LOW MPG

[longo]

Treetopflyer, you are one of the lucky ones, when your lease is up you can drive that gas guzzler back to the dealer and dump it.

For those of us who laid out full MSRP back in 2007, believing the Versa mpg hype, we are not so lucky.

I lent our Versa to my son who used it for a few days last month and the first thing he said when he brought it back was not, Thanks Dad, but ..."wow, that car sure doesn't get very good milage!"

As for trying to pin the blame on our cold weather conditions, sorry that excuse doesn't work either, most of my high mile trips have been on 2 to 3,000 mile tours through the hotter areas of the U.S....mpgs just as bad on both sides of the border.

I have always thought that the 1.8 liter engine was just too small for the aerodynamic design of the car, it's kind of like driving down the road in a cheese box, the wind resistence effect is very obvious on the instant mpg read out on the Scangauge...even driving in a 'side wind' will knock off 10 mpg...a head wind at freeway speeds will pull you down into the 20 mpg range. A more slipery body styled car like the Toyota Corolla with the same size 1.8 liter engine as the Versa will eat your lunch. Even Nissans bigger heavier Sentra with a 2 ltr engine is actually rated at 1 mpg better than the Versa.Enjoy your Versa for what it is...but if your biggest reason for buying it was great mpg's....there's lots of other cars that size that will do much better at the pumps.

The one I'm driving now (non hybrid, non Toyota) is averaging 43+ U.S. mpg


Modified by longo at 10:17 PM 3/8/2010

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Basically I think nissian gave the EPA a modified car of sorts since my window sticker claims 30/36 and even with the new adjusted stickers with my same engine it was still supposed to be in the 28 mpg range.

Anyways your going to be cursed with poor mpg so you best just get used to it by what I've found. I've tried everything I could think of including doing "granny" driving of accelerating extremely slow and keeping the rpms at near 1200 all the time until I get over 35. Anyways good luck with trying to squeeze mpgs out of this car.. My dad's chevy silverado 1500 v8 gets 17 most of the time and my 4 cyc versa gets low 20's most of the time. He gets a good laugh from it every time..

[/quote]I don't believe Nissan gave a modified car to the EPA.

Mine gets 32-33 mpg combined city/hwy.

[WeirdFishes]

Like WF, I am still on my first tank (also with a 6 speed MT), one mark above half full with 187 miles since the dealer fill up.

I'm right there w/ you!

I have a pic, but no idea how to load it...

[iluvmyVersa08]

I am in Canada (so I am having a bit of a time converting to liters/ 100km). But I am averaging about 425 km per tank. That's abot 265 miles per tank at 90% highway driving. It is a 2008 with CVT. It has about 20,000 km or about 12,500 mi. Nissan tells me that is acceptable. My Quest gets the same bloody milage on the highway! I sold my Mazda 3 for the versa to get better gas milage and the 3 blows this thing out of the water. Anyone have any luck with Nissan head office?? I am just about ready to let it drive off a cliff.

You do 90% highway driving and only get 425km per tank?????

I am in Ontario too, and I do almost all CITY driving as both of my jobs are in downtown Hamilton. I too get over 400 kms per tank (more in the summer). When I drove to Myrtle Beach the first summer of owning it, I was getting close to 600 kms per tank (all highway driving). And mine is also a 2008 CVT model.

[Treetopflyer]

I know, it's bad. If I do all city, I can't get over the 400 km/ tank. (i usually fill it when it needs around 45 l approx). It's really really bad.

[srellim234]

One fallacy is that the EPA actually does the testing. The manufacturers do the testing and supply the result to the EPA. The EPA actually conducts very few tests, on random cars, only to spot-check and confirm the test results for a few models.

Manufacturers aren't going to modify a car that will be different from what they sell for fear the EPA will pull one off the lot, find a huge discrepancy and force the manufacturer to pay huge fines and get bad press.

In the case of the 2007 Versa, they probably had the engineers tweak the engine, CVT, gear ratios, etc. to reach the "holy grail" of 30 mpg city. While they reached that result in the strict test guidelines, it put a car on the lots that has a very narrow efficiency band when compared to many other cars. Nissan did that knowing that the test results they provided were re-producable if the EPA picked a Versa off the lot to test under the same strict testing guidelines.

