Mediocre gas milage
07-10-2014, 10:18 PM
#2
Spark plugs, fuel filter, clean your egr, change the pcv valve, use premium fuel, make sure brakes aren't binding and the pins are sliding free, proper tire inflation, reduce weight you're carrying, clean maf, replace oxygen 02 sensors, check catalysts for clogs, replace air filter, use synthetic oils, fill tires with nitrogen, etc.
07-10-2014, 10:29 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,215
That's not a bad mpg. Mine gets about that too.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16806.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16806.shtml
07-10-2014, 10:46 PM
#4
bad mpg LOL
That's not how I would drive city, though. Hammer 1st gear, then cruise in high gear. The car doesn't make sufficient or efficient power that low down. You're probably just making it struggle more than anything and burning more fuel.
If you have so much stop and go that you don't have cruising periods, then that's obviously the cause of it failing to meet your expectations (but it's actually giving you good results).
Those numbers are bull****, though. I got 24 mpg driving through the Appalachians at 80-85 mph. There are some pretty decent climbs (left every 4 banger in the dust). On slightly hilly terrain I got 28 mpg at the same speed.
This was an auto 2001. I could have done better than that with the 5 spd.
That's not how I would drive city, though. Hammer 1st gear, then cruise in high gear. The car doesn't make sufficient or efficient power that low down. You're probably just making it struggle more than anything and burning more fuel.
If you have so much stop and go that you don't have cruising periods, then that's obviously the cause of it failing to meet your expectations (but it's actually giving you good results).
That's not a bad mpg. Mine gets about that too.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16806.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16806.shtml
This was an auto 2001. I could have done better than that with the 5 spd.
Last edited by Child_uv_KoRn; 07-10-2014 at 10:55 PM.
07-10-2014, 10:53 PM
#5
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 243
bad mpg LOL
Those numbers are bull****, though. I got 24 mpg driving through the Appalachians at 80-85 mph. There are some pretty decent climbs (left every 4 banger in the dust). On slightly hilly terrain I got 28 mpg at the same speed.
This was an auto 2001. I could have done better than that with the 5 spd.
Those numbers are bull****, though. I got 24 mpg driving through the Appalachians at 80-85 mph. There are some pretty decent climbs (left every 4 banger in the dust). On slightly hilly terrain I got 28 mpg at the same speed.
This was an auto 2001. I could have done better than that with the 5 spd.
07-11-2014, 07:02 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Snakeden Branch, VA
Posts: 1,441
^ First thing first, USE PREMIUM FUEL. It says so in the manual, using regular will give you crap performance.
I average 18-22mpg in all city traffic, and my area has TERRIBLE traffic and people out here never accelerate sufficiently so I can barely even press the pedal in 1st gear most times -- forcing the car to accelerate more in higher gear and waste more gas. Winter time is more like 18mpg, summer usually tends to be closer to 22mpg.
No EGR on the 2001's and late 2000's. 
I average 18-22mpg in all city traffic, and my area has TERRIBLE traffic and people out here never accelerate sufficiently so I can barely even press the pedal in 1st gear most times -- forcing the car to accelerate more in higher gear and waste more gas. Winter time is more like 18mpg, summer usually tends to be closer to 22mpg.
Spark plugs, fuel filter, clean your egr, change the pcv valve, use premium fuel, make sure brakes aren't binding and the pins are sliding free, proper tire inflation, reduce weight you're carrying, clean maf, replace oxygen 02 sensors, check catalysts for clogs, replace air filter, use synthetic oils, fill tires with nitrogen, etc.
07-11-2014, 08:55 AM
#8
Unless you got a butt dyno to prove me wrong?
