Nissan Cube Life - Nissan Cube Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey guys, let's try to guess what kind of MPG a 2500lb box with a 1.4L engine should realistically get.

Now, I have a 2339lb box with a 1.5L engine. It's a 2006 xB. The EPA (fueleconomy.gov) guesstimates the MPG at 26city/31hwy. I say it guesstimates, because those are the *new* EPA numbers, but not really, because the new tests haven't been run on older (than 2007) models. EPA just takes a stab at what the vehicle would get if the new tests were done on it. Now, the stab was dead on for me. As much idling as I do on the way home, I get only 25.5-27 in the city. On road trips, it only gets up to 31. (31.5 was the highest I've measured.)

We know the old EPA tests can exaggerate MPG. What do we know about the Nip gov't tests? I always hear they give overly-high numbers.

Even though it's lower than what we'd like, 26/31 is pretty damned good. Matrix gets lower, 25/31, and I get to haul more stuff (and haul people more comfortably) in my box than in a Matrix.

For the Cube, it would be nice if Nissan would add a 5th gear for the highway. I know there'd still be some dropping into 4th (even 3rd) on hills, but it would be nice to run under 3k rpm occasionally, even just on flat stretches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Some more spelunking on fueleconomy.gov shows some interesting numbers.

The Versa is Nissan's small-wagon, a category designed for thrift, to which belongs also the Fit and Matrix.
The Versa is 1.8L. The 2009 manual 6-speed Versa gets 26/31, the automatic gets 24/32, and the CVT gets 27/33.

So, I will be disappointed if the US Cube ends up getting less than 26/31, but I will not be unhappy if it gets exactly that. I will be disappointed if the US Cube gets more than a 1.8L engine, but not unhappy if it gets just that. I think that it most likely will come with the same 1.8L that Nissan already ships over here for the Versa and Sentra.

FYI:
2009 Matrix 1.8L: Manual-26/32, Auto-25/31. (Matrix has a 2.4L option, which I didn't bother to look at.)
2008 Fit 1.5L: Manual-28/34, Auto-27/34, Auto(sport?)-27/33. (There are no 2009 Fit EPA numbers yet.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I can promise you that after the new Cube is released, many people will be complaining that they are getting less than 20 mpg. The mpg on this thing is going to be VERY related to the speed you drive it at. 33 mpg @ 55 mph probably equals 25 mpg @ 65 mpg and 18 mpg @ 70 mph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Master KC: you're pessimism surpasses mine and I don't understand why. I simply base my Cube MPG (wild-assed) guess on the MPG of an extremely similar car, the first-gen xB. The old xB has almost exactly the same shape, almost exactly the same weight, almost exactly the same engine displacement, and almost exactly the same horsepower as the 1.4L Cube.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I should have included in the last post that I get my recorded 31MPG on my old xB road trips where I do in fact average 78mph. I don't think the penalty for speeding will be too high. Even at 78mph, its still better than in the city. Once again, I get 26city/31hwy. I work in Montgomery, AL (moderately stop-and-go rush hour is my main city driving), and my highway driving is to Atlanta and back on occasion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Good comparisons anderlan.

I think we'll see 25/30 mpg as the Cube is slightly heavier than the previous gen xB and it will likely have a larger engine which will use more fuel but you also have to keep in mind that a larger engine will not have to work as hard as a smaller engine so the fuel usage could come out similar in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Sara said:
Good comparisons anderlan.

I think we'll see 25/30 mpg as the Cube is slightly heavier than the previous gen xB and it will likely have a larger engine which will use more fuel but you also have to keep in mind that a larger engine will not have to work as hard as a smaller engine so the fuel usage could come out similar in the end.
Hi there, in Singapore we monitor or mileage by using km/litre. May i know what is the conversion of mpg to km/litre? The specs given by Nissan is around 19.4km/l, which is pretty high for a 1.4l vehicle. But i believe i should be only getting around 14-15km/l on road. Thanks! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
PunKie: JUst do the math (one inch is 2.54 cm and one mile is 12*5280 inches; one liter is .26417 gallons), or just go here: http://www.vangeyn.net/mpg/

26MPG is 11.05km/L.
31MPG is 13.18km/L.

