Topic: Test Drive: 2010 Nissan Versa 1.8 SL hatchback

[John Meyer]

I looked at the Versa and one of the attractions was the CVT which can drop RPM to the 2100 level at 100kmph.   

This is extremely good for a small car and a key factor in lowering fuel consumption.  Not to mention noise.

However, much to my amazement, in a later test drive of the 2009 Hinda Fit which my GF bought, the automatic has 5 gears and spins at 2100 at 100km.  Simply outstanding.

I wish they would have these ratios in standard transmissions but no luck.  The Fit downshifts from 5th too easily where I'd hold it there in a manual.

Anyway low cruising rpm does wonders for relaxed and low consumption motoring.

[Schmengie]

One of the Versa's major advantages over it's sub-compact competition is that it doesn't feel 'small and cheap'. We've had our '08 for about 2-and-a-half years now and it's been the best small car we've ever had in terms of comfort and usability. The car's seating position is higher than it's competitors and the car itself is bigger inside and out and that just makes the vehicle friendlier to use every day. Yes, it has some flaws as some posters have already pointed out such as the stepped load floor when the rear seat is folded, but I think that's partly a result of Nissan's decision to over-pad the rear seats to make them more comfortable for passengers. The Fit has a more versatile cargo area, but it's rear seat can't compare to the Versa's in terms of comfort and room, especially on long trips.

So far, our Versa has more than met our expectations. It's been 100% reliable and I definitely would consider another Nissan in the future. I think Nissan did an outstanding job on this car and it's still well worth a look even though it's been around for a while.

[footlong58]

One of the Versa's major advantages over it's sub-compact competition is that it doesn't feel 'small and cheap'. We've had our '08 for about 2-and-a-half years now and it's been the best small car we've ever had in terms of comfort and usability. The car's seating position is higher than it's competitors and the car itself is bigger inside and out and that just makes the vehicle friendlier to use every day. Yes, it has some flaws as some posters have already pointed out such as the stepped load floor when the rear seat is folded, but I think that's partly a result of Nissan's decision to over-pad the rear seats to make them more comfortable for passengers. The Fit has a more versatile cargo area, but it's rear seat can't compare to the Versa's in terms of comfort and room, especially on long trips.

So far, our Versa has more than met our expectations. It's been 100% reliable and I definitely would consider another Nissan in the future. I think Nissan did an outstanding job on this car and it's still well worth a look even though it's been around for a while.

I agree 100%.  I've got an '08 Versa S hatchback, and it's been great.  I'd definitely look at another Nissan.

[Jaeger]

One of the Versa's major advantages over it's sub-compact competition is that it doesn't feel 'small and cheap'. We've had our '08 for about 2-and-a-half years now and it's been the best small car we've ever had in terms of comfort and usability. The car's seating position is higher than it's competitors and the car itself is bigger inside and out and that just makes the vehicle friendlier to use every day. Yes, it has some flaws as some posters have already pointed out such as the stepped load floor when the rear seat is folded, but I think that's partly a result of Nissan's decision to over-pad the rear seats to make them more comfortable for passengers. The Fit has a more versatile cargo area, but it's rear seat can't compare to the Versa's in terms of comfort and room, especially on long trips.

So far, our Versa has more than met our expectations. It's been 100% reliable and I definitely would consider another Nissan in the future. I think Nissan did an outstanding job on this car and it's still well worth a look even though it's been around for a while.

Agreed.

Jaeger

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I had one as a rental. I was really surprised at how well it worked. Comfortable, great room and decent mileage. I much preferred the autobox in the Versa, than the CVT in the Sentra i had a few weeks prior.

[PJungnitsch]

One of the Versa's major advantages over it's sub-compact competition is that it doesn't feel 'small and cheap'. We've had our '08 for about 2-and-a-half years now and it's been the best small car we've ever had in terms of comfort and usability. The car's seating position is higher than it's competitors and the car itself is bigger inside and out and that just makes the vehicle friendlier to use every day. Yes, it has some flaws as some posters have already pointed out such as the stepped load floor when the rear seat is folded, but I think that's partly a result of Nissan's decision to over-pad the rear seats to make them more comfortable for passengers. The Fit has a more versatile cargo area, but it's rear seat can't compare to the Versa's in terms of comfort and room, especially on long trips.

So far, our Versa has more than met our expectations. It's been 100% reliable and I definitely would consider another Nissan in the future. I think Nissan did an outstanding job on this car and it's still well worth a look even though it's been around for a while.

