Toys4RJill

And what is the EPA of your LS450?

SW17LS

LS460. 16 city 24 hwy. They do way better than that on the highway though, if you stay around 65 they can do 30.

Thats one thing I've noticed about 4 cyl cars, in my experience they tend to underperform their hwy mileage with me driving them on a trip, while V6 and V8 cars tend to overperform. I run cars pretty hard on a trip, 80 MPH, I stay on them going uphill to maintain that speed, etc.

Thats a trip I have made hundreds and hundreds of times, I make it several times a year. LS400 and LS430 I could get 30, LS460 AWD it was like 26-27, LS460 RWD solidly 27-28. The Pacifica 24-25. Jeeps 22-23. My 2010 ES350 I could do 30-31. Rogue was 26.4.

Another thing is range. The trip is about 360 miles and the Rogue couldn't make it on one tank, I had to stop with about 75 miles to go to fill up at 1/8th of a tank. Both directions.

Toys4RJill

So what is the combined mileage you are getting in your LS?

SW17LS

In my combined normal driving according to the onboard computer I get about 17.

Toys4RJill

So the highway mileage you are getting is from the on board computer? The combined mileage is 17, so the combined is lower than EPA advertised. Those highway instant meters are not very important nor are they accurate.

SW17LS

All the numbers I'm talking about are from the onboard computers. Not instant meters, average meters. I always reset the average MPG readout on a trip so that I can see how the car does on that trip, its just automatic.

So no, I'm not looking at the instant readout, I'm looking at the average readout when the trip is over, or specifically when the highway portion of the trip is over.

The point I was making was MPG performance specifically on that trip, not overall average performance. Of course the Rogue will get better overall mileage than my LS.

Combined MPG depends on your use. My driving is probably 40% highway, 60% around town and I also idle a fair bit waiting outside houses and all. Makes total sense why my combined MPG is lower than the EPA estimate.

Toys4RJill

If you reset it all time, you are still not really getting an accurate readout. Your long term read out is more important for those fuel efficiency displays. That is just my opinion. All any of those display are not fully accurate anyway.

Toys4RJill

What did the Nissan Rouge average fuel economy claim on your trip?

SW17LS

you miss the point.

The goal of resetting the MPG readout before the trip is to see how the engine performs in regards to MPG ON THE TRIP. I'm not looking for overall MPG, I'm looking for MPG in those 330 miles that are spent on the highway. What we are discussing is the long term readout, just only measuring MPG along that 330 miles spent on then highway. Most cars now also have a separate tank average MPG which resets every time the car is refueled.

Resetting the readout periodically affects the accuracy of my everyday combined MPG, sure...but I don't care about that. Once you drive in your normal routine for a tank of gas or so that goes back to normal.

Then point of what I was saying was in this particular situation I got no benefit from driving a slow, loud, buzzy CVT equipped 4 cyl on this highway trip vs an 8 speed 390 hp V8, hence the argument that it being underpowered was okay because it got great fuel economy wasn't valid. Cars that have much better power also have much better fuel economy.

The reason why the Rogue is underpowered is Nissan is too cheap to put a better motor in it. Theres no benefit to its motor choice.

SW17LS

I've told you that 2 times already. 26.5, I rounded up to 27.

Toys4RJill

I am really not sure what the point of you claiming this is.

Car & Driver claims the new LS500 has a 75MPH highway fuel efficiency of 26MPG while the hwy EPA is 27MPG Combined they got 17MPG while the combined EPA rating is 21

SW17LS

I'm not comparing it to the LS500.

In its own segment, higher powered vehicles have as good or better fuel economy. Take the CR-V. It has a turbo 4 cyl, 20 more hp, almost 2 seconds faster 0-60 and it gets 2MPG better in the city, on the highway and combined. As I said before, a turbo 4cyl would have a huge impact on this car. I've also driven the current CR-V, and it feels much peppier and more enjoyable to drive from an acceleration standpoint.

Toys4RJill

I am still not sure exactly what the issue is. The Nissan Rouge generation is from a 2013 while a CRV is from 2016, that is big difference, I am sure the new Rav4 is going out perform both the CRV and Rogue.. CRV's don't come in turbo for the base models. Car & Driver claims the acceleration of the CRV turbo is mediocre., It also does not exceed EPA 34 MPG on the highway as Car & Driver achieved 32MPG Car & Driver got 28MPG with an EPA32 for the Rogue.

SW17LS

Good lord. This is MY review. If you want to write a review, go write one. I'm tired of you trying to pick apart every little bit of what I say to prove it wrong, and you doing that has completely killed my thread. The car is slow as hell, one of the slowest cars I've driven in years, and other cars I've driven in the segment are not as slow. Thats my opinion as the reviewer who wrote this review. If you have a different opinion then go share it, in YOUR OWN THREAD please.

Toys4RJill

I don't know why you are yelling. It is just a discussion. I sorry for frustrating you.

The car is slow as hell. Of course it is. Nobody should expect otherwise. Nobody is going to exceed highway EPA figures (heck, EPA ratings are provided by the manufacturers to the EPA, and they use 100% gasoline with no ethanol added) Nobody would be willing to pay Lexus NX turbo engine prices for the segment the Rogue is in. The CRV turbo is two small and underpowered as well. Any weight added to a 4 cylinder car that is already underpowered for the weight of vehicle is going to affect it, that it included one extra passenger.