09CVT vs. 04MT Fule Economy Question

[MaxShadowCT]

Can anyone answer this...I don't get it.

My 2004 Maxima SE (manual 6 speed), has a window sticker of 20city/29highway. The in dash computer says I average 25.5 MPG which I think is pretty decent.

The 2009 CVT automatic offers a window sticker fuel economy rating of 19city/26highway.

How is this possible and why are people here raving about the 09's better fuel economy when my 2004 manual beats both?

We all know we can never reach (in real life) the fuel economy rated on the window sticker but I don't see how the CVT is doing anything to improve fuel economy. Yet people here think it's good.

Why is a newer car using more fuel?
With a rating of 26 highway (which I drive more highway miles), I would probably average 21MPG with the CVT. That's not good.

Wouldn't an 09 with a 6 speed manual get even better mileage than 19/26?

Another off question, why does the 09 have more drag then my 04.
We seem to be going backwards here.

Can someone enlighten me please?

[Kevin319]

Your not buying a Maxima for fuel efficiency, your buying it for the performance and luxury.

"Fuel economy is estimated to be 19 miles per gallon City, 26 miles per gallon Highway (final EPA figures to announced at a later date) – similar to that of the 2008 Maxima, despite the 2009 Maxima’s 35 additional horsepower."

Similar does not mean the same. With an additional 35 HP, it can easily drop a cars fuel efficiency by 2-3mpg.

And yes, you can achieve the fuel economy rated on the sticker on certain circumstances. There are even ways to pass it. Look around the forum for tips.

I don't have an 04 Maxima, but I do have an 00 and I can get almost 30mpg on the highway driving speed limit with cruise control on. It all depends on how you drive.

[MaxShadowCT]

I agree Kevin319...I didn't buy a Maxima for the gas mileage...but today that's a different story, people are looking at that even closer, now more than ever.

From what I've read here, Nissan is sticking with the CVT because they can advertise/claim better gas mileage...BUT...they could also claim slightly more mileage with a manual. It's all in the wording and fine print in the commercial.

I'm not saying Nissan has to have manuals on every auto dealers lot (taking up space) but at least make it a special order option. I would sit and wait for what I wanted. I think almost all manual lovers would.

I have read tips to get better mileage here and applied them to my driving. Cruse control really does help.

[NYPD-Arnold]

The EPA changed the way MPG estimates were published on cars, rating MPG has now become stricter. So look at this way: if the 09 were rated under the old guidelines, it'd have a rating of 20/30. In 2006, the 6th gens MPG was changed to 19/25 officially.

[Kevin319]

I agree with the special order options. Nissan should have a "Enthusiast Edition/Series" for the 09 Maxima, they don't have to mass product it, just limit it to like 3000 or something and I am sure it will be a sell out.

[STARR]

We all want good gas mileage but the 09 Maxima as well as many cars that get similar gas mileage do well except for the high gas prices, if it was not for the price of gas this question would not be repeatedly asked.

If someone is truly concerned with high mileage then some of the smaller eco cars may need to be looked at.

[reb]

A friend of mine has an '05 Max with manual and averages 25mpg. With mixed city/hwy, I average 18-19mpg on my '08 Max.

Nissan can take their CVT tranny and shove it.......

I'd never buy another Nissan ever again.

[jcalabria]

Originally Posted by reb

A friend of mine has an '05 Max with manual and averages 25mpg. With mixed city/hwy, I average 18-19mpg on my '08 Max.

Nissan can take their CVT tranny and shove it.......

I'd never buy another Nissan ever again.

I can make mine avg anywhere between 12 and 28 mpg depending on how and where I drive it. You can't compare two vehicles with differences in accumulated mileage, driver (style) and road conditions and assume that the tranny is the only difference.

Driven "normally", I average 23 without ever seeing a highway. This is nearly 10% better than I averaged (same engine, driver, style, roads) with my '03 4AT... a more apt comparison indicating that the CVT is responsible for improving mileage, not hurting it.

[mtrai760]

I would never trust the computer readout to be actual MPG. Check it the old fashioned way, heck, every cell phone has a calculator on it now.

[jcalabria]

Originally Posted by mtrai760

I would never trust the computer readout to be actual MPG. Check it the old fashioned way, heck, every cell phone has a calculator on it now.

