Topic: Test Drive: 2014 Nissan Versa Note 1.6 SV CVT

[Autos_Editor]

Though not particularly exciting to drive, Nissan's new small hatchback is surprisingly roomy, economical, and well equipped.

Read More...

[Noto]

Well, you autos.ca staff certainly deserve your salaries!!  Somehow, you can make even the Nissan Versa Note sound appealing in some way shape or form, even while highlighting its shortcomings.  Well done!

The 109-hp Versa Note’s city/highway fuel economy ratings are 7.6/5.9 (31/40) (L/100 km and US mpg) or a combined average of 6.7 L/100 km (35 US mpg).

  that ain't no thang.  109hp + 30.2MPG (7.8L/100km observed) = not so impressive.  See below:

Natural Resources Canada’s fuel consumption estimates for the Rio are 6.6 L/100 km in the city and 4.9 L/100 km in highway driving. The best I saw was 7.8 in just over 300 km, almost a third of which was highway driving at an average of about 110 km/h. I keep expecting better from this car, given its (apparently wildly optimistic) ratings.

Source: http://www.autos.ca/car-test-drives/test-drive-2012-kia-rio-sedan/?all=1

Other than the ridiculous powertrain (of which I thank Nissan for contributing to the betterment of CVTs), Nissan has such potential.  A very good attempt, but not quite at the level of the Rio/Accent/Fiesta/Fit.  It's funny - almost all of the C-segment 4-bangers, in heavier cars, do as well or better for fuel economy.  I'm not sure why this trend of shrinking engines is seen as such a benefit.  The harder an engine has to work, the more fuel it will burn - hence why small displacement turbos can be thirsty (or do really well on fuel economy lab testing  ). Seems to me like the smaller engines keep the cost of the car down, but more to the benefit of the manufacturer than the consumer.

I do, however, thank Nissan for offering niceties like an around-view monitor for under $20k in the loaded car.  Value is definitely there.  Stability, fuel economy:power ratio, and driving refinement are not.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The "small engines work harder" thing is odd. If a person is using 30hp of a 109hp car, then moves to a 400hp V8 engine and uses 30hp, both cars are working as hard. The larger engine however has higher pumping and other mechanical losses and is usually in a larger heavier car, so fuel consumption is higher.

If a person is trying to extract 109hp work of work from a 109hp engine, i.e. matting the throttle continuously, you're going to take an economy hit. Extracting 109hp from a 400hp engine will also result in proportionally higher consumption.

What can disproportionately hurt very small cars is aerodynamics. Short cars are notoriously difficult to make aerodynamically efficient, but that only affects highway performance. Around town, light cars with low outputs are difficult to beat in fuel consumption.

[hemusbull]

Yes, Nissan was struggling from previous generation Versa what engine to use: it was 1.8 for the hatch and 1.6 for the sedan. Taking economical approach, now they chose the smaller one. Expecting fuel efficiency proportional only to the HP of the engine is not quite right, gently talking. Note is now arguably the best looking in its class here in North America. And making it more comfortable it fits to the average Joe and Jane needs. This over all Toyota appliance approach is absolutely market winning IMO.

[Frontier1]

A recent experience with this very car, Kingston and back, 5.2l/100km at 110.

A very compliant ride, low road noise, low engine noise and this in comparison to the Kia, Fit and Yaris.  This car by design is meant to be driven in a certain way, complaining about performance here is almost as silly as complaining about a big suv achieving 17L/100, in both instances maybe you bought/or looking the wrong vehicle.

We are looking at 2 of these that could join one already in the driveway.  I'm not getting any younger, the pension down the road will be what it is, I and the Ms dont want a go-kart ride, looks like the Versa Note could be a fit

For comparison sake: Fuelly

13 Rio5 - 35 cars - 7.9
13 Fit - 106 cars - 7.2
14 Note - 10 cars - 7.0
13 Accent - 48 cars - 7.2
13 Yaris - 10 cars - 6.7
14 Fiesta - 7 cars 7.1
 

[dirtyjeffer]

For comparison sake: Fuelly

13 Rio5 - 35 cars - 7.9
13 Fit - 106 cars - 7.2
14 Note - 10 cars - 7.0
13 Accent - 48 cars - 7.2
13 Yaris - 10 cars - 6.7
14 Fiesta - 7 cars 7.1

man, what are those Rio5 drivers doing??...7.9??...are they drag racing every light??...i've been driving somewhat spirited lately and i'm only at 7.2...if i drove like my mom, i'd likely be in the 6.5-6.7 range easily...i guess to be fair, i have started using Shell V-Power as my car just runs better on it than the gas at the Superstore, so perhaps the top quality fuel is lowering my consumption number a bit.

