How much do you fill up. In Gallons!!!
#41
Just curious how many mpg everyone is getting. I just bought an '07 SE and I've driven it all different ways on a full tank. City driving gets me 15 mpg driving like an old lady and like 10 mpg driving my way. Expressway gets me
23-24 at speeds between 60 and 80. All speeds are constant so the rpm's are about 2500. I'm pissed off because I feel like I can't drive the car the way it wants to be driven. If I don't worry about gas mileage, the car is awesome to drive. $50.00 a week on gas. What's the deal? Supposed to be 21/28 mpg and that's the average. The 28 highway could be between 25 and 31. I've never seen any number over 24 on my tripometer when on the highway. Will mpg get better when the engine breaks in? Is my ECU regulating the mpg to my driving habits?
23-24 at speeds between 60 and 80. All speeds are constant so the rpm's are about 2500. I'm pissed off because I feel like I can't drive the car the way it wants to be driven. If I don't worry about gas mileage, the car is awesome to drive. $50.00 a week on gas. What's the deal? Supposed to be 21/28 mpg and that's the average. The 28 highway could be between 25 and 31. I've never seen any number over 24 on my tripometer when on the highway. Will mpg get better when the engine breaks in? Is my ECU regulating the mpg to my driving habits?
#43
Just joking LIGHT. You're the man. I am trying to stock on some sensible food in case of an emergency myself. Guns in NY a NO NO! Food is another story.
As to the gas, there is no need for it. In case of emergency we can't get out of NY, ITS AN ISLAND!
We have 5 hours traffics in the city with a disabled truck during rush hour. I don't think 3 tank fulls will get you out of NY, but good point never the less.
Stay Safe.
As to the gas, there is no need for it. In case of emergency we can't get out of NY, ITS AN ISLAND!
We have 5 hours traffics in the city with a disabled truck during rush hour. I don't think 3 tank fulls will get you out of NY, but good point never the less.
Stay Safe.
#44
Originally Posted by HeavyDez
Just curious how many mpg everyone is getting. I just bought an '07 SE and I've driven it all different ways on a full tank. City driving gets me 15 mpg driving like an old lady and like 10 mpg driving my way. Expressway gets me
23-24 at speeds between 60 and 80. All speeds are constant so the rpm's are about 2500. I'm pissed off because I feel like I can't drive the car the way it wants to be driven. If I don't worry about gas mileage, the car is awesome to drive. $50.00 a week on gas. What's the deal? Supposed to be 21/28 mpg and that's the average. The 28 highway could be between 25 and 31. I've never seen any number over 24 on my tripometer when on the highway. Will mpg get better when the engine breaks in? Is my ECU regulating the mpg to my driving habits?
23-24 at speeds between 60 and 80. All speeds are constant so the rpm's are about 2500. I'm pissed off because I feel like I can't drive the car the way it wants to be driven. If I don't worry about gas mileage, the car is awesome to drive. $50.00 a week on gas. What's the deal? Supposed to be 21/28 mpg and that's the average. The 28 highway could be between 25 and 31. I've never seen any number over 24 on my tripometer when on the highway. Will mpg get better when the engine breaks in? Is my ECU regulating the mpg to my driving habits?
Like you, I was very worried about fuel consumption when the '07 was new, but it has broken in nicely. I am also liking the CVT more and more because of its ready adaptibility to whatever mode the conditions or your mood place it in.
#45
Originally Posted by foreeyed
I have heard of Gas stations rigging their pumps to indicate that more gas is coming out, causing the gas bill to be higher. Check with the better business bureau.
#46
[QUOTE=jcalabria]Mine was about like yours until it broke in and I also learned a few tricks about the CVT. QUOTE]
Good tip, thanks for sharing with us new owners.
Separately, have you guys noticed how the needle drops dramatically from F to 1/2 tank? In my 07, I'll go from F to 3/4 in about 30 miles, then to 1/2 in about 80 miles. Then the needle will float between 1/2 and 1/4 for about 170 miles. In all the cars I've owned, it's been the exact opposite -- the needle will stay near F for at least seemingly half the tank, then drop like a rock!
