Anyone getting stated mileage?

[masaf2]

I think this experiment will lead to around 6,5 liters / 100 km...

F**k, it took 7,8 liters / 100 km (that's the lowest I've ever got). After that I drove (little ski trip) 400 kilometers with normal and FWD -> 8,1 liters / 100 km and back home with eco and fwd -> 8,3 liters / 100 km. Now my Juke is on dealer, they're making some guarantee fixes (the list is looooooong). My front right brake is not working properly, I hope that causes some extra fuel consumption. On a ski trip after driving 300 kilometres I accelerated from 0 to 80 km/h revving 3,5 k (so not very hard acceleration) and something started to smell like burned oil very strongly... Yippee.

[berth]

The fuel leak fix did NOT help my mileage. It might be slightly worse. I'm running about 20-21 MPG in town but I get 28 MPG on my ski trips up to 5600 ft. Given some on this forum are showing very good mileage with pretty aggressive driving, I'm not at all convinced that "good driving habits" are the difference. My attempts at "good driving habits" with my Juke have produced only minor improvements. Given the wide range of MPG numbers that we see on this web site (those who are getting good mileage are less likely to take the time to complain here...) I think there is problem with the vehicles that are getting poor mileage.

bert

[msagustin]

Tire air pressure can make a slight difference. I have mine set at 36-37 psi.
After resetting my MPG guage on dash my MPG's started to jive when calculating the old fashioned way.

I get my worst mileage when my turbo boosts to accelerate up small hills or always accelerating spiritedly at stops.

If I keep the CVT shifting around town at 2000 rpms or less I can achieve up to 27 mpg city.
If I drive at 55 mph maybe 60 mph depending on roads, I can achieve 28-30.
I've only seen 31 mpg once in my Juke's life.
I've driven at 70mph+ on the highway and never got higher than 26 mpg.

The Turbo and it's ability to act like a 2.5 liter engine (read that somewhere) during boost is probably what's killing peoples expectations of high mileage. Take the Turbo out and we will be praising high mileage but lack of power. ........Might as well have got the Versa.

At this point with our US Jukes, you really need to baby the engine to squeeze high mileage out of it.

Nissan should offer a Juke without the Turbo. For the people that like the style and want the higher mileage. Sort of how the UK has their Juke model lineup.

There's an article somewhere where it says, if your car recommends Premium fuel than put premium fuel in it. It will run on the lower octane but it was designed for it's efficiency using Premium.

Spring is going and in my area so winter blend fuel is on it's way out. I get better mileage during the non-winter months.

I also think that some of our cars are running so pig rich. When people are installing their intakes and exhausts and seeing a mileage increase, the engine seems to be running more efficiently by leaning out.

It's a tough call for the members that DO NOT want to mod their cars. If the Juke is pig rich what do they do about their low mileage?

....just my rambling observation.

[Jayjj]

You need to use 89 octane minimum and calculate the mpg yourself. The car gives you a much lower avg. I have been tracking mine for 6 months religiously and I get 26.7 avg with equal city/hwy driving.

[Jayjj]

Use 89 oct or better too. Makes a difference.

[Kev m]

As I posted in the "lawsuit over mpg" thread (dumb idea btw) - I BET WE are more inaccurate than the MPG gauge (when the gauge is reset with each fillup).

I know it's popular belief that the MPG indicator is inaccurate.

I posit that it is US who are inaccurate and not the gauge (if used properly).

Those of you familiar with modern engine management systems know that the ECM is attempting to maintain an air/fuel ratio of 14.4:1 and though it bounces back and forth slightly, the accuracy of fuel metering necessary to run a motor so clean and efficiently is astounding.

That means the ECM knows damn well how much fuel it is using and has the ability to report that data via the gauge.

Conversely though gas station pumps are SUPPOSED to be accurate there is an entire bureau of weights and measures to check/enforce these standards, and talking with someone who worked for them at one point, it would not surprise me if a pump was off a bit more often than not (making it seem like you've gotten more fuel than you have).

In addition to this the automatic shut-off valves are sensitive and adjustable - and may not be adjusted the same from one pump to another. Plus the depth and angle of the nozzle inserted into the filler neck might effect how quickly it shuts off.

Unless you are measuring fuel in graduated containers and then pouring it into your vehicle, chances are you're off by a bit.

I try to pay very close attention and I think I'm reasonably accurate - so much so that on 3 different vehicles my manual calculations are regularly withing 1 mpg of the indicated. Once in a while there's a fluke of a greater difference, but in those instances I normally fault myself.

