tried several differents ways to improved mileage already: I've babied it for a whole month (nothing changed), I've changed gas stations and gas grades (I'm using a Shell gas station now).....I've tried Nissan but they're useless, they just look at it and say there's nothing wrong with it...Any tips?

Could this be that the PCV value needs to be replaced?

jack1usa how many miles on your Rogue?

[vidin]

I have a 2009 Nissan Rogue AWD that is burning too much gas, I bought this CUV because it had good EPA numbers and the real world mileage didn't seem to be far off from them. Unfortunately mine is burning as much gas as my V8 truck, these are my numbers:

City: 12.9mpg (my truck actually returns 13.5mpg!)
Highway: 26mpg
Mixed: 14.5mpg (same as my truck!)

I've tried several differents ways to improved mileage already: I've babied it for a whole month (nothing changed), I've changed gas stations and gas grades (I'm using a Shell gas station now).....I've tried Nissan but they're useless, they just look at it and say there's nothing wrong with it...Any tips?

at my yard a 08 spec v came in w/ the same issue,clogged primary cat and tps voltage was low somehow the wiring kept shorting out-how many miles on your car?have u clean ur maf? try checking the voltage on the injector pulse and the voltage on the fuel pump

[casperfun]

So I went on a long day trip but before departing I filled the gas to the maximum which was not on purpose. This is because I only had cash and I had to approximate. First I put $25 to try to achieve a full tank since it was only partially empty. I then added $8 worth but barely was able to get the last drop.

Anyways, I reset the trip computer as usual. First and foremost, I understand the OEM trip computer may not be accurate but I still approximate the type of mileage I get.

While driving, I like observing the AVG mpg display and making it a game on how high I can get it to go (trying to beat the boredom). It usually starts at 26-27 mpg in the past when I reset on the highway. But this time I believe it started around 28-29 mpg.

So a few days ago I finally broke 32 mpg on my trip computer which was always my goal. Yippiee!
Not only that, it kept creeping up little by little that I finally was able to get the display to show 34.1 mpg! WOW!

On my trip A odometer (after stopover) I had traveled 203.5 miles and I had 364 mte. Hence if I continued driving the way I had I would get around 567 miles on this one tank for a non-stop all day driving trip until I ran out of gas presumably. I know this ain't hybrid numbers but that is pretty darn good for a 16 gallon tank ( I can get that much if I tried).

I believe I had all the right conditions since I saw some flags blowing which meant the cross winds was flowing in the same direction as my vehicle and the elevation of the road. It varied by +15 to -3 degrees on my elevation display on my Garmin. Moreover, the speed limit signs varied from 45-55. I usually set at 55 and 58mph. I know not a favorite for the speed demons in here.

My opinion is that the cruise control is absolutely the best way to get highest mileage. At least for me.

After the stopover, the speed limit signs were showing 65 mph during parts of the trip. So I had to vary my driving from 70-80 mph. Even driving a hard 80, my trip computer was still showing high 28 to low 29.1 mpg. That was nice.

I also tried resetting the computer while continuing the trip during the highway phase. It started at around 40 mpg on the average display and slowly crept to 33.1. Since I was no longer really trying to do my personal driving challenge, the mpg was showing 28-29 mpg which was much better than the usual 26-27 mpg.

My 2009 AWD Rogue has nearly 44,000 miles. I use synthetic and change my oil every 10,000-15,000 miles with a Bosch D+ oil filter. I am planning to change this oil around 15,000 miles or a tad more with perhaps a mid-way oil filter change. I also used my eco-route hd on my garmin. I like looking at my real time mpg and the green leaf during the trip.

As you might know, my Rogue is the least aerodynamic vehicle in here. The Rogue-pocalypse all terrain vehicle I have.

I know I get good mileage because of the miles I see on my trip A computer and I know I can get close to the MTE miles that are left from approximating on my odometers.

I used shell gas which was 10% ethanol (winter formulation?). The temperature varied from 58-60 degrees. I also drove with a light foot and not gunning it at stop lights if I came across any. The driving was mainly 95% highway with long stretches of semi-rural roads where I would time the occasional lights to prevent my Rogue from having to stop.

Remember this type of mileage would only be achieved during a long trip where you would drive until you would run out of gas and not during a 2 week period of driving.