Of course, I'm still under 500 mi, so things may change as I continue to break it in. Have a great weekend!
Good tip, thanks for sharing with us new owners.
Separately, have you guys noticed how the needle drops dramatically from F to 1/2 tank? In my 07, I'll go from F to 3/4 in about 30 miles, then to 1/2 in about 80 miles. Then the needle will float between 1/2 and 1/4 for about 170 miles. In all the cars I've owned, it's been the exact opposite -- the needle will stay near F for at least seemingly half the tank, then drop like a rock!
Of course, I'm still under 500 mi, so things may change as I continue to break it in. Have a great weekend!
#47
Originally Posted by breaks
...have you guys noticed how the needle drops dramatically from F to 1/2 tank? In my 07, I'll go from F to 3/4 in about 30 miles, then to 1/2 in about 80 miles. Then the needle will float between 1/2 and 1/4 for about 170 miles. In all the cars I've owned, it's been the exact opposite -- the needle will stay near F for at least seemingly half the tank, then drop like a rock!
Of course, I'm still under 500 mi, so things may change as I continue to break it in. Have a great weekend!
Of course, I'm still under 500 mi, so things may change as I continue to break it in. Have a great weekend!
At 500 miles you still have a way to go on the break-in. I really didn't see any improvement until about 4500 miles, then it creeped upward to what it is now. I think its probably done now, but it took 9-10k miles to get there.
#48
Originally Posted by jcalabria
Mine was about like yours until it broke in and I also learned a few tricks about the CVT. Now, nearing 10k miles, in all city driving, it will do between 19 & 20 MPG when driven with no regard to fuel conservation. But I have learned that after an initial launch you can feather the throttle back and the CVT will keep accelerating the car even though the engine is only turning 1500 rpm or so. I have driven my 12 mile each way work commute loop to and from downtown Charlotte, including a short 55mph stretch, without exceeding 2000 rpm. The CVT lets you MORE than keep up with traffic this way and returns 26mpg on this route. On the same route, no matter how conservatively I drove it, my '03 Max (3.5L/4AT) never did better than 22. And my Volvo S60 T5 (2.3L Turbo/5AT) does about 22 also, 18 if your heavy on the throttle.
Like you, I was very worried about fuel consumption when the '07 was new, but it has broken in nicely. I am also liking the CVT more and more because of its ready adaptibility to whatever mode the conditions or your mood place it in.
Like you, I was very worried about fuel consumption when the '07 was new, but it has broken in nicely. I am also liking the CVT more and more because of its ready adaptibility to whatever mode the conditions or your mood place it in.
Thanks for the info. I've got 1900 miles on mine. What do you think about using a lower octane fuel? It seems like the high octane burns really rich. Tail pipes are smoking in warm weather. I tried a tank of regular and the car seemed fine and gas mileage was a little better. I don't want to ruin the fuel system with low octane. I've noticed the acceleration on throttle back too. I've noticed that if I don't throttle back on acceleration the rpm's will shoot up to 4000, while throttling back gets the same performance. This car accelerates very well from the 50 mph or so range. I never gun my car or off the line. I will push it to 4000 rpms from 50-60 mph once in while or cruise at 80 mph just to experience its power and smoothness, but I pretty much baby it. I love the CVT. It is very responsive. My wife loves it too especially when she's putting on her lipstick in the mirror.
#49
Each time I fill up, it's between 20.0 and 20.5 gallons. Everytime I get a new car, I run out of gas twice on purpose to see how many miles I can go and position of the needle before it runs out. So I reset my trip odometer each time I fill up. Of course, it varies based on driving habits; but when I've been driving "spiritedly", I fill up sooner.
#50
Originally Posted by HeavyDez
Thanks for the info. I've got 1900 miles on mine. What do you think about using a lower octane fuel? It seems like the high octane burns really rich. Tail pipes are smoking in warm weather. I tried a tank of regular and the car seemed fine and gas mileage was a little better. I don't want to ruin the fuel system with low octane. I've noticed the acceleration on throttle back too. I've noticed that if I don't throttle back on acceleration the rpm's will shoot up to 4000, while throttling back gets the same performance. This car accelerates very well from the 50 mph or so range. I never gun my car or off the line. I will push it to 4000 rpms from 50-60 mph once in while or cruise at 80 mph just to experience its power and smoothness, but I pretty much baby it. I love the CVT. It is very responsive. My wife loves it too especially when she's putting on her lipstick in the mirror.