07-11-2014, 09:21 AM
#9
Time to get a eco boxxx
Seriously though according to fuelly your mpg is not that bad
http://www.fuelly.com/car/nissan/maxima
Seriously though according to fuelly your mpg is not that bad
http://www.fuelly.com/car/nissan/maxima
07-11-2014, 10:37 AM
#11
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 152
What a joke u are.... Iv used 87 compared to 93.... 87 sucks in my car I really only use it on my long highway trips to from Florida to ny..... But it's def Differnt and u can notice it
07-11-2014, 11:56 AM
#12
You look like the joke...As far as the performance on 87 versus 93 I wouldn't know...we only have up to 91 in California. For the first 5 years I ran my 2k Maxima on premium (91 in California). I then switched to 87 for economic reasons and haven't looked back. There was no performance change (at least that I noticed in my butt dyno) and my MPG did not change. I never looked back...why spend more money when you don't have to?
07-11-2014, 02:19 PM
#13
Ill add my own 2 cents here...owned 3 maximas...
i definitely notice a difference between 87 and 91 relative to mpg and "power". with 91 my car seems more responsive..more true to its "drive by wire" electronic throttle control design. yet with 87 there is a lag in response. im sure the knock sensor retards the timing to compensate for 87 gas. for those with 17* timing advance..running 87 gas could be a costly mistake.
with that said i avg 20 mpg consistently with mixed driving city/fwy. (sorry for the rant)
i definitely notice a difference between 87 and 91 relative to mpg and "power". with 91 my car seems more responsive..more true to its "drive by wire" electronic throttle control design. yet with 87 there is a lag in response. im sure the knock sensor retards the timing to compensate for 87 gas. for those with 17* timing advance..running 87 gas could be a costly mistake.
with that said i avg 20 mpg consistently with mixed driving city/fwy. (sorry for the rant)
07-11-2014, 03:25 PM
#14
93 (91 will be fine on a stock car, but it's not carried here). 87 is crap. The engine will not be efficient with low octane. It will start to ping and the KS will retard timing. You're just burning money. That 20 cents you save per gallon is nothing when you lose mpg from 87.
In the winter I'm sure 87 is fine, since the air is cold. It won't ping easily. But in this summer heat, it's going to ping.
In the winter I'm sure 87 is fine, since the air is cold. It won't ping easily. But in this summer heat, it's going to ping.
Last edited by Child_uv_KoRn; 07-11-2014 at 03:27 PM.
07-11-2014, 04:53 PM
#15
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 243
Spark plugs, fuel filter, clean your egr, change the pcv valve, use premium fuel, make sure brakes aren't binding and the pins are sliding free, proper tire inflation, reduce weight you're carrying, clean maf, replace oxygen 02 sensors, check catalysts for clogs, replace air filter, use synthetic oils, fill tires with nitrogen, etc.
07-11-2014, 09:46 PM
#16
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: North Jersey, NJ
Posts: 35
07-11-2014, 11:17 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 152
Well...at least I can spell and not look like an idiot when I post. You might want to continue your edumacation... You look like the joke...
As far as the performance on 87 versus 93 I wouldn't know...we only have up to 91 in California. For the first 5 years I ran my 2k Maxima on premium (91 in California). I then switched to 87 for economic reasons and haven't looked back. There was no performance change (at least that I noticed in my butt dyno) and my MPG did not change. I never looked back...why spend more money when you don't have to?
You look like the joke...As far as the performance on 87 versus 93 I wouldn't know...we only have up to 91 in California. For the first 5 years I ran my 2k Maxima on premium (91 in California). I then switched to 87 for economic reasons and haven't looked back. There was no performance change (at least that I noticed in my butt dyno) and my MPG did not change. I never looked back...why spend more money when you don't have to?