During normal driving I get usually 325-350 mpg from approximating with my trip computer.

So with careful driving in which you are really trying to get the absolute best mileage, you can probably achieve around 560 miles on one tank. I probably could have improved on it if I was able to drive all day until I emptied the tank but the driving conditions had to stay the same which was not possible at the time.

Just my experience.

UPDATE- I forgot to mention that on my next fill-up, the trip computer read 460 mte on a full tank.

UPDATE 2- The next tank is giving me around 400 miles. I don't know if it's from the long trip that it has adapted to being more efficient. Pleasant outcome, but once it unlearns everything while staying in the city, the second tank will have great mileage for the time being. Then I will be back to the usual 350 miles to the tank. Presently, my trip computer is showing 26.3 in the city. Good mileage none the less!

[ImStricken06]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do? ... s&id=25050

[sprocket]

Just a reminder to those in the "winter" states, tire pressure drops ~ 1 PSI for every 10°F, which is ~ 5 PSI in my case in Michigan. Adjusting your tire pressure will certainly optimize your fuel economy.

My 2012 Rogue SV FWD as of 12/29/12 has a little under 15,000 miles on the odometer and the following MPG stats:
Average MPG is ~ 27.0 US-mpg (32.5 UK-mpg)
Running MPG (last 10 fill-ups) is ~ 25.9 US-mpg (31.1 UK-mpg)

[TaiLuu]

Winter Drivers will get lower MPG.
1.Engine gets more power from colder air.
2.Tire pressure drops.
3.Tires spin in snow.
4. (Optional) Warm Start *10mins avg
5. IACV brings engine speed up high on cold starts.
6. Aerodynamics through denser air.
7. Traction Control puts load on car.

My tip for the winter is to always keep your gas above a full tank for two reasons. 1. You never know if you'll get stranded in the snow some day. 2. It puts weight towards the back end = better traction.
1 gallon is about 8lbs, so times 16 is 128lbs extra pounds towards the back end.
Tires will always be off and on in pressure, so keep checking it.
It's better to keep the engine warm before driving. Driving from a cold start will eat up like 5 times as much fuel I swear. Not to mention you could damage your engine and transmission because the parts haven't expanded to the right size.

[casperfun]

After a long trip ( a few hours ), I was able to get my ave mpg to slowly creep up to 38.8 mpg on my trip computer after resetting my trip computer beforehand.

I was trying to achieve 40 but stoplights started showing up every so often. I had a really strong tailwind behind me (15-30 mph, really windy day) and I was driving through rural farmland roads. My speed was between 52-55 mph. Speed limit was 45-55 throughout.

Personally, I feel the trip computer is pretty accurate since I seem to get to the last mile on the tank. I was trying to make it home and get my gas refill since it seem to be a quarter cheaper in my area. So I drove to the last bar.



I do synthetic oil with 10,000-15,000 oil changes.

[Jesseman]

Hey guys, I'm having a issue with my Rogue. Engine light came on, pulled the code. # P0444 Can anyone help me out with that?

[darylzero]

Hey guys, I'm having a issue with my Rogue. Engine light came on, pulled the code. # P0444 Can anyone help me out with that?

Here ya go Jesseman,

http://engine-codes.com/p0444_nissan.html

http://engine-codes.com/uploads/nissan/NTB10-018.pdf

[sprocket]

Just turned in my 2012 Nissan Rogue FWD today.
17,126 miles tracked on Fuelly, with lifetime average of 26.7mpg(US).
Pretty consistent with what I've seen in my past Rogues and in line with EPA rating (23/28/25 city/hwy/avg).

Primarily driven in the east Michigan (metro Detroit) area. So yes, winters!
Approx 65-70% highway. Weekday commute is 20 miles each way which is ~ 30 minutes if there's no traffic.
Cruise control addict, hwy speed set ~ 72mph.

Detailed Fuelly stats can be seen here (click on the pic):



New vehicle is a 2013 Nissan Rogue SV AWD, just picked it up this morning. Will fill it up tomorrow and start Fuelly'ing

[ImStricken06]

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/here-s-why- ... 46134.html

Has this happened to you? You go shopping for a new car and great fuel economy is high on the list of things you want. You buy a car that's rated 30 mpg on the highway and 28 mpg overall by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But after a month or so of driving around, you find that the best fuel efficiency you can get is a measly 24 mpg average. You might acknowledge that you drive a little faster than the speed limit, but you're no hot-rodder.