The engineers at Nissan (and other manufacturers) are not stupid. They don't create engines capable of utilizing higher octane fuel just so you can spend more money on feeding their cars. There are significant advantages to a high compression engine in terms of both power and fuel economy. All else being equal... creating a given amount of torque with a high compression engine will consume less fuel than doing so with lower compression.
The two main parameters the engine management system can use to control detonation caused by lower octane fuel is to either retard ignition timing or richen the fuel mixture. I'm assuming that retarded timing is the preferred method, but either of these should result in greater fuel consumption.
If the engine control system is retarding the timing much of the time due to the use of lower octane fuel in high load situations, it would be expected that the retarded timing would result in increased fuel consumption for a given level of torque output. The increased fuel consumption may, in fact, more than offset the cost of the premium fuel. The cost delta between regular and premium is not that great these days (it seems that its always a ten cent differential, whether gas costs $1.50 or $3.00 gallon)... if you save 4 or 5% on fuel cost but use 10% more of it, what are you saving?
My wife actually has a much heavier foot than I do... in all city driving she likes to put the pedal down at traffic lights and create high load situations for the engine. Particularly when she drives, we will typically see a 2 mpg difference depending on whether the car has premium or regular in it. That's about a 10% drop. Paying 5% more for gas that that you use 10% less of is a good deal.
Even the low rpm CVT economy technique I mentioned in an earlier post should benefit from the premium fuel... That technique is very much like short shifting a manual tranny and "torquing around" in high gear. That is one the worst possible pre-detonation (knock) scenarios you can have - high load at low rpm. I would imagine that that using regular fuel in that situation would also cause the timing to be retarded a significant amount of the time as well.
On the other hand, if you do mostly light-load highway cruising, you might not see much of a fuel mileage difference and the decision comes down to whether a few lost lb-ft of torque are important to you.
I'm open to learning something new if somebody can explain how lower octane fuel can increase fuel mileage, but right now I am not aware of any way that scenario would make any logical sense.
#51
Originally Posted by jcalabria
I am quite surprised that you got better mileage running regular gas. This is certainly not how it is supposed to be. The fuel consumption delta between regular and premium should run from virtually none to being in favor of the premium fuel, depending on how the car is being driven.
Originally Posted by jcalabria
The engineers at Nissan (and other manufacturers) are not stupid. They don't create engines capable of utilizing higher octane fuel just so you can spend more money on feeding their cars. There are significant advantages to a high compression engine in terms of both power and fuel economy. All else being equal... creating a given amount of torque with a high compression engine will consume less fuel than doing so with lower compression.
Originally Posted by jcalabria
The two main parameters the engine management system can use to control detonation caused by lower octane fuel is to either retard ignition timing or richen the fuel mixture. I'm assuming that retarded timing is the preferred method, but either of these should result in greater fuel consumption.
If the engine control system is retarding the timing much of the time due to the use of lower octane fuel in high load situations, it would be expected that the retarded timing would result in increased fuel consumption for a given level of torque output. The increased fuel consumption may, in fact, more than offset the cost of the premium fuel.
If the engine control system is retarding the timing much of the time due to the use of lower octane fuel in high load situations, it would be expected that the retarded timing would result in increased fuel consumption for a given level of torque output. The increased fuel consumption may, in fact, more than offset the cost of the premium fuel.
Octane Number is a widely misunderstood concept. I have attempted to explore this unknown in my posts on this thread in the Fluids & Lubes section of this site:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=396716
In the first post, I have a short table of contents, because there are so many aspects to the many questions about Octane.
