I have picked up an honest 3 mpg with my intake. I was at 18-19 mpg city before and now 21-22 mpg! That is huge! Performance as you know is nothing but, the sound is nice!

I don't know... 18-19 is really low unless you're doing city driving. I was getting a consistent 25+ with almost 100% highway driving, and on loooong road trips (300+ miles) I was doing even better than that.

After I got my intake I've been more generous with the gas, and letting the car rev higher, so my mileage has actually decreased slightly.

Regardless, conventional wisdom says that having the intake will make your car run leaner, so you should see gas savings to an extent. I don't know if you're supposed to be seeing 3-4mpg increases though... I always thought that was just marketing BS.

lol... I speed to much to get that... I'm at 17-19mpg.. my wheels lower my mpg also, not just speed, ecu might of also...

always check your tire pressure etc... if you are low on air you will feel it in your pockets... check your pressure at least 1 time every 2-3 weeks.

I saw my car go to 29MPG after fillup and back to high way after my intake...

I was going straight 50MPH

Also remember for every 10Miles you are going over 60MPH you are waisting 10cents of gase per mile.

and to just make it better stay below 3500 rpm.

My Berk added 2 mpg to my highway driving, but didn't seem to change my city mileage.

I spee.. I mean I move faster down the road than most , but not in as much stop and go traffic like in the big cities.

Hey guys... new to this forum... just bought an 04... lovin it...

So simple question... how accurate is the MPG computer?

and this is much better than my Trailblazer I just traded in... 13.7 mpg!!!!

I have only had my Nismo intake for about 10 days. I had to detach the positive cable on the battery to reset my "check engine" light, so my mpg counter was reset at as well. Prior to the intake I was at 20.4 mpg with mixed driving. I am up to 20.7 so far, I think I will probably see at least 1mpg improvement.......IF I stay out the higher rpm ranges


Blulytes - Welcome to the Org. As far I know the counter is accurate. I've never tested it though.

There will be times an SUV can come in handy so we have both...

Great choice though if you had to go either / or. Welcome to the Org...

Thanks... I am a moderator over on a trailblazer forum... You might enjoy that one over there too... lots of mods you can do to it!
www.trailvoy.com

The wife has a 05 Tahoe LT.... so no need for two big trucks in the family.



Thanks for the welcomes!!!

My ecperience with imtakes has been better MPG, since you can get a little more air in. *If you keep your foot off the gas!!!*

Thanks for the 411, I'll check it out...

I just picked up an 04 maxima SE.
Off the lot the trip computer said I was getting 25.
After putting 200 miles of mixed driving Im getting around 22mpg.
Damm this thing has some power. Im sure it will go up once I get my foot out of the firewall.

welcome to the org ... gas milage too high just try to keep it down to 2000 rpms and your'll get some good numbers

Interesting Idea, lets extrapolate:

Assume 25MPH @ 60 MPH highway
Currently 10 cents of gas buys about .03 of a gallon

60MPH 25Miles = 1 Gallon 25.0MPG
80MPH 25Miles = 1.06 Gl 23.5MPG
100 MPH 25Miles = 1.12gl 22.3MPG
120MPH 21.2MPG
140MPH 20.2MPG

It must start to deteriorate faster at higher speeds, i dont really buy that i can get 20mpg at 140

Ya dude, are those police lights on your blazer?

Kam

Don't get any ideas!

i noticed in my 4th gen when i put my intake in it got worse for me, because i was always running high rpms so i can enjoy that sweet VQ music

Well... yes... I'm a Firefighter...

I'm in the same boat, I also got rid of my SUV - a 99 Grand Cherokee Ltd., for an 04 SL. Got about 14mpg in that, my computer now reads 18.x, so quite a bit better. I can make it almost two weeks between fillups now, instead of just over one! Like you said though, it's really hard to not tear around in it after you first buy it, so hopefully the mileage will eventually go up.

It's going to be interesting to see how it handles in the snow this coming winter.

Regarding how the intake affects the mileage, I'd be curious to hear from some more people about it. I'm still thinking about adding a CAI, but I've heard you lose some low-end power. That's what I love about the Max though, how it fires off the line. I really noticed that vs. test driving the new TLs, which felt slower off the line but more power up high.

The whole "you waste gas by driving faster" is a throwback lie from the days of gas conservation, when the national speed limit was enacted and as a result of the gas crisis. If you drive a BOX down the road at 75 with your foot planted on the gas, of course you're gonna use up more gas... It's all about aerodynamics and RPMs. If you're crusing in 5th @ 80mph and the tach is only 2500-3000rpms, you're probably using WAY less gas than the guy in the volvo that you just passed that's doing 55 in 4th @ 4k rpm, and driving that boxy looking thing.

you make sense now... i just said what i have heard... many people have that theory....

I know, i have always assumed the engine speed is what dictates my fuel econ. I mean, thats what overdrive is for. I have an auto so I have no control over the engine's speed other than the throttle. Thats why CVT's are so attractive for this purpose, they will continuously adjust rpm's to save the most gas at every speed.

