2014 Versa 109 Hp,"WOW!" Good Move, Or Bad - Page 4 - Nissan Versa Forums
General Versa Discussion Everything about Versa's that does not fit in another forum

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 37 Old 07-10-2013, 04:17 AM
Level VI Member
 
BluV3R18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnieVersa View Post
Okie Dokie BluV3R18

Nice overview.... I'll add that Nissan just like other auto manufactures need to reach the bar for that 40mpg line in the sand. It's just plain physics with weight to HP and the Nissan engineers lined up the stars to achieve that number. The additional planetary set added to the CVT and tuning to the 1.6 makes this possible. I'm confident based on their track record with the 1.6 that they reached the 40mpg bar.

Some of the competitors seem to have got their fanny in a pinch.
I agree, the nissan engineers did everything they could to improve MPG
I see they removed extra space in the engine compartment living no room for anything. extra space = more weight. more weight = less MPG

and a 1.6L doing 70MPH on the highway is a lilttle loud so adding the CVT would help reduce the RPMs and quiet the engine down a bit.
so now that's more stuff for the goody bag:
room, space, comfort, quiet, and MPG
just from my personal marketing point of view

2007 HB 6spd manual Previous
2014 Nissan Sentra Current

Last edited by BluV3R18; 07-10-2013 at 04:22 AM.
BluV3R18 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 37 Old 09-02-2013, 01:16 PM
Level IV Member
 
VinnieVersa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Yes, the engineers did a lot to reduce weight and drag. They added front "shutters" that close between 20mph and 60mph to reduce turbulence in the engine compartment.
It is a different driving style with the CVT as you monitor the rpm's and feather the gas pedal to let the CVT find the best torque level for best mpg. It seems to be a sweet spot in the 1500-1700 rpm range.
VinnieVersa is offline  
post #33 of 37 Old 09-02-2013, 05:49 PM
Level V Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Fullerton, CA
Posts: 639
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnieVersa View Post
Yes, the engineers did a lot to reduce weight and drag. They added front "shutters" that close between 20mph and 60mph to reduce turbulence in the engine compartment.
It is a different driving style with the CVT as you monitor the rpm's and feather the gas pedal to let the CVT find the best torque level for best mpg. It seems to be a sweet spot in the 1500-1700 rpm range.

what you don't really notice from that pic though is that they did their best to sit the engine as far back as possible without making it impossible to work on things, but because of that the engine actually sits almost directly in line with the front struts which would improve handling by a good amount by not putting so much weight towards the very front of the car which would make it understeer quite a bit. very smart on Nissans part in my opinion

P.S.

i recently went to my local Nissan Z club meet as i was a 370Z owner before i purchased the Note and surprise, surprise....everybody had only good things to say about the Note from interior to the exterior looks everyone seemed to have nothing but good things to say about it and to me that was very suprising coming from Z owners

Last edited by Note-ified; 09-02-2013 at 05:56 PM.
Note-ified is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 37 Old 09-05-2013, 08:39 PM
New Member
 
Kevin K Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Garage
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
The Nissan Versa had always been a leader in the segment. I don't think a mere 10hp drop will do any damage to their sales figure. In fact, the opposite is happening because of the pricing and MPG it get from their new CVT change in 12 (29-38mpg), 13 (31-40mpg). Aside from that fact, they already have so many cars with performance capabilities like the Maxima (any trim), Juke (any trim), Altima v6 (coupe or sedan), Z (regular or Nismo), and GTR (any trim). Check our their best lap figures in the link below.

Nissan 0-60 Times & Nissan Quarter Mile Times | Nissan Skyline GTR 0-60, Maxima SV, Juke, 2013 Altima SE-R, Murano SL, 350z, 2014 370z and Titan 0 to 60 stats!
Kevin K Lee is offline  
post #35 of 37 Old 09-06-2013, 01:02 PM
Level IV Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Also to add CVT's love torque but it can also be it's down fall in some situations. While Nissan continues to improve the technology the small HP/torque from the current Versa numbers can help to ensure long life from the transmission type along with maintenance and how you treat it.

2013 Nissan Versa SV
1.6L, CVT
SilverV is offline  
post #36 of 37 Old 09-23-2013, 07:39 PM
Level I Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by kawboy1269 View Post
Maybe I'm wrong. But I can't understand why Nissan went with a 1.6 for 2014. I'm not an Engineer, but I am a consumer, and I believe this decision will hurt sales.Their saying It's for gas millage. I say put four people, and luggage in a 2014 1.6, and any year 1.8, go on a trip trough rolling hills, and mountains. I believe the 1.8 will do just as well, if not better. Because the 1.6 will be straining more, and sucking gas. But this is my opinion. What do I know,I'm just a pecker that lives in the swamp.

2013 Altima S
2010 Versa S
2005 WRX-STI
Compare the EPA figures of the Versa, Sentra, and Altima, and you begin to wonder what really does drive fuel economy. The smaller engine seems to be of most benefit (for fuel economy) in city driving.
mkaresh is offline  
post #37 of 37 Old 01-31-2014, 03:11 AM
Level II Member
 
whicky1978's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by 08versailles View Post
true dat, so we took the Altima to Florida
my Versa did pretty well through Virginia and Tennessee with just me, wife and one bag
my old 93 Topaz not so much, left it in 4th gear through the whole mountainous bit to South Carolina, got 39 mpg Imperial in 2003...i remember gas was $1.29 per gallon!!!

Go Vols!
whicky1978 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome