Nissan Versa Forums banner

versa 1.6/1.8 mpg's

  • (1.6) < 20

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • (1.6) 20-25

    Votes: 8 2.9%
  • (1.6) 26-30

    Votes: 14 5.1%
  • (1.6) 31-35

    Votes: 43 15.6%
  • (1.6) 36 +

    Votes: 51 18.5%
  • (1.8) < 20

    Votes: 7 2.5%
  • (1.8) 21-25

    Votes: 24 8.7%
  • (1.8) 26-30

    Votes: 72 26.1%
  • (1.8) 31-35

    Votes: 41 14.9%
  • (1.8) 36 +

    Votes: 16 5.8%

  • Total voters
    276
81 - 98 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
2015 Note 1.6 with auto, only on second tank, dash says 30-33 wife's pen and paper say 26-28.
I have not had the car long enough (it is supposed to be MINE because I have the long commute) to do my own calculations (but I am more of a lead foot).
Will report back with my numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
So far at 1250 miles I am getting almost 40 on commute. That's a mix of highway at 65 and back roads at 45. Over 30 miles each way. Ac affects it when you put it on anything but level 1 it seems tho. I saw 32 or 33 on same kinda trip as commute this weekend with ac on higher. On way back tho no ac as I was in morning and cool and I saw that 38.5 mpgs. Pleased.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
On threads like this, you really must mention the ratio of highway/city use, and A/C use. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

I have a 2016 Note SV with around 1000 miles. I do 33% city/66% highway, with A/C always on. I baby the car. I get 33-34 MPG with 1.8 liter engine. I believe it is rated at 35 mixed. If I did 100% city driving my guess would be 28-29 MPG.

The 100% highway mileage is deceptive. My 2013 Mustang GT with 420 HP shows 27-28 MPG on the computer, but that is a laugh. In mixed driving I only get 11-14 MPG, and it is rated by Ford way above that, like 18 or something.

One reason I dumped my 2000 Honda Accord with 3.0 liter, 200 HP V-6 as my daily driver was it only got 21-22 MPG mixed, with me babying the car and driving 40 MPH on the freeway! So I got the Nissan Note. I used to have a 1986 Ford Mustang with 5.0 liter, 200 HP V-8. Same thing, driving 40 MPH on the freeway all I got was 20 MPG mixed.

Simple fact of the matter is HP (or cubic inches) and gas mileage is just not compatible. My nephew has a Subaru with 2.0 liter 4-cylinder, but it is turboed so puts out 200 HP. All he gets is 20 MPG mixed. The old Chevy Novas with 350 cubic inch V-8s used to get 11 MPG. I imagine those who drive trucks or SUVs with V-6/V-8 engines don't get very good gas mileage either.

Update: As the engine on my Nissan Versa Note SV breaks in, mileage is getting even better. So far at 4100 miles, it's up to 36-37 MPG, 40/60 city/highway driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
16 w/CVT

Computer says over 40 all the time. Around town and trips. Doing the math when I fill up I'm getting about 39.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
16 sedan 5 speed most highway. If the weather is room temp its 41-43 as the temp is warmer. The cooler it is it starts to dip to 38 when it gets below freezing.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
Kind of interesting to know why Nissan varied the engine displacement like that as well as the number of gears in the manual. Ive had vehicles with 1.3 and 1.0 engines like the Suzuki swift, honda civic and geo metro. Seems they all rev high at highway speeds, but return good mpg. With the 1.0 it was easy to hit mid 40 mpg without trying and with hypermiling get 60mpg.

With that damn 4th cylinder of the swift mid 40s was best you could do. >:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Cobb said:
Kind of interesting to know why Nissan varied the engine displacement like that as well as the number of gears in the manual.
I'm convinced they took away the 6th gear in the manual solely so that it wouldn't be able to absolutely destroy the MPG numbers of the CVT Versa and the Sentra. Giving us an outdated 5 speed and stuffing a 4.xx final drive in forces us to turn more revs and burn more fuel. Still possible to beat CVT numbers with ease but if we had one more gear and a lower final drive this car would kiss 50 MPG on the highway with only the driver in it. I think part of the 4.xx final drive was also to make sure the 1.6 would have enough leverage to perform sufficiently with the car loaded to max capacity. Driving by myself it moves with ease but I can feel it when 3 big buddies hop in and suddenly the 1.6 is doing real work to get up to speed, wouldn't be able to use a 6th gear if it had one when 4-5 people are in my car.

I'm just coming out of winter, idling and defrosting and remote starting and winter blended fuel will soon be gone and my summer mileage I'm expecting to be up in the 40s since I haven't dropped below 35 all winter.

Pretty soon I will be pulling out my 1988 Chevy Sprint for summer, the grandfather of your old geo metro Cobb :p that trusty 3 cylinder gets 50 MPG with ease but thats because the sheet metal is thin as a beer can and its all of 1500 pounds. No airbags :20:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
That maybe true, but for other reasons. Use to be over drive was a very high gear that was good for nothing but maintaining speed on flat level ground. Ive researched why they increased the ratio and the answer I get was from people using cruse control and the engine getting ruined from being lugged. Ive also got that excuse for the shift light going away as well. Of course when I had a shift light I use to shift the second time it came on. >:D

I had a 99 geo metro. Last year they were a 3 banger and 3 door. Air bags and best ecu. Heaviest model and still got the same mpg as the early non xfi ones. FYI, xfi got its better mpg from a diff ratio in the tranny and only 1 compression ring in the engine. >:D

I dont preheat my versa. I just get in and drive. I dont use 4th gear, shift to 5th by 35 mph and use light throttle. Before I know it Im doing 80 and lift to slow down to 70. >:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I lived in Japan for several years and rented 600 cc cars on my travel trips (auto trannies only). The gas mileage on those things were phenomenal. I could go 200 km on $12 worth of gas. My favorite was the Nissan March (although that came with a 1000 cc engine I think and big fuel tank). I could go 600 km on a tank of gas. The later model Marchs with the CVT also had excellent power going up grades. I think the reason the Japanese car makers are not allowed to sell sub-1000 cc cars in the U.S. is that it would blow the MPG ratings out of the water! Where I live now those 600 cc cars would have adequate power and I could fill up gas once every two months!

And the cars in Japan are high tech. I've driven several rental cars which would shut the engine off at stoplights to save gas, and restart instantly as soon as you take your foot off the brake. Can you imagine that with the ole U.S. cars in the 60s with the distributors, points, and chokes on the carb??? You'd be sitting at the stoplight with the engine cranking away. If you don't like that feature, you can turn it off (it's usually called Eco-mode). Also the 'wandering beep' feature, where if you get too close to either side of the road, a warning beep would go off. And it was smart! If there was vegetation or brush next to the road, it wouldn't go off.

One reason I bought a Nissan Note is because I liked that car in Japan. Problem is, the U.S. version is nowhere as solid a car in build quality :frown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
200KM/12$? Damn, that's impressive. I also heard opinions from my friend that works at DSRLeasing and where I actually intended to get a new nissan on lease, that sorry, but the quality in the US is much lower than Japan. It's not that I'm surprised, but still. Well, maybe I will wait for my Nissan until I get to live in Japan, but it will be a tough road :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
There is a web site call fuelly.com. It covers the hold World of Automotive MPG. I'll will try log in 40 MPG as my combine mileage for the week. There are real world and real poser of MPG and LPKm. The Tilda has good number than I thought
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
The dash "avg mpg" always levels out to 35mpg average on my 2015 Versa 1.6S with the 4spd AT, but it tends to hand calculate to more like 33.5mpg full tank to full tank. That's not bad for mixed driving with different drivers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Since I got my '16 Versa 1.6L CVT back in February my overall average for 5603.2 miles recorded has been 47.08MPG. EPA rating is 31/34/39. On most tanks approximately 95% is rural roads at speeds of 45-55MPH. Worst tank I've had was the first tank at 42.35 MPG, best tank came in at 51.17MPG in May when it was cool enough I didn't need the a/c. I don't really do any hypermiling techniques except for watching traffic lights well ahead of time and trying to time them so I don't have to come to a stop, letting off the gas and coasting to use as much momentum as I can when I know I'm going to have to come to a stop instead of doing like most people who go straight from the gas pedal to the brake pedal and waste that momentum. I also follow other cars at a distance and if they hit the brakes I let off the gas and often have enough of a buffer that I can coast and don't have to touch my brakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I've also noticed the dash computer is very optimistic when it comes to fuel mileage. The computer on mine usually reads 4-5MPG better than doing the actual math miles/gallons. I wonder if they do this intentionally so that people who never actually do the math think they're getting great gas mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
^ For sure on the accuracy of the dash reading. I've never had one be off by that much though when hand calculating miles driven over a full tank. The ones I've had are typically 1-2mpg off compared to hand calc.
 
81 - 98 of 98 Posts
Top