This theory assumes you are not flooring the car and dropping into a lower gear to increase your speed 10mph over 60...the rpms are going to slowly climb as you are cruising in 5th and go from 60-70, or 70-80...and at the same time, according to that guy...reduce mpg...it makes sense in a way because there are no more gears once you are at 60 and climbing, therefore no way to gain speed more efficiently.

I'm just saying what I've seen... I seem to use less gas at 80 (my average driving speed) than at 55, and I drive 100 miles a day every day. The trips to the pump and the onboard computer seem to agree. But that's when I don't drive like a maniac -- which happens a lot too.

I think it's one of those things that people hear and do just because... like the old adage of putting the car in neutral and coasting down a hill.

Which is why CVTs are **** for performance, and why everybody hates Nissan for trying to put it on the Maxima.

Precisely... you can drive conservatively and hit 5th gear at relatively low speeds, and if you stay in 5th to accelerate to 70-80, you're much better off than getting there in 3rd. Of course, using 3rd is a lot more fun... Your car will drive like a 3 bedroom house, but you will definitely feel the difference in gas mileage. So it's not about speed per se, it's about how you get there and what you do once you get there. Agree with you 100%.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that CVT is not for a sport or sporty cars. But in straight line acceleration, CVT might be as quick or quicker. When you floor a CVT car, the engine RPM will rise to where peak power is, as the pulleys move closer together to increase the speed. So a "255HP" engine can run at it peak the whole time from start, where a "265HP" engine will have the RPM dropped with every shift. So far Audi's A4's and A6's CVT performs nearly as well as their manual trans.

I work for Durham Regional Police...........

I work for Durham Regional Police with the VCARS (Victims Crisis Asistance and Referal Service). I would love a set of police lights on my Maxima but I dont think the new police chief would agree.

Kam

I think what is working against CVT's when it comes to performance is this...
The elimination of shifting means the gearing ratio is climbing at all times, whereas with 5 gears, the ratio is held at a constant until an upshift occurs. So, with a 5 speed you can have the RPMs spin to 7000 while maintaining a low 1st gear ratio...which allows the car to blast through the gear until the upshift occurs. The CVT is always climbing to a higher gear ratio, slowing down the increase in RPMs considerably, so in a 0-60 sprint, instead of ripping through the low gears really fast, the engine must climb one gear the whole time. Im sure audi has engineered some fantastic CVT's...however, you wont find them on their high performance RS cars for a reason.

Another newbie here! Had my 2004 for 30 months and loving it. Now for what I am guessing is a dumb question for most of you. What's up with "adding an intake"? Where is it added, how is it done, etc.

Like I said, that's why people figure they're **** for performance. You don't have to go farther than the Murano to see it... it's not the same type of car but you can tell it's a hog for sure.

The RPM through CVT can climb just as fast, the '03 A6 3.0 CVT w/ 220HP can do 0-60 in about 7.5 secs, that's about the same w/ 5th gen auto. I have not seen the new 255HP A6 tested yet. But this will remain to be seen when the '07 Max is tested.

So about intake and MPG....

I get about 24 mixed highway/city. It's getting better as I get more mileage on the car. Currently I am at about 2100 miles on my 06. The intake does seem to help on the highway while cruising as along as I don't get aggressive with the throttle. This weekend I am driving to Fort Bragg for my first trip outside the area, I will report my mileage when I get back Sunday night.

No one I know drives 55MPH on the highway, they should change the charts and estimate mileage based on 70 MPH on the highway.

There are way too many variables to compare an audi and a maxima just based on their hp ratings imo...you have to take two exact models and equip one with cvt and one with an auto and test that.

welcome... what took you so long?! =)

go through the sticky to see pics of intake setups.

i have a 3.5 SE '05 with stock tire and i notice something, you can greatly improve MPG by keeping ur pressure accurate, im running 80 mph on highway constantly and i got a 28+MPG, i personally think its the best to get ur pressure to 38-39psi (hot) or around 34-35(cold) u should try it and see if it works.

Sorry about hijacking this thread...

OT: The closet to the same model was the '03 A4 3.0 CVT and the '03 A4 3.0 Quattro 6-speed manual. The Quattro weighted about 150lbs more but got the AWD traction with manual trans and only edged the CVT by .2 sec at 60 and .1 sec at 1/4 mile. The CVT was about .5 sec slower when manually shifted though, it worked more like a real auto with drop in engine speed. Car and Driver.

We'll see the '07 Max soon and really compare.

Sorry to go off topic but I am not allowed to start my own thread. IS any one interested in 04-06 Se Wheels 18" stock. If so please contact me at PMPN8EZ052@comcast.net. Thanks

Thread Jack, followed by,

OWNED BY MODERATOR...

Yeah, what is this "intake" add on thingy, anyway? is it easy to install? and, more importantly, is it going to void any warranties?

Love my '06 4DSC

Has Anyone filled up the tank then drove till almost empty. Then fill up and divide your miles driven by the gallons of gas used? How does that compare to what the trip computer tells you?

thanks for the info.

-Adam