So why doesn't your fuel economy match the EPA rating?

This question comes up most often when gasoline prices are rising. It is especially pertinent now as a fuel-efficiency ratings scandal sullies Hyundai Motor Corp.'s image and leaves millions of consumers wondering if they can trust the EPA window sticker the next time they shop for a new car or truck.

Hyundai has had to roll back its fuel-efficiency claims for eight models, along with an additional five rollbacks for cars and crossovers sold by its sister company, Kia Motors. Hyundai and Kia issued a joint statement saying they will give customers a personalized debit card that will reimburse them for their difference in the EPA combined fuel economy rating, based on the fuel price in their area and their own actual miles driven. The carmakers explained that the issue was rooted in an error by its South Korean test crew. The problem has been corrected and won't happen again, Kia and Hyundai say.

That's good, and the fact that the inflated Hyundai and Kia fuel economy figures were caught and ordered corrected by the EPA is even better. It proves that the agency's system works.

But it took the EPA two years to act after fielding hundreds of complaints from Hyundai customers that the mileage they were experiencing wasn't even coming close to the official EPA estimates posted on the vehicles when they were on the dealers' lots.

For many, the explanation of what happened was an eye-opening look at how the system works: The EPA establishes the tests that yield the fuel economy figures, but for the most part it doesn't conduct the tests itself. It doesn't have the budget, equipment or manpower to test the hundreds of individual models with unique engine and transmission combinations that automakers produce each year.

Instead, the agency gives its test protocols to the auto companies and lets each test its own cars and trucks. It accepts as true the "EPA estimated" fuel-efficiency numbers each car company submits. To keep the industry honest, the agency runs scores of spot checks each year. Until the Hyundai/Kia mess, only two rollbacks had been ordered in the past decade, each for a single model. The 13 Hyundai and Kia models with overstated fuel efficiency represent an unprecedented breach that has some consumer advocates calling for the agency to conduct an industry-wide verification of fuel-efficiency claims.

Even if they don't own Hyundai or Kia vehicles, many car and truck owners are stewing over the gap between the fuel efficiency they've been promised in advertising and window stickers and what they're actually getting on the road. Honda, for example, continues to struggle with customer dissatisfaction with the fuel economy of older model gas-electric Civic Hybrid sedans.

Events may prove that there have been deliberate efforts by one or more automakers to game the system and achieve higher testing scores than warranted under the very specific, federally mandated testing cycles. But for the most part, the fuel-economy gap exists for a more mundane reason: Real people drive real cars in the real world. There are so many variables that the idea of an absolutely accurate rating of average mpg is laughable. But to new-car buyers, it often feels as if the joke is on them.

City vs. Highway

A key element in assessing the EPA rating for a vehicle's average fuel economy (EPA combined) is the split between highway and city driving. Almost all cars and trucks deliver better fuel economy while cruising at 55 mph on the open highway than they do while stopping and starting at low speed on city streets.

The EPA rating for combined mpg presumes that we drive 55 percent of the time in the city and 45 percent of the time on the highway. Most people simply assume that's the case in their own driving. But many motorists — especially those in urban regions with lots of traffic congestion — spend far more time driving in city conditions than they do on the open road.

It's also useful to remember that even when a lot of driving time is spent on a highway or freeway, it only counts as highway driving when the average speed is 50 mph or so. Crawling toward Manhattan on the Staten Island Expressway at 10 mph is actually city driving, even though it's technically done on a highway.

If you diligently keep track of the number of miles that you are really driving at highway speeds each day for a month or so, you might find that you really are doing most of your driving at less efficient city speeds. If you have a newer vehicle with a trip meter that displays your average speed, keeping track is easy. Just set it to zero each morning, and then check each evening for your actual average speed for the day.

