GeddyLee wrote:Any information or tips and trips to help improve mileage, even in the slightest would be most helpful.

Thanks!

seems like the majority of fuel gets used in getting these things moving from a stop
as tempting as it is to put your foot in it , avoid hard acceleration, especially from a stop
if possible, upon approaching red lights, coast up to it as much as possible to avoid stopping before it turns green
find the "sweet spot" for hwy MPH for best mileage, and use the cruise control (if an option) as much as possible
i've not found octane or brand to make any significant difference
higher octane is probably a benefit for towing

eieio wrote:

GeddyLee wrote:Any information or tips and trips to help improve mileage, even in the slightest would be most helpful.

Thanks!

seems like the majority of fuel gets used in getting these things moving from a stop
as tempting as it is to put your foot in it , avoid hard acceleration, especially from a stop
if possible, upon approaching red lights, coast up to it as much as possible to avoid stopping before it turns green
find the "sweet spot" for hwy MPH for best mileage, and use the cruise control (if an option) as much as possible
i've not found octane or brand to make any significant difference
higher octane is probably a benefit for towing

Thanks for the tips Eieio, I do try to avoid the acceleration as much as possible, but the Pathy is such a cruiser, I am hitting 80 before I realize it and have to take the foot off the gas, it drives sooooooooooo smoothly! As for the cruise control I used that a lot on my trip from St. Louis to Louisville over the Christmas weekend. But my gas mileage stayed stuck at 18.6 and then dipped to 17.4 with city and highway mixed driving all the way back to St. Louis on Sunday

The brand of Gas I use is Shell, and the other brand that I will use is Costco's fuel, I am a member there. I have seen some people switching out their air intake systems for a CAI design and removing the restrictive piping the stock option gives you.

Also I know with my GTX, we use to program our PCM's to up timing and change shift points etc. Is there anything like that for the Pathy? Just curious.

Thanks again for your response.

I may be flamed for this post, but here goes…
Over on a site that comments & teaches how to get better mileage in all sorts of ways, someone mentioned this chip that hooks up to the OB2 plug. The company says: "The Volo Chip FS3 does not alter anything within the transmission. The chip reads the ECU and only the ECU's calculated fuel delivery and timing values are altered." If you do a search, some praise it, others don’t. “Positive” users state that it takes 120-150 miles for the on-board computer to accept the new values as the instructions say and then MPG improves. I haven’t seen any reports from someone with our Nissan motor/trans set-up.

They sell a programmer kit & blank chips to owners of garages, etc. So, it looks as if someone might be pushing the product in a neighborhood near you.

As for ideal MPG, I find that 55-60Mph is my sweet spot. For those who nix that idea, improve the aerodynamics like they do over at: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.p ... a-290.html

As for ideal MPG, I find that 55-60Mph is my sweet spot.

Pretty much the slower one drives, the better the mileage. A lot of us can't drive that slow simply because it is far too dangerous. I'm not going to drive 55mph when the posted speed is 75 or 80mph & most people are driving 80mph +. I'm still waiting for someone to come out with a hybrid that can be taken off road, used as a normal 4x4, etc., without any of the limitations of the current crop of hybrids.

I have seen some people switching out their air intake systems for a CAI design and removing the restrictive piping the stock option gives you.

I'll probably be flamed for this as well, but the air intake we have now is a CAI-it draws the air from the wheel well. A lot of the aftermarket CAIs are actually worse because the filter isn't fully enclosed from the heat of the engine bay, making that CAI a WAI. Redoing the exhaust would probably help more than anything.

NVSteve wrote:

As for ideal MPG, I find that 55-60Mph is my sweet spot.

Pretty much the slower one drives, the better the mileage. A lot of us can't drive that slow simply because it is far too dangerous. I'm not going to drive 55mph when the posted speed is 75 or 80mph & most people are driving 80mph +. I'm still waiting for someone to come out with a hybrid that can be taken off road, used as a normal 4x4, etc., without any of the limitations of the current crop of hybrids.

I have seen some people switching out their air intake systems for a CAI design and removing the restrictive piping the stock option gives you.

I'll probably be flamed for this as well, but the air intake we have now is a CAI-it draws the air from the wheel well. A lot of the aftermarket CAIs are actually worse because the filter isn't fully enclosed from the heat of the engine bay, making that CAI a WAI. Redoing the exhaust would probably help more than anything.

Hey Steve,

Love your viewpoints! I would have to agree you are spot on with the driving situation.