07-11-2014, 11:20 PM
#19
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 152
Ill add my own 2 cents here...owned 3 maximas...
i definitely notice a difference between 87 and 91 relative to mpg and "power". with 91 my car seems more responsive..more true to its "drive by wire" electronic throttle control design. yet with 87 there is a lag in response. im sure the knock sensor retards the timing to compensate for 87 gas. for those with 17* timing advance..running 87 gas could be a costly mistake.
with that said i avg 20 mpg consistently with mixed driving city/fwy. (sorry for the rant)
i definitely notice a difference between 87 and 91 relative to mpg and "power". with 91 my car seems more responsive..more true to its "drive by wire" electronic throttle control design. yet with 87 there is a lag in response. im sure the knock sensor retards the timing to compensate for 87 gas. for those with 17* timing advance..running 87 gas could be a costly mistake.
with that said i avg 20 mpg consistently with mixed driving city/fwy. (sorry for the rant)
07-12-2014, 12:34 AM
#20
I've consistently gotten 22ish city/28 hwy forever with my auto 01 (also 87 octane mostly). Premium gets put in every now and again and it does run a tiny bit smoother. I can also attest to some pinging being noticed every year as the heat of summer kicks in. I do a lot of long trips with plenty of time to obsess about recording mpg's and such. Premium hasn't shown itself to gain me much in fuel efficiency to warrant the price with long distance driving, but again it does feel better. Additionally, I have to add that I do stay on top of the simple things; tire pressure checked often, syn oil changed on schedule, air filter replaced, and I keep her properly aligned. That probably makes more of a difference than anything else.
07-12-2014, 01:46 AM
#21
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 243
I've consistently gotten 22ish city/28 hwy forever with my auto 01 (also 87 octane mostly). Premium gets put in every now and again and it does run a tiny bit smoother. I can also attest to some pinging being noticed every year as the heat of summer kicks in. I do a lot of long trips with plenty of time to obsess about recording mpg's and such. Premium hasn't shown itself to gain me much in fuel efficiency to warrant the price with long distance driving, but again it does feel better. Additionally, I have to add that I do stay on top of the simple things; tire pressure checked often, syn oil changed on schedule, air filter replaced, and I keep her properly aligned. That probably makes more of a difference than anything else.
07-12-2014, 12:30 PM
#22
Also, if you have high miles the cats could be clogged, but you should notice a power problem (they don't fail like the 5.5s, but they will clog eventually).
07-12-2014, 12:36 PM
#23
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 243
You can always replace the maf, use 91 and see what your results are. The maf will eventually fail anyway, so it wouldn't be a waste of money to replace it.
Also, if you have high miles the cats could be clogged, but you should notice a power problem (they don't fail like the 5.5s, but they will clog eventually).
Also, if you have high miles the cats could be clogged, but you should notice a power problem (they don't fail like the 5.5s, but they will clog eventually).
07-12-2014, 02:16 PM
#24
Should I clean it or replace it? And if info, will the ones on eBay work? EBay seems to have all the different parts I could ever need but I don't know how good of quality are. Also, the cats, do people just replace them or is there a way to clean them. Thanks for helping me out though man
I wouldn't use an ebay maf.
Replace the Y pipe. That will delete the cat in the rear and then you just gut the front one before you install the Y. Might as well gut or replace the rear cat with a test pipe while you're at it. That will also yield a decent power boost, especially with a catback and intake.
07-12-2014, 10:02 PM
#25
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 243
Cleaning rarely works, imo.
I wouldn't use an ebay maf.
Replace the Y pipe. That will delete the cat in the rear and then you just gut the front one before you install the Y. Might as well gut or replace the rear cat with a test pipe while you're at it. That will also yield a decent power boost, especially with a catback and intake.
I wouldn't use an ebay maf.
Replace the Y pipe. That will delete the cat in the rear and then you just gut the front one before you install the Y. Might as well gut or replace the rear cat with a test pipe while you're at it. That will also yield a decent power boost, especially with a catback and intake.