Originally Posted by jcalabria
Even the low rpm CVT economy technique I mentioned in an earlier post should benefit from the premium fuel... That technique is very much like short shifting a manual tranny and "torquing around" in high gear. That is one the worst possible pre-detonation (knock) scenarios you can have - high load at low rpm. I would imagine that using regular fuel in that situation would also cause the timing to be retarded a significant amount of the time as well.
Originally Posted by jcalabria
On the other hand, if you do mostly light-load highway cruising, you might not see much of a fuel mileage difference and the decision comes down to whether a few lost lb-ft of torque are important to you.
I'm open to learning something new if somebody can explain how lower octane fuel can increase fuel mileage, but right now I am not aware of any way that scenario would make any logical sense.
I'm open to learning something new if somebody can explain how lower octane fuel can increase fuel mileage, but right now I am not aware of any way that scenario would make any logical sense.
As long as you are not looking for peak performance, I recommend regular -- has not harmed my VQ with 52,500 miles of driving and only a few of those tanks were with premium gasoline.
I notice no loss in torque on the highway burning regular. And my VQ engine pulls very nicely burning regular and going around a corner in town at 1,200 RPMs in third gear. Steve also informs me that the control computer takes a few hundred miles to fully recognize a change in fuel octane level, so constantly switching between regular and premium will not allow the system to settle on a given octane level you plan to provide for your VQ.
#52
I think on almost every point we are saying the exact same thing, but the variable in my equation is the constant in yours and vice versa. Were squeezing the same balloon at opposite ends.
It all depends on which factor is important to any person or a particular situation.
It all depends on which factor is important to any person or a particular situation.
#53
Originally Posted by jcalabria
I think on almost every point we are saying the exact same thing, but the variable in my equation is the constant in yours and vice versa. Were squeezing the same balloon at opposite ends.
Originally Posted by jcalabria
It all depends on which factor is important to any person or a particular situation.
#54
From www.fuelsaving.info The author is a UK automotive engineer.
Its a very simple...
All I have maintained from the start of this is if you operate your VQ under higher loads you likely will see a fuel consumption benefit from premium fuel. If you don't, you won't. Buyer's Choice.
You have made several statements that support this, yet we seem to be arguing over it anyway. I'm not sure why that is.
"Premium" fuels
Many oil companies now offer "premium" petrols - in the UK, these include Shell V-Power (formerly Optimax) and BP Ultimate. People frequently ask if these fuels are worth the extra money that they cost - my answer is, "it depends".
The main advantage of V-Power etc is the higher octane rating - typically 98 RON as opposed to 95 RON for normal UK unleaded. The effect of this on your car ranges from nothing to maybe 10% more power & torque, depending on the characteristics of the engine. Certain engines - especially turbos - are "knock limited", that is to say, the ignition cannot be advanced to the optimum point because the fuel/air mixture explodes spontaneously causing engine damage. The higher octane rating allows more ignition advance and hence more torque. Providing the engine ECU has a knock sensor, it will automatically add this extra ignition advance whenever V-Power is used.
If your car manual quotes a recommended octane and says something along the lines of "lower octane fuel may be used but with reduced performance" you can be pretty sure it has a knock sensor. If your car manual specifically recommends use of 98 RON fuel, but you normally use 95 RON, then a premium fuel such as V-Power should give a noticeable performance boost. One common misunderstanding is that using a higher than intended octane fuel is actually bad for performance and economy, because it "is too hard to burn" or "burns too slowly". In fact this is wrong; unless the ignition system is extemely marginal, using high-octane fuel in an engine designed for low octane should not cause any problems.
In terms of fuel economy, being able to advance the spark at full load certainly gives better economy, since the engine is making more efficient use of the energy in the fuel. It also potentially allows use of a higher gear in certain situations (due to the increased torque), which is in itself more economical. Finally, many engines run very rich at full load in order to cool down the exhaust gas, and if the ignition is retarded due to knock, even more additional fuel is needed. So under high load conditions, higher octane is definitely good for economy.
However, knock isn't an issue at part load, where the engine spends most of its time. In terms of overall "real world" fuel economy benefit due to increased octane rating, the effect is likely to be small unless you drive much of the time at high load - either because you have an "enthusiastic" driving style, or because you have a relatively large, heavy car with a relatively small but powerful (typically turbocharged) engine. (The latter is becoming increasingly important with the move to downsizing.)