As for the CAI ideas, I agree, they did a good job with use of the fender air intake, but looking at the tubing between the fender well and the air filter box and then from the air filter box to the MAF and motor intake area, it seems a little "small" to suck in ample amounts of cold air. I am gonna see if I can find some 3" or 4" piping to replace those sections to help increase the air intake.

Also I will drop in a K&N filter as well to aid in the ease of air passing through the constrictive piping. I know coming the community I was with before, the Pontiac Grand Prix Community, we had many different types of CIA setups that used the fender well as the primary air intake location. I bet if you find the right size cone filter, you can sit it through the fender well hole and fashion some kind of walls around the rest of the unit to keep hot air away from the intake.

Should be interesting projects ahead for me

I've noticed after swapping back and forth over 10 tanks that I get better mileage with 93 octane over 87. Mine is a 2008 SE 4x4. I get around 15-16 with 87 and 18-19 with 93. At 20 cents more per gallon over 16 gallons, 3 mpg difference... 7% price increase on gas for a 18% increase in mileage; mileage cost: 15 cents ($1,800 yearly based on 12k mi) per mile on 93 and 17 cents on 87 ($2,040 yearly). $240 difference over the course of a year.

I am good with that and I do notice much smoother operation including easier towing. If my math is off, feel free to correct me as it is pretty late.

There is no benefit to run a higher octane fuel than what the engine needs. Lower octane fuel actually has more BTU per unit and there for makes more power and produces better economy.

I use 105 octane, because I can and because the engine/ECU compensates for it.
You are wrong about all cars being made to run on regular. They will run but you risk engine damage on some engines. Certain Jaguars and turbocharged Volvos immediately come to mind.
Higher octane fuel, on engines developed to run it, will most certainly produce more power and get better economy on higher octane fuels than lower octane fuels. I know because I've done it.
On engines with a knock sensor, the ECU will retard timing when it senses knock, which it will all the time if using low grade fuels. This kills power and economy.
Higher octane fuel burns neither hotter nor colder, it has a higher resistance to ignition, which is helpful in engines that have higher compression or are turbocharged, it helps prevent pre ignition or detonation. These engines are tuned by way of spark advance, to get the most out of the higher octane fuel.

I generally use somewhere between 91 - 93 octane. For the little bit of extra money I spend, I get more power and added cleaners...which over time reduce buildup inside the engine and fuel filter. Both of which rob you of power and mpg down the road.

Speaking of CAI's - I've owned and modded a turbo car since 97 and the group has found that any extra air, even hot engine air is overall better than the restricted air box. Getting cooler outside air in isn't a bad idea (unless you routely drive through high water) but isn't a deal breaker when it comes to making more power.

claren wrote:There is no benefit to run a higher octane fuel than what the engine needs. Lower octane fuel actually has more BTU per unit and there for makes more power and produces better economy.

And the PF needs 91 octane for maximum performance but will run on a lower octane without causing damage. You just lose performance. I find 89 a nice compromise. I can feel a bigger difference between 87 and 89 vs 89 and 93 (they don't sell 91 here for the most part). Towing you will notice it big time. I spent the weekend towing a trailer and the first part of the trip was on a tank of 87 and then filled with 89. Big difference pulling the hills.

If my wife, who knows nothing about car mechanics, says she feels a difference, there must be a difference in higher octane. I normally fill it up for her and she tells me if I got the "cheap stuff."

I think everything has been pointed out. However, I would like to add another (possible) benefit. Lower octane is more volatile and may leave residue that accumulates on internal components. This increases friction. Higher octane burns at a higher pressure so most residue is burned off; and added detergent helps this process. In the end, cleaner components keeps internal engine happy, wife happy, and me happy because I don't worry about my wife or her engine.

By the way, I normally use 89 or 91 octane.

89, I don't know exactly what it is, and it's probably just in my head but i feel like 89 is worth the extra $0.09/liter

claren wrote:...Lower octane fuel [...] makes more power and produces better economy.

Get out. Now.

hah

I've got the VK56DE motor and it's tuned more for torque than high RPM horse power. I suspect if you were towing in high altitudes or mashing the gas peddle in the middle of 90 degree heat in the summer then perhaps a higher octane fuel might be warranted. But in my daily commute I rarely exceed 2500 RPMs and 87 suits the beast just fine.

Note manufacturer HP & torque figures are posted using 87 octane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VK_engine