2012 Versa MPG seems too good to be true. (47.5 mpg avg ... 5-speed sedan)
 

Hello all. Just bought a 2012 Versa sedan 5 speed manual. Literally the cheapest new car in America. Comes with AC, bunches of airbags etc. But the relevant thing is how great the MPG is. I've been driving it around for about a week now and I'm averaging 47.5 MPG with only very minor hypermiling techniques (neutral when coasting (not doing EOC), trying to time red lights a bit when practical, keeping my distance to avoid hard brakes, etc.). I knew this was a good match when I averaged 53 MPG over the 40 mile trip home from the dealer, and that was with the AC cranked. Granted that was essentially all at 40-60MPH with only a few starts and stops along the route.

Anyways, excited to see what I can come up with for improvements, and definitely recommend this car to anyone on this site looking for a new car. Don't buy the continuously variable transmission hype. If you pay attention to your driving the standard blows it out of the water, plus you save a few grand. I should know, my girlfriend has the CVT and is jealous of my numbers ha. Hopefully that wasn't too long winded and is helpful to someone.

I find that the factory MPG displays are not very accurate.

First, you need to see if the speedo is calibrated properly. On the highway, compare how far your car says you went vs manually counting road markers on the side. Do this over a 5 or 10 mile stretch to get a good idea of how much % it may be off. Once that is sorted, reset your trip meter and record how many miles you go until you have to refill. Divide that number by how many gallons were put back in + your speedo error, and that is your actual mileage.

47.5 is pretty great for a car rated:

EPA: Fuel Economy of the 2012 Nissan Versa

I was going to ask how you were getting the MPG figures as well. Hopefully it's not "too good to be true" because of an optimistic MPG display.

If it is true, I'm happy to see that great fuel economy is one of the happy side-effects of buying this economy car! That used to be the rule, but with many automakers now marketing MPG as a "feature" of more expensive cars (or higher trim levels), they now have an incentive to keep their cheapest cars from getting the best fuel economy in their lineups.

Ah as in everything in life the devil is in the details. I was already planning on doing a tank average and comparing it to the gauge, but this seems like a good extra step. In some ways I almost don't want to know if it is off. Would make the new car seem like a worse deal ha. Guess knowing is always better.

Anyways the average is down to about 45mpg now. A long trip with traffic and AC and I was probably only averaging low 30's during it. After finally having a car with AC I'm going to abuse it for the time being. Not sure what mods I even want to do. Pumping up tires seems like an easy choice. The bottom is smooth as can be already. Partial grill block seems to be justified as this car has a big upper and lower grill. Other than that seems like it might just be improving technique. I'll admit, I've spun the tires once or twice to prove I can, even with my econobox. Having a clutch to play with gives the illusion of a powerful car. Not sure I'll ever go back to automatic.

Tank average over the span of the car shows the truth. Even my scan gauge has got me excited a few times before it was fully calculated. The truth is shown with conistant fillups and calculating it off the fuel used for fill ups.

It's all down to technique ;)
My mileage used to drop like a brick in stop and go, or slow moving highway traffic.
Changing my driving style in these conditions, means my mileage now stays about the same, sometimes it even improves :
low speed = low fuel consumption

I now pulse briefly; then coast in neutral (engine on) in heavy traffic
Try to keep rolling, and leave some distance in front of you to make that happen.
Avoid 1st gear if possible.

With a warm engine, running it in 3rd or 4th at idle returns good fuel economy (as long as the road isn't climbing) at low steady speed.
YMMV though.


I can only tell it's on during the cool down phase.
Once the AC has cooled down the interior and only needs to keep it there, the extra fuel use is minimal.

I've been getting the same indicated mileage with AC on this week as I have been getting without AC in the morning - the difference was down to 0.1 L/100km, which is the smallest difference the computer can show.
Given my indicated fuel use, we're talking about 2.5 to 3%.

AC-use on my car is completely buried in the tank-to-tank fluctuations in fuel consumption.

Best speedo check is a GPS. I've got to where I use one all the time for my speed and distance info--doing tire changes etc during the development stage threw my calibration off so much that I didn't even bother installing the cable-drive speedometer in my latest body iteration; I just mounted a GPS on the dash above the steering wheel and leave it on the speed/distance display window.

I actually did notice that AC didn't seem to do much, if anything. I was on a flat road and I would leave the throttle constant and get a constant reading on MPG. Then I would flick the AC on and off for couple minute intervals and look for a noticeable difference. Though that's not scientifically sound, I couldn't really find one. I think the compressors may have gotten more efficient in the recent past. The AC doesn't really crank out a blast of cold air instantly but it can get the car ice cold given the time. I think they used a less powerful unit which is actually nice because I'm assuming it means weight savings. Nice to hear that I don't need to buy a beaded seat and sit with the windows up sweating off my nads to get good mileage ha. I will take your tips to heart on driving, I am just too conscious of the people behind me who think I'm slowing them down and are in a big hurry to nowhere in traffic...

I want to get the mpg fairly well optimized soon though because I figure I have 10+ years to recoup any costs and I have a feeling gas is going up in a major way soon, on top of all the everpresent geopolitical and ecological reasons. I guess that's a topic for a different thread though. I think soon we might be paying prices here in the states that are more what Euromodder is used to on the other side of the pond.

Brilliant. Can't believe I didn't think of it. In my old car when the speedometer and GPS didn't match up I always trusted the speedo. Eventually I went past enough speed checkpoints where I saw that the GPS always agreed with the radar to see I was wrong. Amazing that a couple computers a thousand miles off in space pinging away are more accurate than a physically connected system spanning mere feet.

Technically, the GPS satellites are only sending out a timing signal, your GPS receiver gets these signals and compares how long it took for them to get to where it is. By doing so it can "Triangulate" its position. All the computing is done in your GPS on your dash. The satellites are in a medium Earth orbit at 12,600 miles up and orbit the Earth twice a day so they are indeed moving in the sky. Geostationary orbit is 22,200 miles up and would be worthless since they have to be over the equator all the time and could not provide effective triangulation from a straight line.