by "Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
Published 06/22/2017 at 14:46
by "Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
Published 06/22/2017 at 14:46
No Tags
STARS: 1
Yesterday’s post comparing the R50 Nissan Pathfinder to the 3rd gen Toyota 4Runner reminded me that I rather like the R50 Pathfinder, at least the post-refresh LE trim with the VQ V6 and awd (instead of part-time 4wd). So I looked up the fuel economy for it. Wow!
Nissan’s VQ series V6 engine has been around for a long time now, with assorted improvements and refinements over the years. Both the Murano and Pathfinder still have versions of the VQ35DE motor found in the 2001-2004 Pathfinder, but tuned to 260 and 284 hp respectively instead of 240 hp in the R50. The Pathfinder got a direct-injected version of the motor for 2017, but the previous years of the R52 Pathfinder with the same 260 hp port-injected version in the Murano have the same mpg rating as the direct-injected 2017 Pathfinder
Unlike the R50 Pathfinder, the current Murano and Pathfinder combine the VQ35DE motor with Nissan’s often-criticized CVT transmission. CVTs as a concept are not inherently bad. My wife’s 2016 Subaru Impreza has one and I actually like it as an economy car transmission. It does its CVT mileage-enhancing thing but also does a good job of helping with acceleration when requested.
Nissan CVTs have a deservedly bad reputation for how they’re tuned in Nissan’s 4-cylinder cars. They tend to shoot for the absolute tallest possible gear ratio in all situations, and they’ll even fight with you by upshifting when you try for part-throttle acceleration, presumably to counteract your small movement of the gas pedal. You have to floor them to get them to kick down.
I haven’t driven a V6 CVT Nissan, but maybe they aren’t so bad because of the higher powered motor. Maybe. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
You’ve seen the fuel economy differences above, now look at the dimensions:
The R50 Pathfinder is a lot smaller both the current Murano and Pathfinder, but it’s closer in weight to the current Pathfinder. Keep in mind, the R50 Pathfinder is not a body-on-frame truck. It’s a unibody platform with subframes and a live rear axle.
So yeah, the 325 lbs lighter Murano blows the R50 out of the water in the mpg department. But the 175 lbs heavier new Pathfinder still beats the R50 by 5/7/8 (city/mixed/combined) mpg.
Maybe some of the improvement can be attributed to improvements in the efficiency of the motor itself, and some might be from better aerodynamics, but our good friend the CVT probably plays a big part of it as well.
Who’s ready to swap a CVT into an R50 Pathfinder? We know it’ll connect up to the engine!
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
06/22/2017 at 14:51, STARS: 1
Unrelated opinion: R52 should have been renamed to the Pavementfinder with that redesign.
"Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street." (demon-xanth)
06/22/2017 at 14:54, STARS: 1
According to Merriam Webster:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
plural
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
play play \pa th z, paths, pä th z, päths\
1 : a trodden way a winding path through the woods
2 : a track specially constructed for a particular use a garden path of flagstones
3 a : course , route the path of a meteor b : a way of life, conduct, or thought decided on a career path in medicine
4 a : the continuous series of positions or configurations that can be assumed in any motion or process of change by a moving or varying system b : a sequence of arcs in a network that can be traced continuously without retracing any arc
5 : pathway 2 the optic path from the retina to the cerebral cortex
Definition #2 sounds pretty much the definition of a paved street. So they just swapped #1 for #2 while becoming #2 at #1.
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
06/22/2017 at 14:59, STARS: 0
So what I gather is that pavement is a path but a path isn’t necessarily paved?
I stand by my suggestion of Pavementfinder to discourage citizens from attempting to find the unpaved paths.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
06/22/2017 at 15:02, STARS: 1
The Pavementfinder’s awd and raised ground clearance should be sufficient for many relatively smooth unpaved paths.
"Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street." (demon-xanth)
06/22/2017 at 15:05, STARS: 1
It’s probably more accurate to be called Pathfounder as if you can’t find a path things with it have probably gone pretty much tango unicorn.
"awmaster10" (awmaster10)
06/22/2017 at 15:14, STARS: 0
I think thats mostly because the 4 speed auto in the r50 is atrociously bad. Brand new CVTs are much better than 90s era autos, but I sometimes wish I could feel my r50 with a ZF 8 speed or similar good auto.
My parents used to have a 2005 montero which is a vq35 through a CVT and it got pretty bad real world mileage. It was also a total bore, but definitely faster than my r50 when you really put your foot down and it “downshifts”
Which brings up another point. CVTs take advantage of the EPA testing cycles to put up high numbers but are much worse in real world testing. In a midsized sedan test from a couple years ago the altima had the highest claimed MPG but the lowest observed.
"Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies" (jordanwphillips)
06/22/2017 at 15:14, STARS: 0
We had a rental Maxima, and I never really noticed the CVT. It was pretty quick, and a fairly nice car overall.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
06/22/2017 at 15:15, STARS: 0
Well comparing a port injected engine hooked to a 4 speed with the body of a brick to a direct injected cvt thats slippery...yeah.
"awmaster10" (awmaster10)
06/22/2017 at 15:15, STARS: 0
Also: aerodynamics and unsprung weight.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
06/22/2017 at 15:23, STARS: 0
True, although only the 2017-up Pathfinder has direct injection. The pre-facelift R52 with port injection has the same mpg rating.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
06/22/2017 at 15:33, STARS: 1
Looking through the user-reported average fuel economy numbers on fueleconomy.gov, they are roughly...
VQ R50 Pathfinder: 15-17 mpg
Z50 Murano AWD: 19-20 mpg
Z51 Murano AWD: 20-22 mpg
Z52 Murano AWD: 18-19 mpg
R52 Pathfinder AWD: 18-21 mpg
So it would appear the CVTs aren’t quite returning the real-world mileage promised by their EPA ratings. But they’re still more efficient than the R50 and its antique 4-speed.
"Bryan doesn't drive a 1M" (bryantakespictures)
06/22/2017 at 15:53, STARS: 0
My parents have a Maxima with CVT. It is indeed much better than driving a tiny engine with a CVT. Still drony and dull, but the driving experience is decent. Unlike something like a Sentra with CVT for example.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
06/22/2017 at 16:02, STARS: 0
Well like I said with my wife’s car, a CVT attached to a dinky engine doesn’t have to be bad, but Nissan tunes them for max economy at the expense of acceleration.
"The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!)" (steve-still-hasnt-wrecked-the-powershift-in-his-12-ford-focus)
06/22/2017 at 16:39, STARS: 0
Other people have already compared the CVT to the 4 speed of the R50, and the aerodynamics, but no one has mentioned the myriad other changes that have occurred in improving efficiency. Everything from low friction oils in the transmissions and diffs, to more aggressive fuel cutoff when you let off the throttle, to low rolling resistance tires, alternators that only charge as needed or when engine load is low...there’s a lot that could be done that you’d never notice. Hell, the VQ itself might have had minor changes to the ECM programming, fuel injection system, VVT timing, combustion chamber or intake/exhaust design, or oiling system to improve efficiency. Each change may not add much of an efficiency improvement, but cumulatively might add 1 or 2 MPG to the car regardless of aerodynamics, weight loss, and transmission. Its really amazing how much efficiency has been squeezed out of cars despite their larger size, weight (usually), and power.