2007 Nissan Maxima

[Paolino]

My question is--in the commercial they show the woman upshifting on the autostick... but it has a CVT. How does that work? Does it behave like a regular automatic when you use the autostick?

[Variance]

Basically. In manual-shift mode, the transmission programming lets you "shift" through 6 (I believe) programmed "gears". In normal drive, it behaves much like a normal gearless CVT (closer to the 2007 Altima than the Murano, I think).

On a semi-related note, in my Dec. MT issue, they tested a 2007 Altima with CVT and said the tweaks Nissan performed to the transmission added engine braking, cut the "rubberband" feel and improved responsiveness.

[Cory Wolfe]

Eh, I still dislike CVTs.

[regfootball]

i like CVT's, it just takes a long time to adjust to them, once you do, the stepped shifting thing seems a relic.

[scharmer05]

I didn't mind it in the murano I drove, but I don't love how fast the engine is running most of the time so I think I would still prefer a nice 6 speed over it.

[trinacriabob]

I didn't mind it in the murano I drove, but I don't love how fast the engine is running most of the time so I think I would still prefer a nice 6 speed over it.

214149[/snapback]

Scharm, I had a 6 speed in a rented Milan and the extra shift points seemed unidentifiable, nor did it drop the rpms and I got NO additional gas mileage over rented LaCrosses, Impalas and Monte Carlos. No opinion on CVTs as I have yet to rent one.

[Drew Dowdell]

LOL @ "shifting" the most efficient transmission, designed not to shift

[NDL]

When driving a CVT during normal acceleration, where does the unit hold engine rpm's? Of course, I don't expect a CVT to wind the motor out, but where's it usually kept? 3k-4k? What about on the highway?

[Paolino]

When driving a CVT during normal acceleration, where does the unit hold engine rpm's?  Of course, I don't expect a CVT to wind the motor out, but where's it usually kept?  3k-4k?  What about on the highway?

214515[/snapback]

With Hal's in the Prius, upon ANY accelleration, the RPMs revved quite high... there's no tachometer, but it sounds like the engine is up in upper 4-5000. When I first drove it, I got this extremely unsettling feeling the engine was going to blow, because it would just redline (so to speak), but never really go away. The revving whirs up and down slightly, but stays high. When you're on the highway, it lowers, but it's the 1.5L, so it pretty much stays up probably around 2500 to keep the car going 60. Not to mention, charging the battery. It was hard to keep the engine revving low--you just got NO power doing that. And I never want to hear Toyota boasting you can drive the car on solely battery, because you have to feather the damn pedal so lightly, and not go above like 17mph.

[nyscene911]

LOL @ "shifting" the most efficient transmission, designed not to shift

214152[/snapback]

Yes, but you seem to forget...its Nissan.

What would Nissan be without "Shift_"

[scharmer05]

Scharm, I had a 6 speed in a rented Milan and the extra shift points seemed unidentifiable, nor did it drop the rpms and I got NO additional gas mileage over rented LaCrosses, Impalas and Monte Carlos.  No opinion on CVTs as I have yet to rent one.

214151[/snapback]

Both my Uncle and a family friend of ours have new escalades with the 6 speed, I have driven both, and loved the 2 extra gears, and they both get around 15 MPG average. Not to bad considering my suburban with the 5.3, the 4 speed, and 3/4 the hp doesn't get that unless I have a 20 mph wind at my back. I'm sold.

[siegen]

Scharm, I had a 6 speed in a rented Milan and the extra shift points seemed unidentifiable, nor did it drop the rpms and I got NO additional gas mileage over rented LaCrosses, Impalas and Monte Carlos.

214151[/snapback]

Maybe it was a poorly-geared transmission. Or the Milan just doesn't get better mileage than those other cars regardless of gearing.

they both get around 15 MPG average.  Not to bad

214720[/snapback]

[ocnblu]

Wassamatta siegen, jealous because they match a Ridgeline for overall fuel mileage?