Many oil companies now offer "premium" petrols - in the UK, these include Shell V-Power (formerly Optimax) and BP Ultimate. People frequently ask if these fuels are worth the extra money that they cost - my answer is, "it depends".
The main advantage of V-Power etc is the higher octane rating - typically 98 RON as opposed to 95 RON for normal UK unleaded. The effect of this on your car ranges from nothing to maybe 10% more power & torque, depending on the characteristics of the engine. Certain engines - especially turbos - are "knock limited", that is to say, the ignition cannot be advanced to the optimum point because the fuel/air mixture explodes spontaneously causing engine damage. The higher octane rating allows more ignition advance and hence more torque. Providing the engine ECU has a knock sensor, it will automatically add this extra ignition advance whenever V-Power is used.
If your car manual quotes a recommended octane and says something along the lines of "lower octane fuel may be used but with reduced performance" you can be pretty sure it has a knock sensor. If your car manual specifically recommends use of 98 RON fuel, but you normally use 95 RON, then a premium fuel such as V-Power should give a noticeable performance boost. One common misunderstanding is that using a higher than intended octane fuel is actually bad for performance and economy, because it "is too hard to burn" or "burns too slowly". In fact this is wrong; unless the ignition system is extemely marginal, using high-octane fuel in an engine designed for low octane should not cause any problems.
In terms of fuel economy, being able to advance the spark at full load certainly gives better economy, since the engine is making more efficient use of the energy in the fuel. It also potentially allows use of a higher gear in certain situations (due to the increased torque), which is in itself more economical. Finally, many engines run very rich at full load in order to cool down the exhaust gas, and if the ignition is retarded due to knock, even more additional fuel is needed. So under high load conditions, higher octane is definitely good for economy.
However, knock isn't an issue at part load, where the engine spends most of its time. In terms of overall "real world" fuel economy benefit due to increased octane rating, the effect is likely to be small unless you drive much of the time at high load - either because you have an "enthusiastic" driving style, or because you have a relatively large, heavy car with a relatively small but powerful (typically turbocharged) engine. (The latter is becoming increasingly important with the move to downsizing.)
Its a very simple...
- Certain engine design factors, such as turbocharging or higher compression ratios, can provide increased torque output but are inherently more susceptible to knock under high load conditions.
- These engines typically have sophisticated engine management systems that can sense this knock and compensate for it by retardng ignition timing.
- Higher octane fuel = greater resistance to knock
- Greater resistance to knock = more advanced ignition timing
- More advanced ignition timing = lower fuel consumption.
All I have maintained from the start of this is if you operate your VQ under higher loads you likely will see a fuel consumption benefit from premium fuel. If you don't, you won't. Buyer's Choice.
You have made several statements that support this, yet we seem to be arguing over it anyway. I'm not sure why that is.
#55
This is an awesome discussion. You guys are allowed to have different theories from your research. I take a little bit from each persons insight and apply it to my own research. I'm not automotive mechanically inclined, so I'm learning alot from both of you. This is my first Max and my first new car. Again, great discussion. Thanks.
#56
Originally Posted by jcalabria
From www.fuelsaving.info The author is a UK automotive engineer.
Outside of the USA and Canada, where octane is measured as (R+M)/2 (sometimes called "Octane Number" or even Octane), almost all octane is quoted as Research Octane (or RON for Research Octane Number), sometimes abbreviated as "R" (as in the above formula). To help you understand this engineer's points on gasoline octane, you can do a close approximation of our Octane to his RON by subtracting about 5 from his RON numbers: 98 RON is about 93 Octane, while 95 RON is about 90 Octane.
He makes a number of good points, which I would like to stress {and comment on in these brackets}.
- "are these fuels worth the extra money that they cost -- my answer is, 'it depends'."
{It always "depends" on many factors, including (but not limited to) each individual engine, engine deposits, individual driving styles, environmental conditions, etc.}
- "The effect of this {higher octane} on your car ranges from nothing to maybe 10% more power & torque, depending on the characteristics of the engine."
