KuroNekko wrote:You keep making the flaw of comparing a heavier midsize vehicle to smaller and lighter compacts. While the Kizashi, SX4, and Sentra are all 4 cylinder vehicles mated to CVTs, the Kizashi has a 2.4 liter while the Sentra and SX4 run 2.0 as their largest engines. Also, the Kizashi is significantly heavier. Both the SX4 and the Sentra have a curb weight of under 3000 lbs while the Kizashi can weigh close to 3500 lbs with AWD. The weight is due to the Kizashi being bigger and having a higher quality build like more insulation. I have no doubt the Kizashi is a better car for driving due to its more quiet cabin and more secure road manners. However, these come about because it's a heavier vehicle.
Also, while your Kizashi is a 2012, its technology is from 2009 given the Kizashi did not change since its debut then. The Kizashi doesn't have direct injection much like most rivals back then. It was since that rivals got redesigns with newer engines featuring DI and/or small displacement turbos. Though the Kizashi is seemingly at disadvantage, consider that some DI systems are known to have valve fouling in the long term. Toyota had DI for 10 years before market implementation but they were working on ways to prevent the fouling. You think all companies went to the length Toyota did to maintain their reputation for reliability?
While DI fouling isn't necessarily an issue for all makes, it's popping up as more engines feature it. These engines will unlikely last as long as an "old tech" Suzuki J24B engine running on older, but proven technology. While the Kizashi may drink more fuel, at least you won't need to have your engine opened up and its valves blasted with walnut shells due to fouling several years from now.
Lastly consider this fact: The Kizashi is a lot safer than a SX4 or a Sentra. Its weight and heft make for a very safe vehicle. Despite being a 2009 design, it got the highest ratings in the newest and most stringent crash tests like the IIHS offset frontal crash test. It got the best rating while the 2012 Toyota Camry got a "Poor". Much like nearly all of the safest vehicles out there, the heft that gets you that safety will cost you in fuel economy. It's no surprise why smaller cars do worse in crash tests while larger, heavier vehicles do better. Even then, not all in a segment are equal as the article shows. The Kizashi happens to be a top car for safety. http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/20/iihs ... -fault-wi/
In essence, it's just not valid to compare a larger, heavier, and safer vehicle with AWD (your Kizashi) to a compact 2WD like a Nissan Sentra or even an AWD SX4.
To summarize, if the wife doesn't like the Kizashi for the fuel economy, read the above to her. If she's still complaining, tell her not to drive it.
ciscokidinsf wrote:Second tank numbers: (manually tabulated)
306 miles
16 gallons
19.1 MPG
140 of those were HWY miles (flat, no hills, in a single round trip -to have the Kiz serviced by dealer-), but HWY only reached 27.7 MPG according to cluster on that trip (so probably 26MPG-27MPG)
The rest were city driving... 18 MPG probably.
That's horrible, the highway portion should have been at least 30 mpg, how fast were you driving?
You say 16 gallons this tank, that's REALLY empty. Is that what the gas pump read when you finished filling, or are you just using 16 gallons to divide by each time 'cause that's the tank size?
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be a convenience store, not a government agency
Was driving on Hwy approx 75MPH (no hills) for approx 1 hour (non-stop) and I agree, I should've gotten to 30MPG, but didn't. Really sad that I have to drive like my grandma to get 30MPG.
The 16 gallon calculation was done as I let the car run to empty tank (approx 45 miles after initial warning) - When refilled, it took almost 15.5 gallons back after refill, So I used 16 to calculate.
The next tank is all city - we'll see what it comes up with. I wish the car computer/cluster would give better numbers. Except for counting miles, error codes and open doors, the rest of info the cluster provides, (Long term MPG, average speed, current MPG, outside temp) is always off by a wide margin.
75 mph is not going to give you very good mileage, but I would expect 30. If it already had some 20 - 25 mph city miles included in the average, then yeah, it takes quite a while for the average to come up to a reasonable number. If you didn't reset the average at the beginning of the highway portion, then you must have been getting over 30 or else it wouldn't have been going up.
"almost 15.5" is not 16, it's closer to 15. If you're not going to use real numbers, then we don't know what we're talking about.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be a convenience store, not a government agency
Woodie wrote:75 mph is not going to give you very good mileage, but I would expect 30. If it already had some 20 - 25 mph city miles included in the average, then yeah, it takes quite a while for the average to come up to a reasonable number. If you didn't reset the average at the beginning of the highway portion, then you must have been getting over 30 or else it wouldn't have been going up.
"almost 15.5" is not 16, it's closer to 15. If you're not going to use real numbers, then we don't know what we're talking about.
Agreed.
Reset your average SPEED on the dash and see what it is for your next tank. I bet it is in the 20s mph.
Keep in mind that heavy traffic will eat into fuel efficiency below "city" figures. If you're idling around stop-and go-traffic a lot, you're getting 0 MPG for a lot of the time the engine is running.
Given you're in the Bay Area, I take it you live in or around San Francisco. As a fellow Californian, I'm quite sure you sit around in traffic more than you'd like. That's going to affect your MPGs significantly.
As the others suggested, start looking at your average speed. That's going to give you some insight on your actual driving conditions. If it's not even in the 20's, it indicates you're in traffic or city driving conditions way more than you think.
As Bootymac suggested, also try resorting to measures to boost efficiency. Use full synthetic oil in the engine and drivetrain. Also frequently check tire pressure. Get rid of unnecessary cargo in the trunk and back seats. Remove items that contribute to aerodynamic drag if applicable (roof rack, ski carrier, bike carrier, cargo pod, etc.)
Heck, at 50,000+ miles, I'd even consider replacing the spark plugs prematurely to restore optimal efficiency.
Ya i bitched about my sub 20 mpg for two years and then started recording every detail. Turned out my perceived "mixed" driving has a average speed of 16 mph! And my mpg correlates well with average trip mph. 20 mph yields about 18 mpg, 35 mph for 25 mpg, and 50 mph for 30 mpg. You'd probably be surprised what your average speed is after you reset and try out this tank.
If it's above 30 mph and you're getting sub 20 mpg... Then i don't know
Latest fuel mpg I have with both my better half driving (mostly) and me is 19 mph average returning 23 mpg over the past 3 months.
Which is 3 mpg better than her old Volvo S40 2.0 Auto would do over the same type of driving period.
When we compared the 2 cars just after getting the K they worked out about even around 20 mpg each but after a longer time period driving the K the average has improved.
“If you see a gap and don't go for it, you are no longer a racing driver”