The readjustment down to 28 mpg overall later was not as a result of actual testing on the Versa. The EPA applied a mathematical formula to all cars that was arrived at through negotiations with the manufacturers.

Reading through all the EPA testing stuff is a very dry read but it is also very enlightening. It's all at the EPA website if anyone else cares to read through it.

[Ginx]

UPDATE:tank 2 was a terrible 17.8 MPG , but on my recent road trip to Fl. the subsequent tanks 3 - 6 were coming in consistently at 29 MPG on the highway around 70 - 80 MPH. Now that I am back in the city I will watch my MPGs closely to see if I notice a decline because of frequent stops and starts.

[srellim234]

Ginx- how are you driving it around town? The CVT gas mileage is really touchy depending on the rpms you accellerate at and which gear it is in while you're doing it.

[Ginx]

I think I am going pretty easy on it , never going over 3K on the tach unless I need to get on the freeway quick etc... I always make an attempt to be frugal with the accelerator so I can get good mileage. I really think my second tank was siphoned while it was in best buy getting my amps installed, i didnt get over 200 miles on that tank. They would have had access to pop the gas lid from the inside, but who knows. seems good now.

[WeirdFishes]

Good lord. Less than 200 on a tank? I'm still on my first tank. 197 miles right about the halfway mark... mostly city driving so far.

[WeirdFishes]

Srellim,

GM is especially guilty of this. Their cars rate high on the EPA rating, but few actually get the claimed mileage. Chevy Equinox, Silverado, and GMC Terrain are prime examples... Equinox and Terrain both get 32 highway, but road tests and comparos had them getting nowhere close to the number.

[iluvmyVersa08]

Good lord. Less than 200 on a tank? I'm still on my first tank. 197 miles right about the halfway mark... mostly city driving so far.

I get about 400 KMS per tank (KMS not MILES) and that's all city driving right now. I don't think that's too bad considering it's been a cold winter and I am driving all through the city. I'm happy with it.

[xplorer7]

The results are in for my first tank: 27.3 mpg. I take this with a VERY large grain of salt, since the dealer filled it, so I don't know exactly how full they filled it, they probably had no incentive to fill it particularly full, I tend to "top up" more than I should, and the needle seems to be staying on full a whole lot longer on the second tank than it did on the first.

Fuel economy is a complex beast, but as far as I know, the best way to get reliably better or worse gas mileage is to drive a different model car, change driving habits (e.g., speed, acceleration), change driving conditions (e.g., city vs. highway), or change maintenance (e.g., tire pressures). Theoretically the difference in cars that are the same model with the same options should be minimal: the EPA expects repeated, tightly controlled tests on "identical" cars to vary by less than three percent. Driving habits, traffic, and environmental conditions, all of which can vary wildly, probably account for most of the differences in mileage for new cars.

This link from Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09 ... es-feature) has an interesting article on EPA estimates that's informative, but not overly technical. It's quite an eye opener. Test conditions are well controlled, but the fox guards the hen house (although the manufacturer has some explaining to do and incurs risk if their figures are too different from an EPA spot check), and the auto manufacturers have a lot of negotiating power on how their cars' features play into testing. I think it's interesting that the vehicles are tested on dynamometers so that wind resistance, which is a MAJOR factor in the real world, does not occur the test, although I'm sure they try to take that into account with all their methodology and complex adjustments. All in all, I find it no surprise that real world results are more variable and almost always lower than the EPA estimates.

The relatively low EPA estimates were already a factor in the "cons" column when I decided on the Versa. If I had known that people where having a greater than average decrease in "real world" mileage vs. the sticker it may have discouraged me a little more. I can only wonder how much the mileage will decline as the car ages--there was a noticeable decline in gas mileage within the first 100,000 miles for my other cars. On the bright side, it looks like my Versa might do quite well with real world vs. sticker mileage compared with the other cars I've owned. The second fill up should give a far better feel as to whether this will be the case.