Now, as I've said a half a dozen times in these threads - you have to look at all the factors:

1. Ambient temps
2. Altitude (sea level vs. higher altitude operation)
3. Gradients (flat vs. hills)
4. Fuel quality (E10 vs. non-E10, winter blends vs. non-winter blends etc)
5. Speeds (Juke seems to do best between 40-60 mph)
6. Acceleration (the amount of rapidness)
7. Tire pressures
8. Loads (number of passengers and/or amount of cargo).

A Juke (or any car) is going to return the best mileage at warmer temps, running on pure gas, at high altitude but flat ground, at steady speeds (40-60 mph in specific case of the Juke) with a little acceleration and only gently, lightly loaded with high tire pressures.

Change any of these variables and mpg starts to drop.

I've managed to keep it in the high twentys for most of a tank, but then I run some short hop errands, through some twisty wooded roads and/or mixed in with some traffic etc and it always seems to drop back to the mid-twentys.

I do expect I'll finally achieve my "goal" of seeing 30 mpg tank once summer arrives, if I can keep it out of traffic for a tankful.

Interestingly enough on the 2.5L comment - our Juke seems to get VERY SIMLAR mileage to our 2010 Subaru Impreza with a 2.5L. But I THINK I'm going to be able to squeek out a couple more mpg on the Juke average (and peak).

[msagustin]

As I posted in the "lawsuit over mpg" thread (dumb idea btw) - I BET WE are more inaccurate than the MPG gauge (when the gauge is reset with each fillup).



Now, as I've said a half a dozen times in these threads - you have to look at all the factors:

1. Ambient temps
2. Altitude (sea level vs. higher altitude operation)
3. Gradients (flat vs. hills)
4. Fuel quality (E10 vs. non-E10, winter blends vs. non-winter blends etc)
5. Speeds (Juke seems to do best between 40-60 mph)
6. Acceleration (the amount of rapidness)
7. Tire pressures
8. Loads (number of passengers and/or amount of cargo).

A Juke (or any car) is going to return the best mileage at warmer temps, running on pure gas, at high altitude but flat ground, at steady speeds (40-60 mph in specific case of the Juke) with a little acceleration and only gently, lightly loaded with high tire pressures.

Change any of these variables and mpg starts to drop.

I've managed to keep it in the high twentys for most of a tank, but then I run some short hop errands, through some twisty wooded roads and/or mixed in with some traffic etc and it always seems to drop back to the mid-twentys.

I do expect I'll finally achieve my "goal" of seeing 30 mpg tank once summer arrives, if I can keep it out of traffic for a tankful.

Interestingly enough on the 2.5L comment - our Juke seems to get VERY SIMLAR mileage to our 2010 Subaru Impreza with a 2.5L. But I THINK I'm going to be able to squeek out a couple more mpg on the Juke average (and peak).

It's fun to sue? Everyone else is doing it. Just kidding btw.
Good points there Kev m. I agree, not everyone's driving conditions are the same and too many variables to consider. The tiny 1.6 turbo has to work harder to play, which in turn always requires gas guzzling boost. It's very hard not to get the Juke to act like the Geico pig.

It's harder for me to drive it in eco mode. You get the best gauge readout when your foot is off the throttle or creeping very steadily and slowly. LOL GO figure.

[Silme]

I was getting only 20-22 mpg when I lived in West Hollywood (commuting from WeHo to downtown LA). Now I'm in Torrance and my mpg is around 25 (both numbers for combine street/highway)

[Macgyver]

I had a 2009 Altima 2.5S that I traded in for a Juke. I wanted to keep the performance around the same( 0-60 times) and improve on gas mileage. ROFL. The Juke is getting worse gas mileage than my 26,000 mile Altima. I was getting 24 mpg measured by the tank full. I am getting 21MPG with the Juke measured by the tank. Eco Mode, Easy driving, and 92 octane. Mixed City Highway. However. I never saw 30+ MPG that the Altima was claimed to get on the Highway. I got 28mpg with an average speed of computer showing 65MPH(doing 75mph actually) from Reading Pa to Ithaca NY round trip at least 2 times. Oh well. When she breaks in and I get a CAT back with a CAI. It should be better. Cant wait for the ECU flash availability.

[pixelsailor]

Just had me another little road trip of 300 miles each way. Either I'm adjusting my driving habits to suit the Juke or that new cold air intake is really helping. Seems I've seen an increase in MPGs of about one or two since installing that. I also noticed that on that trip the average MPGs stated by the on-board computer seems to be off. Anyone else notice this? I did about 300 miles on 10 gallons yet the computer was telling me I was only getting about 26 or 27 MPGs. Obviously that's wrong. I'm certainly going to start paying paying closer attention and doing my calculations by hand again. Curious to see if the discrepancy continues or if it was merely circumstantial.