Very good summary. It's the 'limo' of small cars, at least in the higher trim level. I think if Nissan would give it a restyle it would be a much bigger hit.

[Schmengie]

I think if Nissan would give it a restyle it would be a much bigger hit.

I don't think the Versa looks any worse than some of it's competition, especially the Yaris which looks a little bug-like to me. With 2010 being the fourth year for the current model, I expect Nissan will give the Versa a makeover any day now. My suggestions for the next Versa:

1) Widen the hatch opening at the bottom to make loading/unloading easier.
2) Put the power mirror controls on the armrest where they belong.
3) PLEASE make the external lights easier to access for bulb replacement. Also applies to most other makes.
4) It would be nice to get center armrests for both front and back seats without having to order an entire option package. This one's a big downer for me.
5) Include a standard tilt/telescoping steering column.
6) At least offer the option for an up-to-date 5-speed autobox.
7) I may be picking nits, but the outside hood release is difficult to find. Make it a little bigger so you can actually feel it when you put your fingers in there.
7) ABS and Stability Control should be standard across the board.
And last but not least, ditch the basic stripper-model and the ugly 4-door sedans. NOBODY wants those. Replace them with a longer-wheelbase model with an extended cargo floor. I think a station wagon-like model of the Versa would be a HUGE hit.

That's about it. Even without these improvements, the Versa's a pretty nice little car. With them, I think it would be almost unbeatable.

[Chad]

I own a 2009 Versa with a CVT. I have to say I like the car overall for what it is intended to do, but I am unimpressed with the fuel economy (one of the selling factors for me what the claimed economy). I can't speak for the people who have manuals, perhaps they are getting much better results. In the city most of my driving is freeway, so it is not so stop and go, and I have been able to get around 37mpg. I can live with this, but really it should be higher since there is not so much stop and go. On the Highway, I have not been able to get much better (perhaps 2mpg better), and that is where I have been frustrated. Not only that it has been getting a bit worse lately. I realize that the manufacturers claims are often exaggerated, and I get that, however I would not expect to be 10 mpg off the mark for the highway mileage.

My only pet peeve with this car is the CVT. I will never get one again. I do not like the technology. I believe it is the reason for the poor fuel economy, and I do not like the sound. I would rather have a 5 speed automatic like they have in the fit.

[Sival]

I own a 2009 Versa with a CVT. I have to say I like the car overall for what it is intended to do, but I am unimpressed with the fuel economy (one of the selling factors for me what the claimed economy). I can't speak for the people who have manuals, perhaps they are getting much better results. In the city most of my driving is freeway, so it is not so stop and go, and I have been able to get around 37mpg. I can live with this, but really it should be higher since there is not so much stop and go. On the Highway, I have not been able to get much better (perhaps 2mpg better), and that is where I have been frustrated. Not only that it has been getting a bit worse lately. I realize that the manufacturers claims are often exaggerated, and I get that, however I would not expect to be 10 mpg off the mark for the highway mileage.

My only pet peeve with this car is the CVT. I will never get one again. I do not like the technology. I believe it is the reason for the poor fuel economy, and I do not like the sound. I would rather have a 5 speed automatic like they have in the fit.

37 MPG, in American gallons or in Canadian/British gallons? In other words, 6,4 l/100 Km or 7,6 l/100 Km? The first one is what you could expect if you drive almost only on the highway near the speed limit and don't pass cars frequently, the second is relatively low, but may be understandable if you drive at 120-130 and pass a lot of cars. I'd like to point out though that the Versa's high profile and tall passenger compartment, though it helps giving it a large interior, does contribute to reduce the fuel economy on the highway due to increased air resistance. Note that the American rating tends to presume a more aggressive driver and says the 2009 Versa CVT can expect a fuel economy on the highway of 33 MPG (US), so around 39-40 MPG (British). That would mean you get just what the EPA expected.

As an aside, the manufacturers can't exaggerate the claims of fuel economy ratings, those are standardized tests. Most often, the reason cars can't quite get those ratings is sitting behind the steering wheel.

[libraman]

I looked at the Versa and one of the attractions was the CVT which can drop RPM to the 2100 level at 100kmph.   

This is extremely good for a small car and a key factor in lowering fuel consumption.  Not to mention noise.

However, much to my amazement, in a later test drive of the 2009 Hinda Fit which my GF bought, the automatic has 5 gears and spins at 2100 at 100km.  Simply outstanding.

