Real World Gas Mileage

[Ever Victorious]

It's a given that extra weight will make any car less efficient. Bigger, more powerful cars will be affected less by weight than smaller, less powerful cars.

But we have to talk about significant amounts of weight here. Yeah, 30 pounds is significant if you're racing, but for economy driving it's not going to make any sort of significant difference.

[OKVersa]

Next to last fill up: 29.4 25/75 city/hwy all a/c.Last fill up 33.8 10/90 city/hwy all AC miles. Highway miles were driving 65-80, going into a 30 MPH NW wind and then crosswinds.

We figure if we shut off the a/c and drove the 55 MPH we would probably get the projected 36, if not better on the highway.

[sngwrtr]

I don't listen to NPR but I did read a similar story in the newspaper last week - the Boston Globe, not a tabloid. Seems the airlines are complaining the loudest about the extra weight, given the amount of people they squeeze onto planes nowadays.

That's just one of the reasons I didn't buy a FIT. I believe the weight capacity was 850 pounds. I'm 6'1" at 300 lbs, my better half is 125 pounds.If we put our two best friends in the FIT with us, we would technically be overloaded.

[rwanttaja]

But since we don't usually drive under the equal conditions, it is very difficult to isolate the body weight of a driver as the contributing factor to a poor mileage. And even if we could isolate it, it may not have a material impact (e.g. 30 mpg vs. 29.98 mpg) if the body weight differential is not large.

The other factor...what do the EPA estimates assume? My guess is that mileage estimates (if they take weight into effect at all) are at the ALL-UP loading of the vehicle...that is, the Gross Vehicle Weight rating.

It's funny, but I can't seem to find official figures for the Gross Vehicle Weight and the empty weight, so we don't know what Nissan (and the EPA) assumes for the payload carried at GVW. At minimum, I'd guess two adults (the FAA assumes 170 pounds each, let's use that), a nominal amount of groceries and luggage (let's say 25 lbs) and a full 13 gallons of fuel (another 78 lbs). That's almost 400 pounds.

But...those of us who use our Versas for commuting probably come no where NEAR that. For the most part, we're driving alone.

Hence, the argument that "You don't get the EPA mileage because you're heavy" just doesn't wash. Few of us run through an entire tank of gas at the loading Nissan assumes.

Then again, if the EPA ratings DON'T take weight into account...then there's really no accuracy in them.

In my case, my Versa started out at 25 MPG for ~100% city driving. I'm now up to a consistent ~28 MPG. Not great, but acceptably close to the EPA city listing.

Ron

[jacksan1]

It's a given that extra weight will make any car less efficient. Bigger, more powerful cars will be affected less by weight than smaller, less powerful cars

This is absolutely true. A very good example would be the JDM 'K' cars that all have 660cc engines. With one driver and no other significant load, and driving at a city speed, these 'K' cars can easily get 45 or more miles per gallon in town. But once you carry, for instance, four passengers, and try to drive at an expressway speed, the same super-MPG cars can suddenly get into the mpg of 20s.

[charding81]

(edit by mod: duplicate post, we get the picture)

[charding81]

I filled up at 447 miles with only 10.6 gallons ~42 mpg . Mostly rush hour traffic.

[proxim2020]

I never bother with EPA ratings. They are normally so far off. When I bought my truck I had an estimate of 15/20. Boy were they wrong. I actually have an overhead computer that measures avg MPG and current MPG, along with a few other fancy things, and the best I could get was 10/12. Yea I know, horrible numbers. After several $$ in upgrades like exhaust, intake, spark plug, etc (mostly for my enjoyment) I've gotten my truck up to 16/20 on an average day. If I'm a good boy, I can get as high as 18/24. If I'm a bad boy, well we're back to the original averages . I use the estimates from places like motorweek, car and driver, edmunds. These people perform realistic test that will closely match the averages you will get when you're out on the road.