The Hybrid and EV Exception

The 2012 Fisker KarmaThe 2012 Fisker KarmaJust to further confuse the issue of fuel-efficiency ratings, the city-worse/highway-better driving pattern doesn't hold up when it comes to hybrids and electric-drive vehicles. Such vehicles use an electrical system to stop and start a gas-powered engine or to deliver electric-only propulsion, which improves fuel efficiency at low speed.

The EPA rating procedure for plug-in hybrids and battery-electrics is new and likely will need some additional fine-tuning. An example is the 2012 Fisker Karma. The manufacturer's tests show that the car will reliably deliver 50 miles of range in all-electric mode if it starts out with a fully charged battery. (Once the battery charge is depleted, a gasoline-powered four-cylinder engine-generator kicks in to continue providing power for the car's dual electric motors.)

So Fisker was stunned when the EPA released its rating and said the Karma is only good for 32 miles of range in all-electric mode. To see which estimate was closest to reality, Edmunds.com ran a two-day Fisker Karma fuel-efficiency test. Even when climbing hills and plowing down the freeway at speeds well in excess of 70 mph, the Karma was always able to do better than the EPA estimate. It averaged 40.8 miles of range in all-electric mode over two days. In a city loop with no highway driving, it attained 45.4 miles of range.

Surprisingly Close Fuel Ratings

What may be surprising to many is the fact that ever since the EPA modified its testing process and applied those changes to the 2008 model year, its ratings aren't really all that far off the real-world mpg that consumers get. While there are lots of people who cannot under any circumstances get their vehicles to come close to the official ratings, there are also lots who regularly meet or exceed them.

A special "Your MPG" section of the Department of Energy's Fuel Economy Web site lets people report their own fuel economy averages. No one double-checks the figures, and those reporting might be bragging about good fuel economy. But the self-reported mpg averages for various vehicles, which the site has been compiling for several years, tends to show better fuel economy than the EPA ratings.

Edmunds.com keeps close track of fuel economy in its fleet of long-term cars and trucks and has found that most come within 2 mpg of the EPA combined average. And that's with about 20 different drivers subjecting each vehicle to a wide variety of driving styles.

Dan Edmunds, Edmunds.com's director of vehicle testing, says that the cars and trucks that are most likely to significantly fall short of their EPA combined average ratings are those that are underpowered — a big SUV with the optional, downsized four-cylinder engine instead of the standard V6, for example. One exception — now explained by Hyundai's admission that its fuel efficiency numbers often haven't been correct — is that Edmunds testers were unable to get the Hyundai Elantra to live up to its EPA highway rating, even though the car is not underpowered. A 2011 Hyundai Elantra was part of "fuel sipper" test in 2011 and the results revealed that the Elantra consistently underperformed in highway fuel economy.

No Bias

Fuel-efficiency researchers David Greene and Zhenhong Lin at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee recently compared EPA estimates and "Your MPG" reports and found no evidence of over-performance bias in the government's numbers. But what the researchers did identify were six factors they said could cause a vehicle's real-world fuel economy to vary significantly from its EPA rating.

At the top of the list is how much city driving the car does. The proportion of stop-and-go driving could reduce the EPA combined city/highway fuel efficiency for a particular vehicle by as much as 27 percent, they say. Individual driving style can cause the second biggest variation, lowering fuel efficiency by up to 18 percent. Edmunds testing supports these conclusions. "Calm" drivers, those motorists who don't accelerate constantly and who avoid unnecessary lane changes, get 35 percent better fuel economy than other drivers.

Other factors in play are air-conditioner use (up to 14 percent reduction in fuel efficiency), vehicle size (up to 15 percent reduction) and the region in which the vehicle is primarily operated (up to 12 percent less fuel efficiency, because hot weather and mountainous conditions take a toll on fuel economy).

Fuel type also affects mileage. Most gasoline in the U.S. today is 8-10 percent ethanol, but the EPA does its tests with 100 percent gasoline in the tank. The use of ethanol to increase the amount of oxygen in gasoline for better combustion can reduce fuel efficiency by around 2 percent all by itself.

Be Honest About Your Driving

The point here is that the common advertising disclaimer of "your mileage will vary" is something every car shopper must take seriously. Honestly assessing your specific situation is the only way to adjust the EPA ratings down — or up — to more accurately reflect the fuel economy you can expect to see once the car or truck is yours.

