[SHINDIG]

Let's find out who has the highest recorded MPG is on the Murano. The only rule I can think of right now is that the average mpg reading must be from at least 30 miles of driving.

I hit 27.5 mpg using 87 octane driving approximately 35 miles from Dupage County to downtown Chicago, including some stop and go traffic. I have noticed that driving against the wind drastically lowers MPG, and that driving 60-70 mph gets maximum fuel efficiency.

 

[Eric L.]

I think 27.5 would be hard to beat. I don't even get that on the highway going 55!

 

[bob1]

I love it, this will be a very cool thread. That 27.5 looks achievable.
I have an 2002--Altima with the same 3.5 engine. I average that same 27.5 per gal. Now I know the MO is heavier than the Altima but the MO has the CVT which may make up for the weight difference. My MO still breaking in and now sits at 19.4 per gal but it is on the increase every week.
Bob

 

[stonemaster]

Only one caveat. No artificially blown-up mileages from driving downhill. I was driving through the Rockies last year in my wife's car and found that on the long downhill rides, I could get the trip computer to show nearly 40 MPG in a car that has a hard time getting over 25 MPG on a good day on level ground!

Best I could do in my MO is 26.5 MPG. It was a clear day in the 70's (F). I reset the trip computer once I got to speed on the highway and then maintained a steady 55 mph for roughly 10 miles. However, as soon as I hit the gas to pass, it dropped to 24 MPG. If I can repeat it, I'll take a pic and post it. It's winter in Chicago now (20's) and I can't predict what effect that will have on mileage.

 

[SHINDIG]

Forgot to mention...

My MO has 4500 miles on her. Chicagoland is pretty flat, so definitely no hills helping me out. I do believe, but cannot confirm, that the wind may have been helping me out. I also noticed that you need to have a "featherlight" touch on the gas.

Here are some of my "techniques":

1. As I mentioned, go EXTREMELY light on the gas. You only need to barely touch it to maintain speed or experience slight deceleration.

2. When accelerating to cruising speed, do NOT go too light on the gas. I noticed that the MPGs drop to about 6-9 mpg even if you just moderatly push the gas, and about 3-6 if you're a little more aggressive. I figure its more efficient to get up to cruising speed faster at 3-6 mpg and experience the "30" mpg economy as opposed to slowly accelerating at 8-10 mpg or less.

I'm sure a math whiz around here could calculate the weighted averages between accelerating harder for 5 seconds at 3-6 mpg and cruising for the remaining time at a higher mpg (28-30 mpg) vs. 10-15 seconds at 8-10 mpg and doing same. My "eyeballing" of the figures indicate that the harder acceleration is the way to go.

3. Using the same "logic" above, you'll get good mpg by "briskly" accelerating up to cruising speed, then allowing the car to decelerate VERY slowly (keeping mpg at 28-30) rather than trying to maintain constant speed (which will generally yield only about 22-24 mpgs).

Just some of my observations. I am, by no means, a car or driving expert.

 

[Eric L.]

I'm not sure if it is fair to reset the MPG computer (other than after a fillup) to obtain a higher score! I have 10,000 miles on the MO now and my average city MPG is about 15, and highway (70mph) about 22 MPG on 93 octane.

I once played with the MPG computer by resetting it alot and on the highway doing a steady 60mph, outside temp about 50, no AC on, I saw the screen diisplay an amazing 28MPG. When I let off the gas, the display went up to 31MPG. That would be an example of cheating with the MPG meter.

That said, I also live in Illinois (Champaign, IL, about 3 hrs south of Chicago) and I kind of want to break the 27.5mpg record so far!

 

[SHINDIG]

I'm not sure if it is fair to reset the MPG computer (other than after a fillup) to obtain a higher score! I have 10,000 miles on the MO now and my average city MPG is about 15, and highway (70mph) about 22 MPG on 93 octane.

I must admit that I do reset the computer at each fill-up. I hit the highway for 35 miles directly after filling up. Of course, the inner-city stop and go traffic DESTROYS my mpg and fuel economy.

This contest is really just to show how fuel efficient the Murano can be on the highway.

[/i]
I once played with the MPG computer by resetting it alot and on the highway doing a steady 60mph, outside temp about 50, no AC on, I saw the screen diisplay an amazing 28MPG. When I let off the gas, the display went up to 31MPG. That would be an example of cheating with the MPG meter.
[/QUOTE]

This is why you can only show readings after driving a MINIMUM of 35 miles. It's pretty easy to get good readings for short distances.

 

[CVeeT]

Are these readings from NAV equiped units, showing instant MPG.
( May be I am mistaken, correct me)

Non nav vehicles can't display this value. It only displays cumalative average.