The EPA plans on upgrading their 20 year old tests for 2008 vehicles. Although there's no word if they plan to get the cars out of the lab and onto the road for testing, they are testing more like: cold weather conditions, A/C, heavy acceleration, and electronics. There's a good chance that we will see the V estimates drop for next year.

[XterraVersa]

It is hard to get that. I have come close a few times. 6th gear at 30 mph sips gas when coasting. I do not follow closely to the car in front. Because of this I can coast at the same speed without stopping. Starting from a stop is what kills mpg. When traffic speeds up I shift to 5th & slowly accelerate then back to 6th asap.

It takes the same amount of time to get to work if I race or if I coast. Coasting saves me $$$ for more important things. I drive this car as it was meant to be driven, as an econobox not a race car.

Right now I have 370 miles on a tank and about 1/3 tank left.

[Ever Victorious]

Not BS. I've seen his numbers. He does actually get that. He also works damn hard to get that... if he could include himself in the economy survey (because he lacks excel, he can't...), I would have to create a whole new driving habits category called "Insanely Conservative"

[OKVersa]

We only got 27.75 on last fill-up. It was the longest we'd gone without filling up. I can't remember what the mileage said when the low fuel light came on.

I was disappointed, but then I remembered I'd been letting it warm up for about five minutes on chilly mornings, then runnnig the a/c in the afternoons. There had been several times we'd let it idle, too. The road trips were hard ones - 65-75 - with the a/c on. We also did quite a bit of city driving, including me chasing down a Matrix so I could compare

[belders]

My wife drives our Versa Cvt 17 miles one way 11 of which are highway and she gets about 29-30... We went on a trip to nashville tn. which is about 180 mile from here cuise set on 70 miles an hour and we got 32.... Figured we would get better economy but will take the good with the bad... She loves it...

[Andrew Kemnitz]

first fill up-7.5l per100km. second fill up 8.0 l. per 100 km third fill up 8.0 per 100 km. I drive similar distances, 75% higway 25 % town. Andrew

[Ever Victorious]

city driving, including me chasing down a Matrix so I could compare

If you want to see a car where the EPA estimates are REALLY off, this is the car to look at... I was given a Vibe as a rental when my ASCD switch went out after only 24 hours, and it happened to be a day I needed to drive about 170 miles for work. Of course, you have to fill up the rental before you give it back.. I had to put almost 8 gallons into it, I think when I calculated it at the time it specifically came out to 22 mpg.

[marleyfan]

So let me get this straight. XterraVersa went about 450 miles on one of his tanks of gas while everyone else seems to be getting about 300 or so on a tank. He also added 500 pounds to his Xterra and IMPROVED his gas mileage. I see the problem we all have now. XterraVersa lives in Oppositeland.

Just having some fun with you XterraVersa but I really fail to see how you are achieving those numbers. Granted my Versa is a CVT and it is not past its break in period (only about 1200 km) but I have been babying the hell out of this thing (which is soooooo hard for me to do). I've been getting about 23 mpg. I only get around 450 or less KILOMETERS on a tank of gas. My driving is mostly city and the AC is almost always on. That's another complaint of mine. The AC has to be on for the deffogger to do anything at all. I've never had a car where this was the case. In fact I've never had to use the deffogger in combination with the AC til this car.

I understand that we're talking 6 speed vs CVT, no AC vs AC and hwy vs City but would all of that really cause 15 mpg difference?? I absolutely love this car but the gas mileage is a constant irritation to me. I find I'm not able to enjoy the ride cuz I'm watching the fuel gauge all the time.

Oh and I also have an '05 Vibe. Its mileage is only slightly better than the Versa. But I was expecting so much more out of the Versa.

[BillStrong]

tank 1 29mpg. tank 2 32mpg

all highway miles @ 60-80mph. some Virginia hills.6 miles each day are city driving.90 miles each day are 2 lane highway miles.

[motoguy128]

I'm still regularly getting around 29-32. I once that I got nearly 40mpg... but then after I started driving, I realized the nozzle at the gas station cut out almost 2 gallons early. EPA ratings are usually BS on small cars. Although my Toyota Corolla came close, but it was 300lbs lighter, and well.. it had a better all around motor.