I do it both ways on a regular basis... very surprisingly the '07s trip computer has been spot on with the old fashioned way. Couldn't say the same about the '03s trip computer ... it was typically 20% optimistic on the fuel mileage.

[DubbedQ45]

Hey Guys, here's a cool little tool i found a while back on an EPA's sister website. It might help for little debates about fuel economy on pre 2008 vehicles. The website also has a decent amount of info on the changes that were made to the ratings system. All cars 2008 and forward have the new ratings systems. Enjoy

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=19796

[NismoMax80]

1. 07 weighs more
2. 07 has 35 more hp
3. like stated EPA has changed so new numbers are lower.

[lightonthehill]

Some folks will never care for the CVT, and nobody ever said it was more fun to drive,

BUT:

THE '09 MAXIMA WITH CVT GETS BETTER MPG THAN ANY MAXIMA EVER MADE.

WHEN, WHEN, WHEN are we going to stop comparing those falsely optimistic old formula '04 EPA MPG numbers with the '07 and later numbers, which were adjusted DOWNWARD by revised EPA formulas in 2007/08 to be more realistic?

And when are we going to stop floating numbers from the on-board computer, which we all know is at best, a WAG (wild a___d guess). Even manually measured MPGs are not extremely accurate, as there are dozens of variables (listed on the ORG at times in the past) that can't be controlled in measuring that way. Any measurement covering less than three or four tankfuls is particularly suspect.

So we go by EPA measurements.

Under the '04 formula, the very efficient '09 CVT would be rated either 29 or 30 MPG highway (the '04 was 26). We have already had a few '09 owners get 30 and 32 on long freeway trips. My '04 usually gets between 26 and 29 on long freeway trips , which is representative of many other '04s whose owners have posted on the ORG.

THANKS TO THE NEW EFFICIENT CVT, when we use the same formula for all Maximas, the '09 actually has a higher MPG rating than any previous Maxima ever made, even though this '09 has (by what I consider to be a significant margin) the most powerful engine of any Maxima ever made, and is heavier than all but the last few Maximas (over 100 pounds heavier than my '04).

No, the CVT is not understood by some folks, and not appreciated by others. But it is the most efficient tranny to ever appear in a Maxima. Basic laws of physics tell us a tranny that can always be at optimum RPMs for the situation with no pause for shifting will give both better accelleration and better fuel economy than any tranny that shifts. As the software is prefected, we will see even more of an advantage with the CVT.

So keep in mind: Urban rumors or agenda-driven sputum to the contrary, THE '09 GETS THE BEST MPG OF ANY MAXIMA EVER MADE.

[bb700092]

Light is right.

Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.

However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.

[lightonthehill]

Originally Posted by bb700092

Light is right.

Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.

However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.

Like bb700092, I had a little tinge of disappointment that this new '09 couldn't have had an EPA highway MPG rating a tad higher. But hopefully that will rise with the half-gen in two years? At least several here who have taken longer freeway trips with the '09 are recording such numbers as 30 and 32 MPG, so maybe the '09 will do better than its numbers. At least we can hope.

[Chio]

in the city i get about 18-20 ALOT better then my 07 S4 that got 10mpg

[NismoMax80]

what is a fule?


do they look like a mule?

[MAXIMAK99]

Originally Posted by bb700092

Light is right.

Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.

However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.

The Avalon is bigger but the Accord is slightly smaller.

[made in china]

Originally Posted by bb700092

Light is right.

Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.

However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.

I heard that the drag coefficient is pretty high (relatively speaking) on the new Maxima.

I think that the VQ30/35DE engines are very efficient. I get 29.6 avg MPG on my 3.5 in mixed driving, and if the new Max gets 32 as reported, I'd say these are great numbers. There are MANY smaller, lighter, less powerful and less efficient cars out there with 4 bangers that get considerably less MPG than the Max's I have been around. Heck, my wife's 2008 Impreza 2.5i can't get any better than 25.4 MPG. 2.5 liter, 170 HP. It may be AWD, but still, my 255 HP Max shouldn't be getting so much better MPGs!

[bb700092]

Originally Posted by MAXIMAK99

The Avalon is bigger but the Accord is slightly smaller.

"The Avalon is bigger but the Accord is slightly smaller" than what?