I wish they would have these ratios in standard transmissions but no luck.  The Fit downshifts from 5th too easily where I'd hold it there in a manual.

Anyway low cruising rpm does wonders for relaxed and low consumption motoring.

Lower rpm does not necessarily lower consumption. Most manuals, as you say, spin higher than thier corresponding auto trannys, but nonetheless get better economy...especially in real world tests. Look at the Accord's real world Consumerreports results as an example. The lower rpm of the automatic tranny is attempt to make up for the initial efficiency loss compared to the manual. You can be driving at a lower gear at higher rpm with the throttle less open than in a higher gear at lower rpm. Here is an interesting read in this regard: http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Brake-Specific-Fuel-Consumption/A_110216/article.html

[Sival]

I looked at the Versa and one of the attractions was the CVT which can drop RPM to the 2100 level at 100kmph.   

This is extremely good for a small car and a key factor in lowering fuel consumption.  Not to mention noise.

However, much to my amazement, in a later test drive of the 2009 Hinda Fit which my GF bought, the automatic has 5 gears and spins at 2100 at 100km.  Simply outstanding.

I wish they would have these ratios in standard transmissions but no luck.  The Fit downshifts from 5th too easily where I'd hold it there in a manual.

Anyway low cruising rpm does wonders for relaxed and low consumption motoring.

Lower rpm does not necessarily lower consumption. Most manuals, as you say, spin higher than thier corresponding auto trannys, but nonetheless get better economy...especially in real world tests. Look at the Accord's real world Consumerreports results as an example. The lower rpm of the automatic tranny is attempt to make up for the initial efficiency loss compared to the manual. You can be driving at a lower gear at higher rpm with the throttle less open than in a higher gear at lower rpm. Here is an interesting read in this regard: http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Brake-Specific-Fuel-Consumption/A_110216/article.html

Actually, yes, the lower the RPM generally speaking, the better the fuel economy. The article you provided gave the pretty clear conclusiont that : "...anything that allows you to keep the throttle open wider and the revs lower (like changing up to a tall gear and then holding it) will reduce fuel consumption...". So driving at an higher RPM will get worse fuel economy, not despite the fact that the throttle is less open, but in part BECAUSE of it. Engines are more efficient if the throttle is wide open because throttling generates energy losses.

That being said, manuals are inherently more efficient than automatics because automatics have hydraulic losses in the mix due to their torque converter that replaces the clutch, so automatics have to run at lower RPMs than manuals to equal their fuel economy on the highway. A small manual car with a 4-cylinder that would spin at 2000 RPMs on the highway would get incredibly great fuel economy on the highway, but it would require that the driver downshifts too often, so carmakers typically make sure the engines can generate a certain amount of power at highway speeds. I'm guessing roughly about 55-65 hp at 100 Km/h in the highest gear according to what I approximate from data on torque and on RPM at 100 Km/h for different cars (power (hp) = torque (lb-ft) times RPM divided by 5252).

[John Meyer]

"Lower rpm does not necessarily lower consumption."

Certainly experience with a fuel computer plugged into my '06 Echo indicates that the taller the gear, the lower the consumption regardless of whether the throttle is wide open or not.

Counter-intuitive to be sure but the computer was very clear on this issue.

A point of frustration is standard transmission cars with high gearing in 5th.  In North America, everything should have a very low RPM cruising gear.  Having high geared manuals offsets a good part of their inherent efficiency advantage.

The worst examples were the early Golf GTIs.  Try driving Montreal - Windsor in a car where the engine is spinning at 3400 at 100k.  That isn't sporty, its punishing.

Note to manufacturers:  if we were afraid of downshifting, we wouldn't have bought manual transmission cars to begin with!

[Chad]

I own a 2009 Versa with a CVT. I have to say I like the car overall for what it is intended to do, but I am unimpressed with the fuel economy (one of the selling factors for me what the claimed economy). I can't speak for the people who have manuals, perhaps they are getting much better results. In the city most of my driving is freeway, so it is not so stop and go, and I have been able to get around 37mpg. I can live with this, but really it should be higher since there is not so much stop and go. On the Highway, I have not been able to get much better (perhaps 2mpg better), and that is where I have been frustrated. Not only that it has been getting a bit worse lately. I realize that the manufacturers claims are often exaggerated, and I get that, however I would not expect to be 10 mpg off the mark for the highway mileage.

My only pet peeve with this car is the CVT. I will never get one again. I do not like the technology. I believe it is the reason for the poor fuel economy, and I do not like the sound. I would rather have a 5 speed automatic like they have in the fit.