I honestly don't worry about it. It does better than my 3100lb 4 cyl Accord did in the city.. and is pretty comparable on the highway.

I'm curious to find out how trailer towing affects it. I'm planning a 2000+ mile trip in May towing a 900lb motorcycle&trailer to Colorado and back. On my test run, it towed it very nicely. That low 1st gear really comes in handy.

[excaliburjb]

My grilfriend and I bought a cvt, it was dealer demo so it had 1400kms on it when we bought it, our first tank we are a little disappointed with so far, just wondering if people with cvt are turning off overdrive in the city? cause i think with overdrive the engine is working too hard and wasting gas at low speeds.. anyone else have any ideas on the subject?

[Gosh]

have 1600 kms on my sl cvt. 100% city driving and am getting 620-680 kms per tank. I am a putts driver, rarely going over 90 klicks. i never use AC, for defogging windows i put that sliding thing to the left with the arrow going through the car and that solved my fogging windows problem. gas seems to be lasting longer as i break it in, hoping for more improvements with time.

[marleyfan]

have 1600 kms on my sl cvt. 100% city driving and am getting 620-680 kms per tank.

That means that you are getting more than 1/3 better gas mileage than me. Am I alone here? Other Canadians, how many kms are you getting per tank?

[Ever Victorious]

That means that you are getting more than 1/3 better gas mileage than me. Am I alone here? Other Canadians, how many kms are you getting per tank?

You do seem to be getting rather low mileage. Have you tried talking to your dealer yet?

[marleyfan]

Not yet. waiting to get several tanks worth of data first. Will probably take it in if I'm still getting this kind of mileage after completing your 5 tank sheet.

[OKVersa]

I'm really glad we didn't buy the Vibe!

[craigv]

I'm a bit disappointed with my mileage. I've got 2800 miles on the car, mostly city driving (not standstill). I average about 25-26mpg. I have an SL 6mt, and I try to drive conservatively, shifting around 3k and not accelerating hard. The only reason I bought in this car class was the high mileage. I'm almost 20% off of EPA ratings. My wife gets the same if not better mileage in her Accord.

[siggie]

I think he reason people are disappointed in their mileage is twofold:

1. Nissan is advertising 36 MPG and over 400 miles per tank. These numbers are based on the EPA highway estimate.2. Many, if not most, people are buying this class of car specifically for its gas mileage.

When you take the combination of these two factors purchasers are bound to be disappointed because the EPA estimate is based on a highway cycle that maxes out at 55 MPH and averages 48 MPH (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml). That is not realistic with speed limits typically 70 MPH, and traffic usually flowing at 75 - 80. Unfortunately, changing the EPA cycle will be difficult, if not impossible. It is used to determine the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...onomy). Manufacturers have to achieve a CAFE of 27.5 MPG or else they can be fined substantially for every car they sell. With that kind of money riding on it there is no way they can change the EPA cycle.

What is really incredible is that the EPA test is so out of whack that the highway number which is indicated is already 22% below what the testing indicates. At the bottom of this page (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml) is this: In the 1980s, an EPA study found that drivers were typically achieving lower fuel economy than predicted by EPA laboratory tests. As a result, EPA required the laboratory-derived city and highway MPG estimates posted on the labels of new vehicles to be adjusted downward by 10 percent for city estimates and by 22 percent for highway estimates to better reflect the MPG real-world drivers can expect.

In other words the test is so unrealistic that the numbers are fudged to try and lower expectations, but they are not fudged enough. Even in the 1980s when the national speed limit was 55 MPH the EPA numbers were unrealistic. With speed limits now substantially higher the EPA numbers are even worse as the basis of determining real world mileage.

Simple physics tells us that a test which averages 48 MPH is going to produce a gas mileage number that is substantially higher than real world driving in the 70 MPH range. Aerodynamic drag increases as the square of the speed. If at 48 MPH you have a drag of X, then at 70 MPH you are going to have a drag of 2.1X. In other words the drag more than doubles. While aerodynamic drag is not the only component that contributes to lower gas mileage, at higher speeds it is the major component. When you double the drag your mileage is going to go down substantially.