14km/L is 32.93MPG
15km/L is 35.28MPG
19km/L is 44.69MPG (<-- like a Prius)

So, your 14-15 km/L seems much more realistic than the official 19km/L. The official tests may not be enforced correctly, or they may be very unrealistic. How fast do you drive when you get 14-15km/L? 100kph or 120kph? Is there any stopping or is it mostly moving at full speed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
anderlan said:
I should have included in the last post that I get my recorded 31MPG on my old xB road trips where I do in fact average 78mph. I don't think the penalty for speeding will be too high. Even at 78mph, its still better than in the city. Once again, I get 26city/31hwy. I work in Montgomery, AL (moderately stop-and-go rush hour is my main city driving), and my highway driving is to Atlanta and back on occasion.
You must be a really good driver to get than mileage at 78mph. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but most people don't know how to drive economically, and don't realize how un-aerodynamic these vehicles are. Back when I ran a delivery van fleet, I'd routinely see some drivers get 9mpg while others would be 16mpg on identical vehicles, on very similar delivery routes. When Consumer Reports tested the Mustang II in the mid-1970s, they managed to only get 6mpg out of it. And when Datsun introduced the B210, some people were complaining that they were getting less than 15mpg, and others were getting in the high 30s. And all of those vehicles were likely more aerodynamic than the Cube. At least the current version Cube.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Hehe. There's only one way to drive a 1.5L on the highway. I drive as hard as I can, while staying under 80mph. In town, I stomp it when I need to get in. I love it. My puny little toaster pops into traffic like a contender and I love the look on peoples faces. I dunno. I guess the little engine has a gift for low-speed spunkiness. And the car is light.

I laugh at people with big cars or trucks saying they drive a certain way so that they, too, can get good MPG. I say, well, my engine *always* gets better MPG than yours because it's designed to.

Also, aerodynamics can be mis-judged. I have seen a discussion of aerodynamics by a physics professor begun first by talking about the into-the-wind area. Maybe a way to think about it is the radar-signature, if the vehicle is coming at you or going from you. The xB is not tall or wide at all, when compared to a van; it has less into-the-wind area. Next comes the discussion of shape.

I will admit the xB has a bad shape. But not bad enough to make for small weight, small engine, and small-ish radar signature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
anderlan said:
PunKie: JUst do the math (one inch is 2.54 cm and one mile is 12*5280 inches; one liter is .26417 gallons), or just go here: http://www.vangeyn.net/mpg/

26MPG is 11.05km/L.
31MPG is 13.18km/L.

14km/L is 32.93MPG
15km/L is 35.28MPG
19km/L is 44.69MPG (<-- like a Prius)

So, your 14-15 km/L seems much more realistic than the official 19km/L. The official tests may not be enforced correctly, or they may be very unrealistic. How fast do you drive when you get 14-15km/L? 100kph or 120kph? Is there any stopping or is it mostly moving at full speed?
I am still waiting for my Cbe to arrive. I just placed an order for a new cube. Just curious on the fuel comsumption statistics. Thanks!! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I own an 04 XB 1.5L in canada and in the city I get approx 30 MPG (310 miles + 38L petrol, 3.78 litres per US gallon)
the driving is all city driving with less then 10 k per week on the Hi-way
PunKie that = 13.157 Km/L
or for Canucks / it is 7.6 L/100k
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
xB1 normal-miling (not really hyper-miling).

Wanted to say that my first-gen xB recorded MPG of 26/31 is based on driving, after all. I helped friend move to Virginia from Alabama a while ago, and my ordinary highway MPG was skewed. On the way up, I was loaded down, and I was keeping up with someone else. I frequently went to 3500 rpm. On the way back, someone else did a lot of the driving, once again probably going over 3500 rpm. I didn't go above 30MPG the whole trip.

Moral: If you want to hit 30MPG in an xB1, keep it below 3200 rpm. This is easily done between 75 and 80 mph. You just have to pay attention. I had been subconciously paying attention, until this moving trip.

Second moral: Don't go over your 825lb cargo capacity. It's easy with the space, but don't do it. I had to replace my rotors when I got home. The mechanic said "this is a common problem in vans." Van, haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I had an 06 XB before my cube and got almost identical or worse gas mileage than my cube, both are automatics but the cube has the CVT which helps event though the cube is heavier with a bigger engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
Filled up again today. 35L to fill on 470 km driven. Works out to be 7.45 L per 100 km, or a smidge under 50 mpg. Admittedly this tank was about 50% highway mileage, but I had similar stats on my first tank, which was 90% city driven.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
You calculated kilometers per gallon. I get 31.62 MPG from your info.

Milo said:
Filled up again today. 35L to fill on 470 km driven. Works out to be 7.45 L per 100 km, or a smidge under 50 mpg. Admittedly this tank was about 50% highway mileage, but I had similar stats on my first tank, which was 90% city driven.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top