 

[Eric L.]

Are these readings from NAV equiped units, showing instant MPG.
( May be I am mistaken, correct me)

Non nav vehicles can't display this value. It only displays cumalative average.

Good question. The non nav MPG meter (like mine) shows the cumulative average from the last time you reset the meter.

 

[SHINDIG]

Are these readings from NAV equiped units, showing instant MPG.
( May be I am mistaken, correct me)

Non nav vehicles can't display this value. It only displays cumalative average.

The reading in the picture is the Average Fuel Economy or cumulative average, not the instant reading.

 

[viewmont]

we get better readings in Canada so you might want to count us out.
Our gallon is 4.54 litres as opposed to the US gallon that is only 3.78 litres. That means we could beat 27.5 mpg any day.
lol

 

[stonemaster]

The reading in the picture is the Average Fuel Economy or cumulative average, not the instant reading.

There is no such thing as an "instant reading" by virtue of the formula for calculating MPG which requires an accumulation of consumption over distance. Therefore a true instantaneous reading is impossible.

Just being picky. See, all that math did pay off!

 

[krpster]

There is no such thing as an "instant reading" by virtue of the formula for calculating MPG which requires an accumulation of consumption over distance. Therefore a true instantaneous reading is impossible.

Just being picky. See, all that math did pay off!

By the root definition this is true but the engine ECU is capable of calculating a pseudo instantaneous value using a variety of information from the engine management system. The ECU can utilize current speed, injector timing and injector pulse width to determine how much fuel is being consumed over a finite amount of time and thus distance. Since this can be done at the level of milliseconds to the average person this may seem instantaneous.

Just to be even more picky.

 

[stonemaster]

Point well-taken, krpster (and very astute insight, I might add). Still, in the strictest sense, any MPG reading can never be finitely instantaneous (perceptible or not). Both our viewpoints, however, are more or less academic in the context of this thread.

In reality, the MPG readout in the MO (nav or non-nav) does take a humanly perceptible amount of time to change MPG readings. Otherwise the rapidly changing display would be humanly unreadable! Plus, the term 'instantaneous' is very subjective. The rate of change on the display may be instant to some and slow to others.

 

[hfelknor]

The point being, is the Reading derived from a "few" samples and averaged thereby giving "instantaneous" readings, or is it cumulative from when the last reset was hit?

When this question was asked, it was obvious that if you go back to the 1st message, that reading is on a NAV screen.
So, do you have a choice of "instantaneous" or cumulative on a NAV screen?
On my orange screen it is cumulative only.
Therefore to get a BIG number, you likely are going to have to take a pix soon after hitting reset (which you could do while cruising down the interstate) and you might be able to come up with a pretty big number that bears no relationship to reality.


Homer

 

[Kris]

Drove from Atlanta to Owensboro, KY. Appr. 370 miles, average speed 67 mph meaning that CC was on 75 all the time except Tennessee Mountains when I was going almost 80 mph. Average fuel economy was 23.5 mpg. I think it was a good result.

Drove from Jacksonville, FL west on I10 with speed appr. 70 mph. Readout was showing 25.5 mpg. After a while I hit a strong head wind and a while later heavy rain. The numbers started going down to 22 mpg. Even though I had to slow down to 55 mph. It shows how fuel economy is affected by wind and rain.

Drove on a downhill, just slight slope. Reset computer and for a few miles it was showing 35 – 36 mph!

The numbers are cumulative. It is an average calculated from fuel used over miles traveled. The mileage depends on so many variables that any number posted here can be true.

 

[eager]

Viewmont
I doubt Nissan does a Canadian gallon recalculation on the computer for our benefit. Have you done the math I could be wrong?

 

[senza]

I think the miles per gallon calculation is based on the CAN gallon as you can change the calculation to "metric" or litres consumed per 100kms....still can't get a sense for that measurement...do US owners have that option??? I would doubt it...

 

[9138]

yep, it's there

I think the miles per gallon calculation is based on the CAN gallon as you can change the calculation to "metric" or litres consumed per 100kms....still can't get a sense for that measurement...do US owners have that option??? I would doubt it...

'04 MO on the metric/english button will switch fuel econ readout from MPG to L/100km.

-marius

 

[eager]

No Canadian Type Gallon Readings eh!

Based on my calculation and that on the Murano read out 15mpg=15litres/100km aprox, then mpg indicated is based on a US gallon

us gallon =3.7854118 litres
Can Gallon= 4.54609 Litres

100/1.6=62.5miles
15litres= 3.96us gal =3.29can gal

US 62.5/3.96=15.78 the winner!
Can 62.5/3.29=18.99