The problem here is that Nissan is using the EPA highway number in their advertising and setting unrealistic expectations. I don't see other manufactuers pushing the EPA highway number. If they had used the EPA city number of 30 MPG I think there would be substantially fewer disappointed people on this forum. However, I expect that if they advertised 30 MPG, then many of the people on this forum probably would not have bought the vehicle.

I am getting in the 27 - 28 MPG range consistently on a 50-50 mix of highway and city driving. Instead of looking at the EPA numbers as a basis of comparison, I use my other vehicles. I have an F-150 and an Expedition that each get 13.5 MPG consistently under the same driving conditions for which I use the Versa. On that basis I am doubling my gas mileage, which is fine with me.

[jacksan1]

A very good post.

Another factor: There are some cars that seem more able to match or even exceed the EPA numbers than the Versa. In other words, as unrealistic as the EPA figures may be, some numbers assigned to some vehicles are even more unrealistic than in other vehicles. And the Versa may be one of those.

A big disclosure here: Last week my wife and I bought a Honda Fit. We are not done with the idea of buying a Versa because we have another car that we need to replace, so please let me stay in here.

The trim level that we bought is Fit Sport, with 5AT. It is rated 31/37 mpg city/highway. Last week, driving 100% highway, we got almost 39 mpg (38.8), driving absolutely normally and making no special efforts whatever to get a better mileage. We were, in fact, astounded by this result. And after going through several days of bumper-to-bumper traffic on the local expressway, mixed with city street driving, our Fit got 30.3 mpg, coming close to the EPA rating.

We also own a Subaru Forester (AT), and we regularly match or even exceed its EPA ratings of 21/27, again just by driving normally.

People who drive the Corolla often report that they can match or beat the EPA ratings fairly easily.

So I am suspecting that, even in the optimistic world of EPA ratings, the Versa's numbers are even more optimistic. Either that or additionally, maybe the Nissan driver who drove the Versa for the EPA testing was too darn good for his and everyone else' good.

Modified by jacksan1 at 5:05 AM 11/14/2006
Modified by jacksan1 at 5:14 AM 11/14/2006

[datgrl]

I agree - a terrific post with helpful information. Whatever the facts,it's obvious that Nissan really fudged the numbers.

I have to repeat here that I had the 2005 Scion XA and consistentlygot 36-37 mpg with the same driving pattern I have now. On a 6hour trip to Ithaca, NY I averaged **43mpg**, well over the listedmpg on the sticker.

I had my car into the dealer for a faulty TPMS. My rep asked me againabout my mileage and I had to tell him that I hadn't seen any improvement.I told him about my experience in downhill coasting where the speedometerloses speed. He said that was a characteristic of the transmission andit would never behave as a normal automatic. I had pretty much cometo that conclusion based on my experience and a post that was madein the forum a while back.

As others have suggested, it looks like comparing the dealer rating toreal life mileage is not going to ever be an accurate account. I'm justglad I'm not driving the Acrua TX regularly. They gave me that car as a loaner and I used 1/4 of gas just on 1 commute.

datgrl in Baltimore

[campersand]

The problem here is that Nissan is using the EPA highway number in their advertising and setting unrealistic expectations. I don't see other manufactuers pushing the EPA highway number.

Good post, but I'm pretty sure just about every car manufacturer uses EPA ratings in ads, especially for the cars in this class, of which fuel economy is part of the appeal.

[marleyfan]

I have read a few Mazda3 posts on another forum and they are making the same complaint there. So this is not isolated to the Versa.

[Caddy65]

i just went over 5000 miles. Over the course of the break in my car went from getting 30 mpg to 31 mpg. Not a lot of hope for those complaining of bad gas mileage. I've just learned to accept the fact that the EPA uses a random number gerator to determine gas mileage.