[Paolino]

Yes, but you seem to forget...its Nissan.

What would Nissan be without "Shift_"

214715[/snapback]

"Shiftless.

[siegen]

Wassamatta siegen, jealous because they match a Ridgeline for overall fuel mileage?

214740[/snapback]

Match? While the Ridge's mileage isn't great, it is still good for high teens to low 20's in real world driving. This is from fueleconomy.gov and carspace.

I couldn't find much for '07 Escalade real world mileage, only one report on fueleconomy.gov here for 12mpg, and one post here for 11.5mpg. Magazine's observed mileage ranged from 11mpg to 13mpg for the Escalade, and 14.5mpg to 17mpg for the Ridgeline.

[regfootball]

Match? While the Ridge's mileage isn't great, it is still good for high teens to low 20's in real world driving. This is from fueleconomy.gov and carspace.

I couldn't find much for '07 Escalade real world mileage, only one report on fueleconomy.gov here for 12mpg, and one post here for 11.5mpg. Magazine's observed mileage ranged from 11mpg to 13mpg for the Escalade, and 14.5mpg to 17mpg for the Ridgeline.

214807[/snapback]

my friends get 15 in their pilots, i don't see the rdigeline doing better.

meanwhile, my buddy with an 07 Lanche gets 17-18.

the RDX can't crack 14.

[Flybrian]

A Suburban getting 15mpg is excellent if you use it for its intended purpose.

[Drew Dowdell]

19.5 mpg round trip to Harrisburg with Buick Roadmaster parts in the bed of the Avalanche.

[siegen]

my friends get 15 in their pilots, i don't see the rdigeline doing better.

meanwhile, my buddy with an 07 Lanche gets 17-18.

214910[/snapback]

That's nice. My buddy has an '06 Avalanche and only gets around 11mpg, mostly city driving, while another buddy of mine has a Ridgeline and gets around 21mpg freeway, and used to average about 17-18mpg when he had a job in the same city (mostly city driving then).

Obviously I just made that up . Unfortunately it's hard to get accurate real world numbers for vehicles since they vary so much. You can only go off of averages between lots of people across the country. 'Buddies' aren't very good sources of mileage information unfortunately. I'm not saying you're lying, but it gets annoying when you pass your argument off as fact based on one or two buddies who for all we know could absolutely hate Honda's, and be driving them into the ground while they baby their Chevys.

the RDX can't crack 14.

Not on the racetrack.

[regfootball]

in the last 12 months 3 friends got new rides. 2 got pilots. 1 got an avalanche. both who got the new pilots reported the mileage i stated. they have no reason to lie. The other friend who got the lanche offered his mileage up to me unprompted. he said the mpg was awesome. this was when gas was 3 bucks.

i don't lie

and i tell it like its told to me.

since that original report the one guy has nudged 17 a few times with his pilot but he still says its only between 15 and 16 most tanks.

why would i think HE's lying?

[ocnblu]

Yeahbut, reg, following siegen's tortured logic, those Pilot pilots hate their vehicles and only drive full throttle or full brake, trying to get the worst mileage possible (because someone else is paying for the gas?) The Avalanche driver only drives downhill in neutral.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think the point here Siegen is that the mileage range for Avalanche, Pilot, and Ridgeline overlap yet the Avalanche is a substantially more capable vehicle than either of the Hondas.

The Ridgeline has 247hp V6 and 5-speed while the Avalanche has a 310hp V8 and a 4-speed yet both get between 12mpg and 20mpg depending on driving styles.

[siegen]

I think the point here Siegen is that the mileage range for Avalanche, Pilot, and Ridgeline overlap yet the Avalanche is a substantially more capable vehicle than either of the Hondas.

215239[/snapback]

That depends on your definition of capable. Can the Avalanche haul 8 people? I'm not ragging on the Avalanche, it is a nice looking capable vehicle. But, it is used for a different purpose than the Pilot, or an Escalade SUV for that matter. And it does get worse mileage, although not by a lot.

