- #7 of 36
-
Re: Fuel economy [brunte]
by moparbad
-
Jan 21, 2008 (10:52 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: brunte (Jan 21, 2008 10:21 am)
What method are you using to measure your mpg?
In what type of temperatures?
|
- #8 of 36
-
KEEP your full size
by magbarn
-
Feb 22, 2008 (3:33 am)
-
|
|
I've got a 07 Nismo Crew 4x4 ad I only get about 16mpg going about 80mph on the interstate. I get maybe about 18mpg if I go only 60-65mph. My new tires, BFG AT, took away another 2mpg as I added 40+lbs rolling resistance to my truck. (Don't believe the hype on these tires, there's better alternatives) Anyways, keep your full-size as the mpg difference really isn't there. If I could do it all over I'd get a 5.3 Silverado and get the same mpg, but much bigger truck. BTW Nismo's have lower gearing so that's another factor. SE & LE's have a taller rear diff ratio so better mpg.
|
- #9 of 36
-
Re: KEEP your full size [magbarn]
by jewillm
-
Feb 25, 2008 (10:21 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: magbarn (Feb 22, 2008 3:33 am)
Thank you magbarn. Good info. I bought a new Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab 4X4 with the 5.7 litre Hemi. I have had it a few weeks now. First road trip, 273 miles on 13.2 gallons of gas. I think that comes to 20.7 MPG. Around here in the mountains east of Albuquerque, back and forth to work it's getting over 17. I am very happy with that.
|
- #10 of 36
-
Just passed the 12k mark , mpg report
by stringbender
-
Mar 04, 2008 (8:05 pm)
-
|
I have the LWB 07 SE crew, auto 2 WD. I am still very happy with the truck except a little rattle every once in a while, I know where it is so I just hit the plastic on the dash and it shuts up for a while. My combination city and hwy mpg most of the time run 19mpg and the hwy 21 to 22 so I am happy. It seems like the 4WD trucks get less mpg probably because of the added weight plus the added height creates more wind drag. The truck still rides smooth and the ac and heat and the radio are working great. I get lots of compliments on the truck and most of them center around the track anchoring system in the back, I use it all the time and can hold any kind of cargo in it's place. Sometimes I still get new truck fever again and admire the bigger trucks, but then I go to the forums and find that almost everyone of them seems to have more problems, so my new truck fever goes away and I am content again. 
|
- #11 of 36
-
is 91 Octane really worth paying extra for?
by blue3fish
-
Mar 09, 2008 (8:38 am)
-
|
|
I just purchased an 08 SE V6 and the owners manual says to put 91 octane or higher for fuel. It also says that if 91 is not available that you can put in 87 or higher. If I use 89 instead of 91 will I see a noticeable difference?
|
- #12 of 36
-
Re: is 91 Octane really worth paying extra for? [blue3fish]
by asa
-
Mar 18, 2008 (8:42 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: blue3fish (Mar 09, 2008 8:38 am)
Octane questions often bring responses from all corners. The owner's manual used to read that 87 Octane is fine and that 91 Octane could be used for higher performance, but it seems they edited the wording for some reason. I burn only 87 in my '06 SE CC and it works fine. Others may differ, but paying 10% more for 91 Octane is unlikely to yield a 10% spike in fuel economy. I guess you can try a few tanks and see what happens.
|
- #13 of 36
-
Re: is 91 Octane really worth paying extra for? [asa]
by sapper4x4
-
Apr 03, 2008 (5:13 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: asa (Mar 18, 2008 8:42 am)
I own a 2008 Nissan Frontier and get an average mileage of 19 mpg based on what the computer is telling me. I also checked manually and it is pretty accurate. I also did some comparisons on gas prices against BJ's wholesale gas. The cost for gas where I am is 3.16 (reg), 3.37 (mid), and 3.47 (prem) as of 4/3/08. BJ's premium is 3.39. Since the owner's manual suggests using 91 octane, I compared the 3.47 prem vs. 3.39 BJ's prem. I figure it costs me about .42 cents more per 100 miles to use BJ's premium. If I compare the cost of regular gas against the BJ's premium, it comes out to about 1.21 more per 100 miles or 12.10 per 1,000 miles. I think it is worth the extra cost especially since the truck's mileage drops to 17 mpg if I use regular (89) gas. This is not scientific by any means. I am just trying to share my experience.
|
- #14 of 36
-
Re: is 91 Octane really worth paying extra for? [sapper4x4]
by rocketman67
-
Jun 09, 2008 (8:59 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: sapper4x4 (Apr 03, 2008 5:13 am)
Good info ya posted sapper 4x4.
|
- #15 of 36
-
Re: is 91 Octane really worth paying extra for? [sapper4x4]
by moparbad
-
Jun 09, 2008 (7:02 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: sapper4x4 (Apr 03, 2008 5:13 am)
2wd or 4wd? Crew Cab or King Cab? Manual or Automatic? NISMO, LE, SE?
|
- #16 of 36
-
Real World EXCELLENT 2005 Frontier Mileage
by dcrhaekte
-
Jul 21, 2008 (12:46 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: sapper4x4 (Apr 03, 2008 5:13 am)
I bought my 2005 Frontier in March 2005. Mine is a XE 2wd King Cab with the 4 cylinder 5 speed. I repeatedly get on average 24 miles per gallon and this includes driving to work on the interstate for 14 miles, one way, and into downtown to the office. If I fill up the tank and take a trip, all interstate driving, I repeatedly get 30 to 33 miles per gallon. My truck currently has 37,200 miles and a ARE camper shell that fits the lines of the truck. I usually drive 75 to 80 miles per hour while on the interstate. I have no need for flash and dash so my truck is perfect and I am extremely pleased with my mileage. I occasionally haul a 4-wheeler or zero turn mower on a trailer and it has adequate power for that. I suggest that if anyone wants a truck but is worried about gas mileage to get the XE with the 4 cylinder and 5 speed transmission. They now have a SE with the 4 cylinder and I do not know the specs on it.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Pickups 
