| astrostans |
| I just bought a 2009 SL to replace my stolen 2005 SE and one of the first things I noticed was that it definitiely does not accelerate as well as my '05 did. This is contrary to all the road tests I read before buying the car. My old Murano had 39,000 when it took the unauthorized vacation. I am wondering if the difference is due to not being broken in yet and possibly a tank full of regular unleaded from the dealer. The dealer said all the new Nissans can now use regular except the Z . However, the owners manual states that ithe '09 can use regular but premium is recommended for maximum performance, and that you may notice a loss of power by using 87 instead 91 octane. Have any of you '09 owners had this experience? Does anyone have a line on this? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks. |
|
|
| Gonzo |
She should be faster... not by much but a bit.... perhaps its the gas and also since the engine has not been broken in yet.... give it time.
As you know the MO gets better with age. |
|
|
| zebelkhan |
quote:
Originally posted by astrostans
the owners manual states that ithe '09 can use regular but premium is recommended for maximum performance
That sounds the same as 1st generation... |
|
|
| Eric L. |
| Its probably the regular gas, but its hard to imagine it would have that much of a difference as the 09 is 25hp more powerful (with the new SAE rating too, so its probably more "real" horses than the 1st gen). |
|
|
| Lightninrod |
We have a 2007 SL with 15K on it now. It got better as the engine wore in.
Maybe your 2009 is quieter than the 2005 and therefore seems slower....:D ?
Dan |
|
|
| astrostans |
Thank you all for your responses. These are all good points and well taken. Thinking back now, I believe my '05 was slower until it broke in and perhaps the increased engine sound dampening is fooling me a bit. I also think I will try a tank of the highest test Chevon on my next fill up. I'm sure it will cost more than Costco premium unleaded.
Thanks again people. |
|
|
| MobiusYuger |
I drove an '09 and '07 back to back and didn't feel much of a difference. The '09 is supposed to have the newer CVT, which is more responsive, so it's likely the regular gas plus engine break-in is what is making your '09 feel sluggish. I picked up my '07 with only 14 miles on the ODO and it felt more sluggish than the '07 w/ 14K that i test drove which would probably explain the similarity between seat of pants feel.
My '07 has been getting better though, both in acceleration and fuel economy. MPG is up from 16 to 19.2 and performance feels more sprightly too. Currently at 4714 miles. |
|
|
| Kris |
My 03 Murano as well as 04 FX35 started "performing" after approximately 10,000 miles...yes, I could feel the difference after 2k or so but a real one came after 10k....
So do not be warry. Just make sure you do not overdrive the engine for the first 2k or so... |
|
|
| astrostans |
| Thank you again for your responses. Have you ever wondered how the car test magazines test brand new cars and get the results they do with regard to 0-60, quater mile, slalom, etc. without destroying them forever, yet getting even better performance after a one-year long term tests? The point here is that every now and then you simply need to get on it just to save yourself from some idiot other driver's road stupidity or immaturity. Hopefully these engines are well built enough to take that during real world break-in. Your responses are alway welcome. |
|
|
| MobiusYuger |
I wonder the same thing but I do run across reviews occasionally where the car magazine does take into account the mileage on the test vehicle. Often the cars they get to use are specifically set aside for media by the manufacturer or are demo/loaner cars from local dealers, so typically they are past the break-in.
In some special cases, pre-production models are available for preview from the manufacturer for PR purposes. These are often in the "first drives" and there's a chaperone on board. :)
The long term test cars are usually purchased/leased brand new and I'm sure since they don't personally own the car, they don't pay as much attention to the break-in period.
My Mo only had 14 miles on it when new - I always try to get as new a car as I can, but in this case the '07 was getting hard to find since the '09 was out already. When I got my TSX, it only had 4 miles - out the factory, on the boat, and off the truck! :eek: |
|
|
| Eric L. |
Something to keep in mind is that the magazines really beat on the cars to get their 0-60 times. This usually involves dumping the clutch at high revs for manual transmissions and brake torquing with automatics. So, their 0-60 times are not realistic in the real world.
A better comparison is the more frequently recorded "rolling acceleration" number, or "street start" - these are much more accurate and a few magazines report this number.
Edmunds.com is now also reporting the acceleration with 1 foot of rollout, which usually cuts .2-.3s from the acceleration times.
An interesting figure from the latest crossover comparison in one of the mags in which the 2009 Murano took first place. 0-60 was below 8s using the brake torquing method, but was 9.1s using street start. |
|
|
|