One way to do a reality check on a car's EPA rating is to deduct 10 percent from it if you consider yourself an aggressive driver. This means someone who routinely exceeds speed limits and hurries away from stop signs and red lights. You can stick with the EPA rating if you consider yourself an efficient driver. You'd need to reevaluate that self-description if you find that your car or truck is consistently failing to achieve the rated combined average, however.

Real-world fuel economy can also be diminished if you use the air-conditioning a lot, haul heavy loads of cargo or passengers, or even live at the top of a hill.

The Ratings Are Here To Stay

If the EPA ratings aren't a good reflection of actual fuel-efficiency performance, can we expect to see them changed any time soon? The quick answer is no. There's not a lot of will on Capitol Hill to change the way the EPA figures fuel efficiency for passenger vehicles.

In government and policy circles, it's well known that the EPA's fuel economy figures are too optimistic, but changing the system to more closely reflect real-world averages would mean lowering the bar on all the measurements of the current state of fuel efficiency on the American highway, and no one is eager to admit that we really haven't come as far in fuel-efficiency gains as it seems.

The 54.5-mpg average for fuel efficiency among new vehicles that the Obama administration is proposing for 2025 will really be somewhere down around 36-38 mpg in real-world terms.

The MPG Testing Gap

The problem is that the federal government uses two different procedures to compute the fuel-efficiency numbers it provides to consumers. First, there's the original procedure for the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) values that is used for regulatory purposes. Introduced in 1975, it is based on standardized highway and city driving cycles that are replicated in a computer and measured on a dynamometer.

But because people complained of a big gap between real-world fuel economy and the test values with this original CAFE test, Congress asked the EPA to make some modifications to the test, which it did in 1985. Unfortunately, the changes in this second-generation test apply only to the window sticker that consumers see for individual vehicles. Also, Congress didn't tell the EPA to modify the test for CAFE purposes.

As a result, the new CAFE measurement — the 54.5-mpg figure that's been in the headlines — is based on the original, congressional-endorsed test that was mandated in 1975. Meanwhile, the revised, EPA-endorsed fuel economy test is the one reflected in the ratings posted on the window sticker in all new cars and trucks. The EPA rating is also the one used in automotive advertising, most car-buying guides and online car shopping and information sites, including Edmunds.com.

And even though the EPA's test system was modified in 1984 and 2008 to try to make it more relevant, it still doesn't precisely reflect real-world driving. The EPA still uses stationary laboratory tests run on a dynamometer, which ensures repeatability but not necessarily the driving experience of consumers.

Wanted: Personalized MPG Estimates

Before 2008, the EPA tests overestimated fuel efficiency quite significantly. They didn't account for the fact that real-world driving tends to be more aggressive, faster on the highway and subject to more stops, starts and more rapid acceleration and deceleration events than the defaults built into the EPA test protocols.

The 2008 test update tried to correct for those factors and — despite complaints — it does seem to have brought EPA and real-world fuel economy averages a lot closer together than ever before.

So the issue now is not a rosy bias in the EPA testing results, says David Greene, the researcher at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. As Greene says, "What we need are ways to predict an individual's fuel economy."

In the meantime, take any claims of fuel economy with more than a few grains of salt.

[Rogue One]

Complaints:
Traded in an AWD 2011 for a FWD 2012, and to my dismay the FWD gets worse mileage than the AWD. The on board mpg estimator is still unreliable. Generally it over estimates an average of 2 mpg's, only once in 25 fill ups actually getting it right. However on my last tank it showed my average to be 29.3 when in fact it was actually 25.4. Adding insult to injury, the FWD's uses more fuel on the highway than the AWD did.

[ImStricken06]

Complaints:
Traded in an AWD 2011 for a FWD 2012, and to my dismay the FWD gets worse mileage than the AWD. The on board mpg estimator is still unreliable. Generally it over estimates an average of 2 mpg's, only once in 25 fill ups actually getting it right. However on my last tank it showed my average to be 29.3 when in fact it was actually 25.4. Adding insult to injury, the FWD's uses more fuel on the highway than the AWD did.

strange. i wonder the weight differences between the fwd and awd. moving mass does have more inertia, thus being able to coast longer/further/easier.

