2011 Nissan Juke: Did I Win?

@lostboyz - This is the internet, you don't proof-read here! ;-)

Disappointing. I really like this car and wanted to seriously consider buying it, but I routinely exceed the EPA ratings on the cars that I already have without trying.

And that's running on premium. Give me a Rav4 V6, I bet cost/mile would be lower.

There are many more practical vehicles that give at least equal fuel economy. BTW, typically you can do better on mileage by NOT using the cruise control, although you might annoy people by slowing down going up hills and accelerating as you go down them. With the roads as empty as you say, however, this should not have been a problem.

Good article, thanks for posting. I was wondering how the Juke would do when driven efficiently. Also thanks for dealing with trolls who nitpick tiny and unimportant spelling mistakes.

Wow - so tucking in behind the 15 nuns in the Econoline window van in the slow lane, and you still couldn't even get 28.5 mpg.

Plus it's ugly.

On the other hand, show me another member of the frog and toad family or ANY angry anime character that can do better.

70 mph is still not an efficient speed, no matter the posted limit. If you were really trying, you would have cruised at 40 mph. That said, the Juke is not the most streamlined vehicle in the market, so it will suffer more at high speeds than other vehicles. Compare with a Lexus IS250, for example. They are both rated by the EPA at 30 mpg highway. If you just look at drag coefficients, though, you'll see that the Lexus is much more streamlined than the Juke (.28 vs .35). The Lexus is also going to have a slightly smaller frontal area. All else being equal, this means the Lexus will see less of a drop in fuel economy at high speeds than the Nissan.

not as good as i have hoped it would be. oh well, we like other features of the car for this price. taking delivery of ours as soon as it arrives from japan. that's a great shot of the car btw. we prefer electric blue though

That's just disappointing. I don't think the aero is quite as important in this case as the small engine working hard. I'll bet that the Odyssey or Sienna would have hit 28+ mpg at that speed coming down the hill as well despite being much bigger, weighing a lot more and having an extra 2 liters of displacement.

Someone needs to pay more attention to how VW manages to extract such good economy from their small displacement turbos, because they're the only ones who seem to be doing a consistently good job in this area.

Do we get Winter Formulation fuel here in SoCal?

If so, that would explain a ~1.5 mpg decrease in my tanks since around September, with no change in driving technique.

Still think you should test the fwd manual Juke to see if it's more frugal in the real world. Meanwhile, the Juke's most direct competitor is your very own RVR er... Outlander Sport. What's this one doing, mpg wise, on roadtrips?

"Someone needs to pay more attention to how VW manages to extract such good economy from their small displacement turbos, because they're the only ones who seem to be doing a consistently good job in this area."

+1 church. Experience matters. They have been doing it in the U.S. market without a break since 1998, and on a huge scale - they put their 1.8L and 2.0L turbo 4s in practically everything they sold here.

This is Nissan's first 4-cyl turbo in...how long? And they never did it on any kind of scale.

I am also keeping an eye on Ford - IL's 4500-lb Ecoboost Explorer is not doing that great on fuel economy, but Autoblog tested an Ecoboost Edge and over the week they had it, it got just over 25 mpg in mixed driving. At 4,000 lbs, that's pretty good. When that same basic engine goes into the 1000-lbs-lighter Focus ST, I predict great things economy-wise. We'll see.

fordson1:

ahhh, yes, the Nissan Pulsar NX Turbo.

Outlander Sport: answering my own post, last IL road trip netted 24.8 mpg, but conditions weren't perhaps as ideal as in the Juke's return from Vegas.

What's wrong with this picture? It's not like the Subaru Outback Sport, Mini Countryman, or Mitsubishi Outlander Sport can do much better than the Juke when it comes to MPG, so why exactly is everyone bitching about MPG so much? Because the Juke gets reasonable and predictable levels of efficiency based on what similar vehicles get? Scandalous!

The issue is setting the cruise to 70 mph. I don't know the Juke's gearing, but it's got a small turbo that's likely producing meaningful boost at that speed. Plus the Juke doesn't have the most aerodynamic shape.

I'd bet if you tried again at 55 mph, you'd be much closer to 30 mpg.

with this car being so small and the engine being only 1.6 liters im going to officially refer to this car (at least in awd) as a gas guzzler from now on. as fun to drive as this car is the mpg is just unexcusable. nissan should use a NA four cylinder instead of this turbo 4 unless they majorly overhaul the next model year for eficiency. for reference you could get better gas mileage out of a awd chevy equinox or a 2012 subaru impreza

I know what you're saying but, driving 55 mph on the 15 would make you a rolling hazard - a crime that should be punishable by the loss of your driver's license and a life time sentence of riding the bus. In the back row. Next to the bathroom.

k

I did follow the mobile nunnery for a while, but they got off the 15 in Baker. Right after they mooned me and threw empty beer cans at the Juke.

k

My guess is also the aerodynamics/frontal area combined with a relatively high cruising speed. The EPA highway test has a top speed of 60 mph and an average of 48. Even with the correction factors they apply, an SUV (any SUV) is going to have a hard time matching its EPA highway numbers when driving 70.

I don't consider that economy unreasonable. Highway is mostly about aerodynamics and the Juke is tall and stubby.

The EPA sticker is wrong, but that's nothing new because the EPA test doesn't measure actually driving so it's usually wrong.

Nissan seems to really struggle int he fuel economy department. As a broke college student, I'm regularly beside myself that my 2010 Versa hatchback 4-speed only gets 32 mpg hwy, meaning that my commute nets me 21 mpg. I think that's horrible considering a Maxima with its big VQ series V6 gets the same mileage.

I get 7.2lhk. Aka 32 mpg on a daily basis with my 6speed manual transmission. The cvt is not economic like the 6mt

I get 7.2lhk. Aka 32 mpg on a daily basis with my 6speed manual transmission. The cvt is not economic like the 6mt is.

My 2008 Chrysler T&C 4.0L 6AT gets 23-24mpg with cruise control set at 70mph, EPA is 23mpg HWY. I have calculated this average many times on 300mi round trips between Portland and Seattle.

My Saturn AURA 3.6L 6AT averages 27-28mpg at 70mph EPA is 26mpg HWY. Calculated observations.

Factoring in the elevation drop during the drive from Vegas to LA, 28.3mpg is unacceptable.

jukes gearing is terrible for highway runs, @ 70mph he's using light turbo and rpm is prob between 2500-3000 :-\ I get better mpg in city that highway w/ juke

I own the Juke. After 20000 miles I can tell you that the vehicle is a true charm to drive. I opted for the 6MT and absolutely love it. HOWEVER, MPG is horrendous. I'm a conservative driver but can't manage to get over 27 mpg hwy. My best so far is 27.2 attained ONCE. I consistently get around 25 hwy; definitely lower than EPA.