Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Midsize Sedans 2.0
13226 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 8:15 AM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: elkein (Aug 10, 2008 10:45 am) Until I started reading this thread I used to only reset mine right after I filled up at the pump. The last few days I've been experimenting with the instantaneous reading where I reset it while cruising down the highway at a set speed. On the 6-mile stretch of hilly interstate between work and home I discovered that 70 mph shows a 1.0 mpg lower average than 65 mph. That result may not be accurate to what the difference actually is, since I've determined with a calculator that my overall mpg is 1.5-2 mpg higher than what the computer says it is. However, it is relative and I'm using the same measuring method each time. Various other cruising speed tests to follow. Cool - another toy to play with. 
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Aug 11, 2008 12:00 pm)  70ish. I haven't really paid attention to this detail though. I do know that it's well under 3000 RPM 80-85 MPH. You have to dip close to 90 MPH (possibly above) to get the revs above 3000 RPM. Cruise Control is where the '07-'08 Altima has the advantage here (sorry graduate). It's quite uncanny with the CVT. I've gotten to the point that I don't even look the tach anymore, because the car doesn't "downshift" when trying to maintain speed on a hill. It simply revs up and maintains speed. Then when the terrain levels out, the revs just die down, and you're back to cruising. There's no drama at all. I don't know if that idea was in the original conception of Nissan's CVT, but you just can't beat it at highway speeds. I'll do some research on my car and post back what the actual MPH per 1000 RPM is, but if I had to guess, I'd say its right around 30 mph per 1000 RPM. However, the CVT acts dynamically based on power needs. I've noticed that when cruising 30mph the engine stays around 1200-1500 RPM to maintain power, but when you get closer to 60 mph, its right around 2000 RPM. It's quite interesting to watch actually. It's not like any automatic I've ever driven. 
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Aug 11, 2008 11:45 am) A base Altima 6MT weighs 3,112 according to Nissan's own website. 2002-2004 3049Lbs 2005 3075Lbs 2006 3090Lbs 2007 3055Lbs 2008 3112Lbs(!)(sedan)/3052(coupe) 60lbs in one year... But at 3055Lbs for a 2007 - less if you swap in some alloy wheels... It's awfully close to 3000 lbs. (I get ~3020 with alloys - about 10lbs per tire saved) 2009 Buick LaCrosse - 3495Lbs 2008 IS250 - 3455Lbs 2008 CTS - 3861 Lbs(where my 800lbs figure came from). Sure, it as a V6 instead of a 4 cylinder car, but it's about the same size. 2001 Buick Park Avenue - 3778 Yes, that's no typo - the CTS is 75lbsheavier, and almost 150lbs with the automatic! And my dad's Park Ave is a behemoth rolling down the road. Something is badly wrong with the way they make cars lately. Way way way too much bloat and power. I'd gladly have them de-tune the 250+HP in most cars to a more reasonable 160 or so, drop 500lbs or more in weight, and give us back 10mpg. 2008 Civic DX - 2586 Lbs. This is why it gets 40mpg highway.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Aug 11, 2008 6:05 pm) Also, saying car A only weighs X when you use aftermarket equipment isn't a fair comparison either, when you don't let the other vehicles in your comparison have the same advantage. Picking and choosing model years doesn't fly for a fair comparison either. All that being said, I do get your point; cars today weigh a LOT compared to those of 10 or so years ago. My '96 Accord has a 2.2L engine with 130 hp, and weighs approximately 2,855 lbs. BUT, it shares the about the same interior space as a new Civic (which is similar in weight). If you care to look at it differently, my 2006 Accord in comparison with my 1996 Accord has several inches more usable interior space, 5-star safety with ABS, 6 Airbags, EBD, is 2 seconds quicker to 60 miles per hour, is much more insulated from noise, and gets noticeably BETTER fuel mileage.  To top it off, it doesn't cost any more than the old 1996 model. It's not that the cars are getting too heavy for their size; their size is simply growing. The 2008 Accord crossed the line into "too-big" for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Aug 11, 2008 8:05 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Aug 12, 2008 5:15 am) By the way, I didn't intend to point out that the '96 Accord was a "good size" or not (personally it lacks legroom to me yet I've been driving it since 2002  ). I was just showing how far we've come since the '96, and how much quicker, roomier, and more fuel efficient the newer vehicles are than the compact '96 Accord. In a way, we're having our cake and eating it too thanks to new and continuously improving technology.
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Aug 12, 2008 6:35 am) I'm not saying we risk adverse and heavier(US citizens) shouldn't shoulder some weight(pun intended) but the average car buyer has grown and wants more safety and the manufacturers are simply responding. |
|
|
Replying to: mz6greyghost (Aug 11, 2008 12:14 pm) |
|
|
|
I checked today to get the correct figure, I was right on 2250 60 mph, so at the 70 mph that was being compared before, it would be 2625 rpm. This is for a 2007 Mazda6i with the 5 speed automatic.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Aug 12, 2008 1:25 pm)
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Hyundai Sonata
2010 Toyota Camry
2010 Honda Accord
2010 Nissan Altima
2010 Volkswagen Passat
2010 Mazda MAZDA6
2010 Ford Fusion
2010 Chevrolet Malibu
2009 Saturn Aura
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