[TomS]

The EPA changed the formula for calculating fuel economy a couple years ago because it was noticed that posted fuel economy was much higher than what people were expierencing. For example, the 2007 Versa (1.8 l CVT) was rated 30 mpg city/36 mpg hwy under the old formula, but under the revised formula, it was changed to 26 mpg city/33 mpg hwy (that is 7.8 l/100 km city, 6.5 l/100 km hwy under the old formula to 9.0 l/100 km city. 7.1 l/100 km hwy under the new formula for our Canadian friends). By comparison, the 2010 Versa (1.8l CVT) gets 28 mpg city and 34 mpg hwy (Canadians will get 8.4 l/100 km city and 6.9 l/100 km hwy).

To see the list and to compare other vehicles, you can go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ for more information. The site is a good way to cmpare different vehicles even of different years. For those of you north of the border, there is a link to convert directly to metric units. As always, YMMV. Most people still find the mileage numbers high, but it is better than it was a few years ago.

[longo]

It's quite possible you are right about the 'fill up' issue on the Versa. Mine will gasp gurgle and gulp down another gallon+ when you think it's full. Then if you drive arouind the block you can even put more in the tank.

So the drastic deed is to fill it up until it gushes back up the tube at you and then let it settle down and do it again until it runs out..you have now accomplished 2 things, filled it right up and probably ruined the filter on the overflow line. It requires removing the rear bumper to get at it for replacement....been there.

Better to fill up and let the last gallon trickle in and quit while you are ahead.

So then how does one fill up to the same point each time and get an accurate 'gallons diven divided into miles driven?

One things for sure, the dealership would not have filled it up right to the top...probably to the first click off , maybe the second. But when you filled it and saw the needle way up past the full mark, forget the dealership fill MPG's they don't mean a thing.

Run this tank down and try to re fill to the same mark..(good luck with that) and then do the mpg math.

My Versa showed nasty mpg numbers on that second fill and have never really changed for the better...been back to the dealaership...done all the complaining...no codes thrown, so no known problem, no known fix. BTW the worst thing you can do on the Versa is to check the mpg's before you have run down the tank to at least 1/4 left as that top part of the tank is impossible to get a decent reading on. When mine is showing 1/2 a tank used it's really more like 2/3 used.

If a car is going to get really great mpg's you will know on your second full tank checkif not, then welcome to the Versa Bad Mileage Club.

[srellim234]

I think I am going pretty easy on it , never going over 3K on the tach unless I need to get on the freeway quick etc... I always make an attempt to be frugal with the accelerator so I can get good mileage. I really think my second tank was siphoned while it was in best buy getting my amps installed, i didnt get over 200 miles on that tank. They would have had access to pop the gas lid from the inside, but who knows. seems good now.

That's actually driving the CVT pretty hard. The CVT will accellerate to 60 mph in a reasonable amount of time holding it steady at 2200 rpm. Then gradually increase until you get to the speed you want. The CVT works much better steadily increasing rpms instead of getting it up to speed and then backing off.

I've found that hitting 2800 to 3000 rpms just once or twice in a tankful can cost me 1 mpg for the whole tank's average. Do it multiple times in a tankful and that easily explains your low mpg. Jumping it over 3000 for a quick accelleration is killing your overall mpg.

As for around town, try keeping it under 1800 all the time and I'll bet your numbers get better. It will accellerate quickly enough at that level; you just won't hear it because the CVT works so differently than a regular transmission. If you are really patient, try to keep it at 1400-1500 like I described farther up in this thread and you should get much better numbers.

[Treetopflyer]

but doesn't it seem ridiculous that we versa owners have to resort to WAY over thinking driving and have to do all these crazy techniques just to get it into the realm where most cars in this group just perform normally?? A buddy of mine has a honda fit that he drives the hell out of and gets WAY better milage than me doing all these crazy techniques...

[srellim234]

I agree. With the Versa being a heavier car it realistically shouldn't get the mileage out of an econobox small engine that the Fit does but Nissan managed to convince everyone that it did.

Actually, driving the Versa CVT is very similar to driving a Prius CVT. Accellerate it like your're trying to keep a Prius in electric mode using the gas engine as sparingly as possible.