[Rogue One]

strange. i wonder the weight differences between the fwd and awd. moving mass does have more inertia, thus being able to coast longer/further/easier.

SV w/SL Pkg 4dr Front-wheel 4,339 lbs.
SV w/SL Pkg 4dr All-wheel Drive 4,526 lbs.

Well since I'm not coasting from point A to B, that's sort of a moot observation. Given the FWD is 187 lbs (84.8 kg for our northern friends) lighter, it would stand to reason that as it's hauling less weight, it should get slightly better mileage.

[ImStricken06]

Well since I'm not coasting from point A to B, that's sort of a moot observation.

not true. when you are driving 65mph, and you slightly let off the throttle - your MPG's jump through the roof. the heavier the car, the more likely you are to let off the throttle and allow the car to coast. the heavier the car - the longer it will coast without dropping speed dramatically(causing you to need to reapply the throttle to maintain speed)

ever driven a lincoln towncar? at 70mph i can completely let off the throttle and that boat will drop 1mph so darn slowly, that i can coast on a highway LOL

[Rogue One]

2 words... Cruise Control. My daily commute speeds rarely exceed 50mph.

[sprocket]

Complaints:
Traded in an AWD 2011 for a FWD 2012, and to my dismay the FWD gets worse mileage than the AWD. The on board mpg estimator is still unreliable. Generally it over estimates an average of 2 mpg's, only once in 25 fill ups actually getting it right. However on my last tank it showed my average to be 29.3 when in fact it was actually 25.4. Adding insult to injury, the FWD's uses more fuel on the highway than the AWD did.

Your fuelly seems to show that your 2012 Rogue is actually doing better at 26.6mpg over 5,xxx tracked miles (6 months : Oct - April) vs 25.8 over 21,xxx tracked miles (12 months : Oct - Oct) which would imply it's doing better?

[Rogue One]

Complaints:
Traded in an AWD 2011 for a FWD 2012, and to my dismay the FWD gets worse mileage than the AWD. The on board mpg estimator is still unreliable. Generally it over estimates an average of 2 mpg's, only once in 25 fill ups actually getting it right. However on my last tank it showed my average to be 29.3 when in fact it was actually 25.4. Adding insult to injury, the FWD's uses more fuel on the highway than the AWD did.

Your fuelly seems to show that your 2012 Rogue is actually doing better at 26.6mpg over 5,xxx tracked miles (6 months : Oct - April) vs 25.8 over 21,xxx tracked miles (12 months : Oct - Oct) which would imply it's doing better?

I managed to get nearly 30 mpg on the last tank, so it was spot on with the on board estimator. Granted the '12 has 1/4 the mileage and number of fill-ups my '11 did, I would however still expect it to perform the same or better than the AWD version, especially on the highway where so far it's performance has been worse (On a couple of my Fulley entries, I forgot to adjust the slider to indicate if the driving was more city or highway).

[sprocket]

I managed to get nearly 30 mpg on the last tank, so it was spot on with the on board estimator. Granted the '12 has 1/4 the mileage and number of fill-ups my '11 did, I would however still expect it to perform the same or better than the AWD version, especially on the highway where so far it's performance has been worse (On a couple of my Fulley entries, I forgot to adjust the slider to indicate if the driving was more city or highway).

Awesome, because my experience in all the Rogue's I've had (on my 6th one) is that my fuel economy is in line with EPA rating (or better)

[ejohler]

Winter gas mix is different than summer gas mix hence some (as I do) get less MPG in the winter than in the summer. Yes I've gotten 31 mpg highway driving without AC in the summer and never can get over 25.7 mpg in the winter, but that said I always get 350 or more miles out of a tank with 50/50 driving at 2-3% over posted 70 mph highway and std. city speeds. I do like to force the CVT into a better ratio by keeping it under 3,200 rpm when accelerating. (sometimes you have to push it to 5500 rpms to get ahead or around some AH, but a couple of seconds of that doesn't bring my average down to 15)
On a long trip I always get 400 plus miles out of a tank (15 gallons) These are all US numbers and they didn't change in the 82,000 miles I've driven this car since new so therefore it is inline with EPA rating.

[geforce]

Sorry, I posted a thread before about my bad mileage. It only got as far as a possibly problem with my car being stuck in awd, but there's no real way for me to get that tested. I just saw this chatroom thread and thought I'd post again. Sorry if that's a no-no.