[Frontier1]

The article here shows the manual f/e numbers, cvt rating is better than that.

[dkaz]

I've been seeing more of these. It's a bit hard to tell apart from a Honda Fit from the back, but overall it's a pretty decent looking vehicle from the outside.

I'd like to see one side by side with an older Versa.

FYI, my sis in law is averaging 8L/100km in her Rio5 SX. All city but still not great. They kinda regret not going for the similarity priced Prius C, but it is a nice luxurious feeling vehicle.

[cruzzer]

I'm with those that question 7.8L/100 as being good for this size of car. Although I wasn't there and didn't do the driving, I see that Fuelly.com has hundreds of 2012 and 2013 Civics listed that average 6.7L/100. Significantly better than the Versa Note. The new Mazda3 will likely be in the mid 6's as well and be a lot more car as well. Nissan deserves credit for making a roomy affordable car but a base model in the next class up might be a better choice for many.

[Frontier1]

I'm with those that question 7.8L/100 as being good for this size of car. Although I wasn't there and didn't do the driving, I see that Fuelly.com has hundreds of 2012 and 2013 Civics listed that average 6.7L/100. Significantly better than the Versa Note. The new Mazda3 will likely be in the mid 6's as well and be a lot more car as well. Nissan deserves credit for making a roomy affordable car but a base model in the next class up might be a better choice for many.

7.8 is one individual, fuelly says 7.0 so far.  As for the Civic dont forget to remove the hybrid out of the equation, just looking at the L4s, 6.9+

[dkaz]

Mazda 3's 2012 and 2013 Fuelly numbers are 7.4 and 7.1 L/100km respectively despite having the non-Skyactiv 2.0L and 2.5L engines to drag that number up.

7.8L/100km in referring to the Rio5 I believe, and it's 7.9 for the 2013s, 7.4 for the 2012s. Kinda terrible compared to the Mazda 3.

[johngenx]

What can disproportionately hurt very small cars is aerodynamics.

And is why cars like the Corolla, a fairly large sedan (in the compact/sub-compact world) achieves excellent highway fuel economy.  It combines a longer chassis with a trunk (sedans usually have better aero characteristics than hatches) and a small very efficient engine.  The hatches that match/beat sedans have the sloping rear roof-line of the Prius.

Engine management and things like variable valve timing and how it's employed are also key to good economy.  It's one reason why Toyota got a jump on everyone else a few years back in terms of economy as they'd been working on these systems for a long time.  Luckily for consumers, that advantage has not gone unnoticed and now all makes are focusing on better economy.

[dkaz]

Just fabricate a boat tail rear end onto whatever hatchback. 70mpg highway easy. Crazy hypermilers.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

^ 

In the summer on a level road the new engine gets 100 mpg at a steady 60 mph and 120 mpg at 40 mph. It has tank averages in the upper 60's in the winter and upper 70's in the summer.

http://aerocivic.com/

If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid. ~ Murphy's Law of Combat Operations. 

[Frontier1]

Fuelly on a sampling of 57 2013 Corolla, f/e = 7.6L/100

2013 Civic exc. hybrid 6.9
2013 Sentra 7.6
2013 Elantra 7.8
2013 Focus 7.7
2013 Mazda 3 7.1 >>>cant tell which is Sky so I took the most popular
2014 Mazda 3 7.5 >>>only 1 sample
2013 Cruze 7.1

Civic really stands out in this crowd.

[Seafoam]

Fuelly on a sampling of 57 2013 Corolla, f/e = 7.6L/100

2013 Civic exc. hybrid 6.9
2013 Sentra 7.6
2013 Elantra 7.8
2013 Focus 7.7

Civic really stands out in this crowd.

Yeah i'm getting 7.2 per tank all city driving. This car seems to be a coaster and  i try not to use the brakes unless i have to. Highway tanks are all in the mid to low 5's.

[dkaz]

So Civic manages to be one of the best of the bunch despite no DI engine, 5 speed manual/auto, and scores a Good in small overlap. I call a close tie with the Skyactiv Mazda 3s, but I'll wait for more Skyactiv-exclusive 2014 owners to release their figures.

[dirtyjeffer]

i think in the case of the Rio, they likely went more for power (since that looks better on a spec sheet)...i mean, the 1.6L engine in the Rio (and its Hyundai stablemate) is rated for 138HP...that's 29 more than the Versa Note, 18 more than the Fiesta, 38 more than the 1.5L in the Mazda 2 and 21 more than the 1.5L in the Honda Fit...so in this case, i think the engine is tuned more for power than fuel economy.

[Frontier1]

Yep...well we done it...not once, twice, but 3 times, 1.1 1.2 & 1.3.