07-13-2014, 06:12 PM
#26
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Norfolk, NE
Posts: 29
Hmm, I was just going to start a thread asking about this. I seem to be averaging **** poor mileage lately. It started with 02 codes on my primary rear bank. I installed a warpspeed y pipe, gutted the front pre cat, replaced the rear cat with a test pipe and 2.5in all the way back, simmed the secondaries, replaced the plugs, tested all coils (good) then showed up with a maf code. Replaced the maf and that code went away. Still haven't been able to get my rear bank primary 02 code to go away. I believe its 0420 IIRC.
Bottom line on my MPG: I burned up 60 bucks of 93 octane of mostly highway driving and I managed 296 miles on that tank (add 40 +/- for low fuel light gas left)
Bottom line on my MPG: I burned up 60 bucks of 93 octane of mostly highway driving and I managed 296 miles on that tank (add 40 +/- for low fuel light gas left)
07-14-2014, 12:30 PM
#27
Haha I'm on a phone typing this and could care less about my spelling, I have a college degree in sports management from cortland state in ny..... Second I'm a idiot for using the correct gas.... And not trying to ruin my engine.... Yup you keep up the good work stupid
Let me help you..."Second I'm a idiot..." where you really should have written, "Second I'm an idiot..." So, yes, thank you for affirming your idiocy. Carryon...this is fun.
Funny how I am using "incorrect" gas, yet have no performance, mileage, or maintenance issues. How odd...
07-19-2014, 11:22 PM
#28
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Posts: 56
Cleaning rarely works, imo.
I wouldn't use an ebay maf.
Replace the Y pipe. That will delete the cat in the rear and then you just gut the front one before you install the Y. Might as well gut or replace the rear cat with a test pipe while you're at it. That will also yield a decent power boost, especially with a catback and intake.
I wouldn't use an ebay maf.
Replace the Y pipe. That will delete the cat in the rear and then you just gut the front one before you install the Y. Might as well gut or replace the rear cat with a test pipe while you're at it. That will also yield a decent power boost, especially with a catback and intake.
07-19-2014, 11:36 PM
#29
Haha I'm on a phone typing this and could care less about my spelling, I have a college degree in sports management from cortland state in ny..... Second I'm a idiot for using the correct gas.... And not trying to ruin my engine.... Yup you keep up the good work stupid
The proper phrase is "couldn't care less"
Been a pet peeve of mine for years; and apparently it drives Weird Al crazy too in his new video.
07-25-2014, 01:00 AM
#33
First thing first, USE PREMIUM FUEL. It says so in the manual, using regular will give you crap performance.
I average 18-22mpg in all city traffic, and my area has TERRIBLE traffic and people out here never accelerate sufficiently so I can barely even press the pedal in 1st gear most times -- forcing the car to accelerate more in higher gear and waste more gas. Winter time is more like 18mpg, summer usually tends to be closer to 22mpg.
I average 18-22mpg in all city traffic, and my area has TERRIBLE traffic and people out here never accelerate sufficiently so I can barely even press the pedal in 1st gear most times -- forcing the car to accelerate more in higher gear and waste more gas. Winter time is more like 18mpg, summer usually tends to be closer to 22mpg.
The BSFC map differs for every engine and calibration, but a good rule of thumb for a naturally aspirated engine is 3/4 of full load torque at roughly 2000 rpm is the most efficient operating point. Hence the reasoning modern automatics shift up early (move operating point to lower speed and higher torque) and lock the torque converter almost immediately (decrease losses through TC). Did you know that German cars in particular have been calibrated (for over 15 years...) to start second gear unless nearly full throttle is given?
Using 91 AKI vs. 87 AKI allows the spark to be advanced, such that the BSFC is reduced (the peak cylinder pressure occurs closer to TDC, and thus more energy is extracted from the fuel). So, the former should net better fuel consumption. In the real world, dependening on vehicle maintenance, driving style and other factors, YMMV.
No.
Not from a fuel economy standpoint. See above.
Last edited by tcb_02_max; 07-25-2014 at 01:09 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
My Coffee
New Member Introductions
15
06-06-2017 02:01 PM