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
SUVs Nissan Rogue Nissan Rogue Real World MPG
100 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2008 at 6:34 AM
You are in the Nissan Rogue Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: unresolved (Aug 03, 2008 4:35 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Aug 04, 2008 12:49 pm) " 33 mpg on the highway is not likely something you'd see on a long highway drive but certainly possible as a misleading 'instantaneous' reading right after you reset the computer. " Have to disagree on that. We have never seen less than 31 on hwy and usually 33-35 mpg at 65-68 mph, SLAWD. AVID tires  38psi, no A/C, light load, no wind, little traffic, same pump, same fuel, no cruise. We do that consistently on the same 150 mile loop and have verified the ODO on a measured hwy patrol course. And while we're doing that loop, the MPG gauge has never gone over 28.4.
|
|
|
I have been comparing the 2008 Rogue SL AWD against the 2009 Forester Limited. The Forester actually has the Rogue beat on paper. Seat of the pants, though, the Rogue comes out ahead. I like the CVT and paddle shifters and it seems peppier than the Forester. Looks better too (except for that grill - ugh!). But this has been very valuable information. People I've talked to regarding the Forester claim 25 mpg or better. I've not heard anyone getting less - yet - on average. Going through all the posts pertaining to the AWD, it looks like they average out to about 23 mpg. Just for the record, my average daily commute is a little over 30 miles each way - about 70% hwy/30% suburban streets. When I travel, this vehicle would be fairly well loaded down (at times, I would need a car top carrier). I drive 70-80 on the interstate and about 5 mph over in town or on 2-lanes (yeah, I have a heavy foot). I don't act like I have an egg between my foot and the accelerator. I get up to speed quickly. Whatever tire pressure is posted on the vehicle or in the book is what I run. [Over-inflating can wear your tires prematurely down the center and a set of tires will easily off-set whatever little fuel you may save. Furthermore, it's not as safe, since you do not get the entire contact patch to the pavement and that's really all you have between you and disaster.] So I take all these things into consideration and figure I would come out on the lower end of the spectrum. I already have a 2004 Avalanche that gets 14-15 city and 17 highway (which I'm keeping). I need to improve on that considerably, as I'm getting rid of a 2000 Beetle TDI that gets about 42 mpg. Plus, I'm not encouraged by the person who is getting really poor mileage and can get no satisfaction from his dealer or Nissan. I think you've just tilted me in favor of the Forester. So thanks to everyone who contributed.
|
|
|
Replying to: phil53 (Aug 05, 2008 2:21 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: mlmcgahee (Aug 05, 2008 3:24 pm) I am still concerned about the fuel mileage though.
|
|
|
Replying to: pitkeys (Aug 05, 2008 12:36 pm)   ). I'll agree that the new EPA numbers are quite easily beaten (especially on the highway) but still think that overall the 21/26 on the window sticker is about right for this vehicle - for most drivers in most conditions.
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Aug 06, 2008 6:14 am) I was somewhat intrigued by the '09 Forester. We had a '97 and thought it was a fine ride. I've also had about five other Sube wagons since they started selling in the states and generally like the marque for where we live. The '09 I drove was the 2.5 without the power upgrade as I don't want to be forced into premium fuel (I forget the actual model handle). From a utilitarian standpoint I think the Sube may be a better choice since it has more cargo room. However, it measures a bit less ground clearance which is important here. I found it to be a dog upon entering the Interstate compared to my old '97. I think the 4-spd auto is way out of date and very dull to drive. Part of the allure to me of the Rogue is the seven speeds with the paddles. It also seemed doggy compared to the Rogue (with proper use of paddles, anyway). I never gave the CRV serious thought as it doesn't seem what we want, although our Honda dealer (we have a FIT) is fairly decent. The Rogue feels more fun to drive than either the Sube or RAV, although the RAV is OK for a utility. Having had some pretty extensive experience with the RAV, I'd say it might be my first choice when/if they ditch the side opening gate...provided I wanted to pay more up front and have slightly worse MPG. But the RAV was no MPG hog. We consistently did about 25 overall. Given the V6 very handy power/acceleration, it has some advantages. From a utilitarian viewpoint we found it OK, too, especially with all the ways they pack in cubbies and cupholders. To us, the RAV has the most user-friendly cabin layout of anything in the class for day-to-day livability. However, we found it very uncomfortable on long trips with an annoying hobby-horse ride and seats that don't support very well. It may very well come down to which brand has the best dealer experience. My son has an Outback and has not had good dealer experience, unfortunately, so I chose to stay away. But I do think the '09 Sube is an excellent choice. I just hope they bring it more up to date. Re the hard tire thing: It's true that way over-inflation will cause excess center wear, but a Dunlop rep has told me that 3-5 lbs over the auto maker's sticker won't cause enough center wear to worry about. 45 lbs. probably would. And frankly the Rogue feels better at 5 lbs. over. IMO, regarding tires, there is a serious ding against the Rogue: The OEM tires. All the new ones around here are coming through with Continental 4x4 Contacts with only 6-8 tread depth. That's about 1/2 of what you'll get shopping for your own tires. The OEMs won't last very long. If one cares about that, then you need to crank in extra $$ for trading out of the Contacts at delivery. We recommend getting a quote on that before signing the papers. So we suggest you measure tread on anything new you're tasting. It's a real PITA to have to shell out several hundred $$ in only a year or so for new tires. Re the Rogue: Also be aware that there is an issue with paint scraping and wearing on the rockers under the doors. There could be a recall on that, but not so far. It is a problem on every one we've looked at and requires you do some work to preserve the paint. (If anyone is interested about that, check the NICO Rogue forum for pix and solutions).
|
|
|
Replying to: phil53 (Aug 06, 2008 5:35 am)  As far as gas milage.... I bought my Rogue in November and now have 19500 miles on it. I work out of my Rogue and drive 300 - 400 miles a week. I am getting 25 - 26 MPG running 70% city and 30 % highway. |
|
|
Replying to: pitkeys (Aug 06, 2008 8:53 am) On the clearance, though, the specs on the Edmunds web site says the Forester has more clearance than the Rogue. |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Nissan Rogue Nissan Rogue Real World MPG
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan Rogue
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