Avalanche 4wd - 15.6

Avalanche 2wd - 17.44

Pilot 4wd - 17.18

Pilot 2wd - 18.4

Ridgeline 4wd - 17.2

www.fueleconomy.gov

Yeahbut, reg, following siegen's tortured logic, those Pilot pilots hate their vehicles and only drive full throttle or full brake, trying to get the worst mileage possible (because someone else is paying for the gas?)  The Avalanche driver only drives downhill in neutral.

215217[/snapback]

Nice sarcasm. The point is, how do we know how Reg's buddies drive their vehicles? At least with fueleconomy.gov we have a fair number of sources which most likely contain people who baby their vehicles and people who don't, and from various parts of the U.S.

Also, given Reg's extreme bias, how do we even know these numbers are real or accurate?

Edited November 13, 2006 by siegen

[Drew Dowdell]

That depends on your definition of capable. Can the Avalanche haul 8 people? I'm not ragging on the Avalanche, it is a nice looking capable vehicle. But, it is used for a different purpose than the Pilot, or an Escalade SUV for that matter. And it does get worse mileage, although not by a lot.

Avalanche 4wd - 15.6

Avalanche 2wd - 17.44

Pilot 4wd - 17.18

Pilot 2wd - 18.4

Ridgeline 4wd - 17.2

215337[/snapback]

Uh, I was primarily comparing to the Ridgeline and my numbers reflected such. The Pilot would be compaired to the GMT-360s or the Tahoe/Yukon.... and again, it gets similar mileage to those trucks while both of the GM models have more power, more towing capacity, equal seating capacity, and in the case of the 900s, more cargo capacity.

[scharmer05]

214737[/snapback]

I've driven both and have looked at the overall economy on both, 14.7 and 14.6, both still in the break in period. I have no reason to lie. It suprised me also, but its the truth.

[siegen]

Uh, I was primarily comparing to the Ridgeline and my numbers reflected such. The Pilot would be compaired to the GMT-360s or the Tahoe/Yukon.... and again, it gets similar mileage to those trucks while both of the GM models have more power, more towing capacity, equal seating capacity, and in the case of the 900s, more cargo capacity.

215341[/snapback]

We're taking this thread for a roller coaster ride. First CVT's, then Escalades, Pilots, and now trucks! I'm having trouble keeping up. :AH-HA_wink:

On an average, the Avalanche will probably get within 1.5mpg of the Ridgeline. Yet, it will probably get better mileage than the Ridgeline while towing or hauling a moderately heavy load. So the Avalanche tows better, hauls better, and will probably handle overloading better than the Ridgeline (if my Sierra is any indication). It pretty much does everything a truck is designed to do a bit better than the Ridgeline, and doesn't even take a big hit to MPG despite having a bigger engine and weighing more. So why do people buy 50k+ Ridgeline's per year when they could pick up a nice new Avalanche instead? Is it because it's a Honda? Is that the only reason?

[Drew Dowdell]

We're taking this thread for a roller coaster ride. First CVT's, then Escalades, Pilots, and now trucks! I'm having trouble keeping up. :AH-HA_wink:

On an average, the Avalanche will probably get within 1.5mpg of the Ridgeline. Yet, it will probably get better mileage than the Ridgeline while towing or hauling a moderately heavy load. So the Avalanche tows better, hauls better, and will probably handle overloading better than the Ridgeline (if my Sierra is any indication). It pretty much does everything a truck is designed to do a bit better than the Ridgeline, and doesn't even take a big hit to MPG despite having a bigger engine and weighing more. So why do people buy 50k+ Ridgeline's per year when they could pick up a nice new Avalanche instead? Is it because it's a Honda? Is that the only reason?

215419[/snapback]

that and the complimentary copy of consumer reports....