I've managed to get over 60 mpg in suburban Chicago and south Florida with Priuses I've rented, both for over three weeks at a time. The Nissan CVT seems to work similarly

[longo]

Yes, it is ridiculous!

This Nissan Versa Forum is full of links started by Versa owners PO'ed about lousy mpg's and all the good advice and navel gazing about trying to get better mpg just makes driving the car a PITA.

I could start a new link on all the things I have tried to resolve the problem, but none of them made much difference, starting from doing what the Dealership said to try...

(Mid grade gas, driving slower, "Use only Shell, we do")

To mixing up my own additives in my garage laboratory, removing the air intake system right up to the filter, (that made it noisy and worse) to building a hydroden generator to add to the engine, and other things I have now mercifully forgotten.

So the only thing left to try to get decent milage was obvious....I bought a VW Jetta TDI. Coming back home today bucking a strong headwind for half the trip, the 150 km run averaged 53.5 mpg.

[Bubs daddy]

And you can go to the TDI forum and hear of angry drivers who paid upwards of $26,000 for their Jettas but are thinking of selling them because they've had HPFP issues that VW won't honor under warranty.

Of course, anyone can enter a forum and say anything to discredit the car whether the problem is actually happening or not. Whether that person actually owns the vehicle or not. They can say anything or make up anything. No one can validate it, confirm it or verify anything someone says on an internet forum.

Like say, 17 mpg. Am I skeptical? Indeed. I don't believe it for a second. Either the calcs are wrong or this is simply made up.

While others are claiming their Versa gets 23 mpg, others get 33 mpg.

There are far too many factors that determine fuel mileage. They've been listed numerous times. Driver habits, tire pressure, types of roads (materials, pitch, condition), weather, altitude, fuel formulas, city/highway driving, time idling, wind, speed, weight of cargo, and many others.

Nissan based their mileage estimates like everyone else bases their mileage estimates. Many here are getting the rated mileage. If you aren't, it's because of many of the other factors.

[srellim234]

Your statement "Many here are getting the rated mileage" is every bit as unsubstantiated your claims about the people who aren't. You've made it very clear multiple times that your mind is closed on the subject. While it is your perogative to feel the way you do, many people who have achieved less than stellar mileage with their Versas are just as sceptical about your claims of good mileage.

I prefer to try to be helpful instead of only criticizing them and questioning their credibility, as you seem prone to do.

[frankoV]

I get about 400 KMS per tank (KMS not MILES) and that's all city driving right now. I don't think that's too bad considering it's been a cold winter and I am driving all through the city. I'm happy with it.

about where I am with "real" winter criving . . . but on the upswing this week to ~500km/tank city

[srellim234]

frankoV- What has been your experience in finding the right rpms to push the CVT to get the mileage you are? Any new rpm tricks to offer our friends in New York?

[Bubs360]

I have averaged around 32-34mpg with my six-speed since it has been warming up around here. During the winter I was getting around 30mpg. If I am to "hammer on it" (upshifts between 4k-5k) fairly regularly, which I did for a tank as an experiment, I got 27mpg.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Your statement "Many here are getting the rated mileage" is every bit as unsubstantiated your claims about the people who aren't. You've made it very clear multiple times that your mind is closed on the subject. While it is your perogative to feel the way you do, many people who have achieved less than stellar mileage with their Versas are just as sceptical about your claims of good mileage.I prefer to try to be helpful instead of only criticizing them and questioning their credibility, as you seem prone to do[/quote]I have nothing to gain by saying my car performs as advertised. It falls under the parameters of realistic expectations. 17 mgg is bad math or made up, pure and simple. This isn't a new thing. People come into forums all the time and state things are happening to their car when they don't even own the car. They are just here to cause disrepute and discredit what they don't even own.

Just like the threads about rusting mufflers falling off the car, this problem that. We ask for a pic. None provided, person never heard from again.

This goes on all the time at every forum. People go out and make false claims to discredit one brand or car. It would be naive to think that every person complaining about mileage is actually a different person or their story is factually correct.

The car's rated for the mileage I testify to. It's believable. 17 mpg is not even close. So the credibility of ones story is shot right there.