37 MPG, in American gallons or in Canadian/British gallons? In other words, 6,4 l/100 Km or 7,6 l/100 Km? The first one is what you could expect if you drive almost only on the highway near the speed limit and don't pass cars frequently, the second is relatively low, but may be understandable if you drive at 120-130 and pass a lot of cars. I'd like to point out though that the Versa's high profile and tall passenger compartment, though it helps giving it a large interior, does contribute to reduce the fuel economy on the highway due to increased air resistance. Note that the American rating tends to presume a more aggressive driver and says the 2009 Versa CVT can expect a fuel economy on the highway of 33 MPG (US), so around 39-40 MPG (British). That would mean you get just what the EPA expected.

As an aside, the manufacturers can't exaggerate the claims of fuel economy ratings, those are standardized tests. Most often, the reason cars can't quite get those ratings is sitting behind the steering wheel.

Canadian/British gallons, and yes I am taking into consideration of the driving habits. On one road trip the cruise control was set at 105, and I drove about 1900 km's at this speed. Still 10 mpg off the manufacturers claim. That is too far off the mark in my opinion.

[Winterpeg]

"Lower rpm does not necessarily lower consumption."

...Certainly experience with a fuel computer plugged into my '06 Echo indicates that the taller the gear, the lower the consumption regardless of whether the throttle is wide open or not....




You had a '06 Echo???.....Since they stopped making them in '05 me-thinks it was a '06 Yaris....unless it was a "special" Echo just built for you....

[John Meyer]

"You had a '06 Echo???.....Since they stopped making them in '05 me-thinks it was a '06 Yaris"

We're both wrong but I am far more wrong than you.  It is an '05 Echo.  You got me.

Drives like an '08 though - really tight little vehicle.

JM

[HomerJ]

"You had a '06 Echo???.....Since they stopped making them in '05 me-thinks it was a '06 Yaris"
We're both wrong but I am far more wrong than you.  It is an '05 Echo.  You got me.
Drives like an '08 though - really tight little vehicle.
JM

I too drive an Echo and am thrilled with the performance, economy and driveability of this car.  I am looking to replace the Echo because both my teenage kids are over six feet tall.  I am 6'5" so we are looking for rear legroom but I want economy. 

I have looked at many cars but have narrowed it down to two, the Versa Hatch and the Kia Soul.  I don't know how folks can say the Honda Fit is as roomy.  The stats just don't bear that out.  Rear seat legroom is 972 mm in the Versa, a stunning 1005 mm in the Soul and 888 mm in the Fit.  That puts the Fit at approximately 3.5 fewer inches of rear legroom than the Versa and 4.5 inches less than the Soul.  That's key if you plan on putting over six footers in the car.

I love Honda, Toyota and VW but none of them make an economy car with sufficient rear seat legroom as the Versa or the Soul.  If anyone can offer other choices I would love to hear them.

[Ex-airbalancer]

WOW I found the Soul had no room

[Jaeger]

If I were looking for a conveyance for the basketball team, I probably wouldn't be looking at a subcompact hatch.  I'm 5' 10" and I fit quite comfortably in the back of the Fit.  But if rear seat legroom is your number one purchase criterion, the Soul should be an easy choice.

Jaeger

[Sival]

If I were looking for a conveyance for the basketball team, I probably wouldn't be looking at a subcompact hatch.  I'm 5' 10" and I fit quite comfortably in the back of the Fit.  But if rear seat legroom is your number one purchase criterion, the Soul should be an easy choice.

Jaeger

How you fit in the back seat depends a lot on who sits in front of you. I could probably fit correctly in the back seat of a Fit if my mother occupied the seat in front of me, but if I first set the front seat so that I am comfortable and then try to sit behind it, then I couldn't fit in it. Try getting comfortable in the back seat of a Fit with a six-footer in front of you, that is the real test.

I'll also point out that the idea that you need a large car for tall people is not necessarily true. For instance, the Versa offers more legroom and headroom in the backseat than most midsizers. The main difference is width. Also, consider that compacts and subcompacts are the popular choices of Europeans, some of whom are on average taller than North Americans (for instance the Dutch, whose average height for young males is now above 6 feet).

[Shnak]

WOW I found the Soul had no room

Soul has plenty of room for 4 tall adults; it's lacking in cargo room though. I haven't sat in the Versa or the latest Fit, so can't compare with those two.