{Even the same engine in two identical cars can have slightly different characteristics that influence its need for higher octane. And don't forget the presence or absence of deposits in each engine -- which can increase octane requirements above manufacturer's design levels.}
- "being able to advance the spark at full load certainly gives better economy,"
{The key phrase here is "at full load". Without this load on the engine, the spark is not necessarily advanced and there is essentially no better fuel economy from premium than from regular. You approach full engine load when you call for WOT or when you climb a steep hill in a higher gear (something automatic trannies won't allow -- they down-shift).}
- "many engines run very rich at full load in order to cool down the exhaust gas,"
{While this does happen, it has a tendency to result in unburned hydrocarbons that must be disposed of in the cat converter. Also, the cat converter does not like the exhaust gas to be "too hot." But I believe there's another reason for the engine control system calling for a rich fuel mixture -- to cool down the cylinders and reduce engine knock.}
- "knock isn't an issue at part load, where the engine spends most of its time."
{This is a point I've been making from the beginning. Cruising the interstate highways at 75 MPH, where the VQ is turning over at about 2,750 RPMs, this engine is just loping along. It could easily handle this speed and load at 2,200 RPMs or less (requiring higher gearing from Nissan). Unless you need to frequently pass a slower vehicle on a 2-lane road (or climb a steep hill in high gear), you don't need premium on the highway.}
- "In terms of overall 'real world' fuel economy benefit due to increased octane rating, the effect is likely to be small unless you drive much of the time at high load."
{Correct, and with my driving style and VQ, I found the effect on fuel economy from burning premium on the interstates to be non-existent.}
- {He then goes on to explain who will need to burn premium gasoline}: "because you have an 'enthusiastic' driving style, or because you have a relatively large, heavy car with a relatively small but powerful (typically turbocharged) engine."
{The VQ at 3.5 L and without a turbocharger hardly qualifies as a "small engine," so only those who race (track or street) need premium IMHO.}
Based on all of this, I went back to see where jc and I were in disagreement. Turns out we were not really -- we were only stressing different factors more or less, like this on engine design:
- jc: "Nissan engineers have designed the VQ engine to take advantage of the benefits of burning premium."
- me: "Nissan engineers have designed the VQ engine to operate adequately on regular gasoline."
Even so, I still find a need to comment on jc's points, below:
Originally Posted by jcalabria
Its a very simple...
- Certain engine design factors, such as turbocharging or higher compression ratios, can provide increased torque output but are inherently more susceptible to knock under high load conditions.
- These engines typically have sophisticated engine management systems that can sense this knock and compensate for it by retarding ignition timing.
- Higher octane fuel = greater resistance to knock
- Greater resistance to knock = more advanced ignition timing
- More advanced ignition timing = lower fuel consumption.
In fact, frequently calling for WOT will actually hurt your mileage versus driving more slowly (cautiously). So if burning regular will keep you from calling for WOT, your mileage might even be better with regular -- by getting you to change your driving style.
Originally Posted by jcalabria
All I have maintained from the start of this is if you operate your VQ under higher loads you likely will see a fuel consumption benefit from premium fuel. If you don't, you won't. Buyer's Choice.
You have made several statements that support this, yet we seem to be arguing over it anyway. I'm not sure why that is.
You have made several statements that support this, yet we seem to be arguing over it anyway. I'm not sure why that is.
#58
On E I have never been able to get more than 16 gallons in at a time. That little yellow light along with the * scare me into pulling over immediately.
I was under the impression that the maxima's fuel capacity was around 17 gallons. How are people getting 20 gallons in?
I was under the impression that the maxima's fuel capacity was around 17 gallons. How are people getting 20 gallons in?
#60
Originally Posted by Mr. Cummings
I was under the impression that the maxima's fuel capacity was around 17 gallons. How are people getting 20 gallons in?
#62
Originally Posted by brrblackmaxed
...I don't want to slurp up the "dregs"!
You don't want the fuel level to get so low that the fuel pump overheats.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TKHanson
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
6
11-24-2018 01:39 AM