[srellim234]

You have a lot to gain by saying the car performs as advertised if you are, in fact, a Nissan plant trying to discredit everyone who has a car that does not perform as advertised. We have no proof that you are who you claim to be any more than you claim others are trollers from other car makes.

I do have one person with a Versa that I see daily who gets under 15 mpg out of his automatic, but he doesn't complain about it because he realizes he absolutely thrashes the car. He's had it over 120 mph at the race track and he guns it severely every time he accellerates. He treats it like a sports car so he doesn't expect gas mileage out of it. So, I don't consider him as someone who is in that underperforming gruop looking for help. He isn't.

Unlike the other thread regarding 17 mpg, if you had read the entire thread you would see that it's about people getting 21-22 mpg in the severe city traffic of New York, and some of us are trying to offer them tips to improve the city mileage they are getting.

We've offered accelleration and rpm patterns as well as other sensible driving tips. If they are plants, so be it. Many others will benefit from the tips offerred.

And yes, it may just be that the Versa is one of those cars that performs like the cars were rated back when ratings first came out. City mileage was almost automatically 10 mpg less than highway.

It still doesn't mean we cry "liar" at everyone who claims to have a car that performs that way. We try to help just in case they're telling the truth.

Oh, and by the way, you may want to read your own evidence. It only states the majority of cars will fall within that range. Others will be outside the range, which I believe covers 0-100+ mpg.

[longo]

A wise man once said.....

"Never argue with an idiot, they will pull you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

[srellim234]

Touche.

[frankoV]

frankoV- What has been your experience in finding the right rpms to push the CVT to get the mileage you are? Any new rpm tricks to offer our friends in New York?

I just get 'er up to 2K and keep it there in town . . . try and time the lights . . . foot off the gas and coast when I know I'll have to stop rather than getting close and braking hard . . .

it ain't the mileage that I hoped for when I bought the thing but I'm resigned to the fact that most estimates were high or were for "optimal driving"

[Bubs daddy]

LOL. Yep that's me, the Nissan plant. For over three years I've been planting information. You see, I've already explained numerous times how to get better mileage. And so have others. But some here just seem to be closed minded, put fingers in their ears and continue to flog the dead horse.

Some of these new posts don't pass the smell test but, obviously, or I guess not so obviously, it doesn't register with the naive and easily gullible. You have to give posts more than a look see. NCAA wrestling-real. WWF-fake. BUt then again, some may not see that even though it's as clear as the nose on the face.

The fact is, Versas do get the rated mileage. The EPA tests prove it. It's true, the majority of cars perform within the rating. Thanks for pointing that out. That's what I stated, that what the sticker says. The rest will fall outside the majority. Some, like your friend who thrashes their Versa don't care.

As far as lying, it's ironic how the original poster calls out others as liars. And where is he as the lousy mileage club sets up their weekly meeting...gone. As usual.

As for Jetta man, I guess calling people idiots can somehow assuage his own insecurities of why he bought a car that is now berated by the same owners for fuel pump failures.

Of course, it would be like a versa owner going to the TDI forums and telling the Jetta owners they don't need to have their fuel systems replaced now because they've seen the light and own a Versa that runs on gas and it's $.75 cheaper per gallon. The TDI owners would ask them what the heck they're doing in a Jetta forum if you like your Versa so much.

So we have ex-Versa owner who comes to visit...why? "Oh, I don't know, to tell everyone a lost a boatload on depreciation, pay a gallon more for fuel, but it gets great mileage!" Wait, I mean, "I was getting lousy mileage, too!" I guess misery loves company.

You guys could take a lesson from ILuvmyVersa. The girl customizes her car, enjoys it for what it is, posts pics of her projects and loves her car. She has an infectiously optimistic, free spirit attitude. The girl gets it. The girl understand what the Versa is and isn't.

All this is lost on the same glum, endlessly complaining group who doesn't understand that it's not a Prius, it's a Versa. It will get the rated mileage. You are affected by a combination of previously discussed mileage factors, or your math or mpg method is off.

The mileage is right on the sticker. 25-42 mpg for most. The small minority will get less, perhaps more.

It's not the car. It's your driving. It's your fuel blend. Your weather. Road conditions. Tire inflation. Speed. Driving habits. And a dozen other reasons.