2011 Rogue SV AWD
30,000 kms (18600 mi) on the odo
Vancouver, CAN - weather is 5-15 celcius in Fall/Winter and 10-35 in Spring/Summer

My fuel consumption has slowly gotten worse since I got it in 2011. I started off getting 480 km, then 450 km, then I was averaging 400-425km for a long stretch. I thought it was the change in weather, but when a year passed by, it didn't get better again. Another year has almost gone by and now I'm only getting around 350-380kms.

I have brought it up a number of times at the dealership, and all they ever say is that they plugged in the OBD and fuel ratio shows normal. There's nothing they can do if the reading shows normal, they keep saying. They even went as far as saying that 350 kms is actually "not too bad". They tried resetting the computer (the part that learns my driving style and adapts?) and told me to take it easy on the gas. I've always driven with fuel savings in mind, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to change... and it hasn't changed anything.

I recently went on a trip from Vancouver to Portland. Straight drive down, 95% highway (and mostly flat), I got 580 kms 360 mi) on a tank. That's horrible for a mostly highway trip, right?

I'm at a loss now... I don't know what to do. I bought this car because of the awesome fuel ratings it was claiming, and also because of the great real owner logs that I saw on this forum.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I know some of you have helped before already in another thread of mine, but would appreciate anything else anyone has to add.

Notes: I have always driven fuel-consciously, check my tire pressure regularly, fill-up on Chevron almost exclusively (87 oct) and there's this one hill that I takes 1 minute to up and down on my route but otherwise it's a flat drive.

[casperfun]

Just want to say that I have been driving 100% city lately and real short trips since everything is close by and my trip computer has consistently been reading an average of 23.7 mpg. Very happy here. And this is on my least aerodynamic Rogue in this forum. I also very easily get over 30 mpg on the highway. That's a given. Sweet!

[Rogue Three]

I took my 2012 SL to Vegas, then San Diego, and then up to Kernville in 100+ degrees with air on the whole way. I averaged 26 MPG at 75 MPH. Freaking amazing car.

[SlimSlammedRogue]

ive got a tip on how to get better gas mileage, lower your car, the rogues from factory have a 4.5in wheel gap cruising at highway speeds the air gets in there and makes it harder for the car to maintain speed making you have to push the car in result using more gas, I lowered my rogue 5.5 inches and the gas mileage at highway speeds has gotten better. on my cruise down to conneticut every 35 miles a bar of gas dropped and im pretty sure 1 bar equals 1 gallon. Just my .02

[Rogue One]

[MHC F150]

Our brand new 2013 Rogue so far with only 1K city miles is averaging 21.8mpgs.

[TurboSpeed]

Hey, I just bought a new 2013 Rogue with under 100 city and highway miles on it. My odometer says 15 MPG which is a bit low, any idea why it's so low? Also, why is the rmp not at 0 when it's not in drive or when it is parked? The rmp is usually closer to 1 than anything else. Thanks.

[Rogue One]

Hey, I just bought a new 2013 Rogue with under 100 city and highway miles on it. My odometer says 15 MPG which is a bit low, any idea why it's so low? Also, why is the rmp not at 0 when it's not in drive or when it is parked? The rmp is usually closer to 1 than anything else. Thanks.

It's new and you haven't driven it far enough yet for it to make a good guess. Plus there's other factors as well.

[TurboSpeed]

Hey, I just bought a new 2013 Rogue with under 100 city and highway miles on it. My odometer says 15 MPG which is a bit low, any idea why it's so low? Also, why is the rmp not at 0 when it's not in drive or when it is parked? The rmp is usually closer to 1 than anything else. Thanks.

It's new and you haven't driven it far enough yet for it to make a good guess. Plus there's other factors as well.

Then when is it sufficient to determine the mpg?

[followingnfront]

I hate all of you!

For the past however long I can remember, my screen has been reading between 15mpg and 18mpg... Meaning real mpg is probably 2 or so less than what its reading... I have to drive conservatively to get the screen to read 20, and even then, its probably 18mpg REAL mpg...

I should've bought an Xterra.. At least those are supposed to get what I'm getting