Disappointing news, but I was always planning on the 6-speed anyways. Hopefully it'll still be able to get fuel mileage in the upper 30's under optimal conditions.

Nissan's estimate of 38mpg previously was an average however.

Reply

↓↑report

Looks like all those who have been comparing the Versa to the Honda Fit and bashing the Fit's "low" mpg will have to refigure. Not that 33 is anything to complain about. Personally I'm very happy to see several small hatchbacks in the US market, and not just everywhere else in the world.

Reply

↓↑report

Disappointingly. Why not just stick a 75HP engine in it? Do you really need 122HP engine in a commuter car?

Americans and their small wee-wees, guess they feel they must have something to make up for them.

Reply

↓↑report

The same thing happened with the Mitsubishi Lancer when it came out. All the literature that was printed talked about 40MPG. When the car hit the show rooms the window sticker indicated the high end of 30 something. The 40+MPG was for the Japan only vehicle with CVT and Gas Direct Injection.

Reply

↓↑report

I think it's sad when cars from the mid-90's such as the geo's and the honda civic HX were getting MUCH better fuel economy numbers.. like 37mpg city..45hwy.. and the civic had just as much horsepower as the versa.. Why is it okay now to get less? when 10 years ago those fuel economy numbers were MUCH higher.. And yes I had friends who had both cars so I'm able to vouch for such good numbers.
Doesn't anyone see this as a step backwards? I think they should've been much higher 10 years later..

Reply

↓↑report

I just saw the Versa side-by side with the Fit, Yaris and Scion xA. The Versa looked like a man among boys, and it's better looking in person. To think that a car with 122 hp, power everything, Bluetooth technology, room for adults in the back seat and STILL gets 33 mpg sells for the same money - if not less - is astounding.

Versa may not be beautiful, but it's the best of the bunch!

Reply

↓↑report

And then there are those who compensate for their abnormal testicular deficiencies by bashing other countries.

Reply

↓↑report

"I think it's sad when cars from the mid-90's such as the geo's and the honda civic HX were getting MUCH better fuel economy numbers.. like 37mpg city..45hwy.. and the civic had just as much horsepower as the versa.. Why is it okay now to get less? when 10 years ago those fuel economy numbers were MUCH higher.. And yes I had friends who had both cars so I'm able to vouch for such good numbers.
Doesn't anyone see this as a step backwards? I think they should've been much higher 10 years later.."

Because dumbass, japanese cars nowadays are a lot heavier than they were 10 years ago...and loaded with thousands of new technologies and safety features that adds weight to the car, thus lowering gas mileage. DUH

Reply

↓↑report

I consistently get 34+ mpg in my '05 Corolla.

Reply

↓↑report

Oh so DUH to me, eh kevin? New technologies, let's see.. abs was back then, so were air bags, same with side impact beams, so i don't see how your argument holds up.. DUH!

Besides.. things should be getting BETTER in the fuel economy department not regressing.. It's funny that a 10 year old car gets better mpg's than one today.

Reply

↓↑report

Mark, Kevin is right. Look at the average curb weight of a mid 80's Honda Civic compared to the current one, for a good illustration of cars' packing on the pounds (here's a hint, the current one is about 500lbs heavier). Yes, a lot of the "modern" technologies have been around for quite a while, such as ABS and air bags, but they generally weren't found in the "economy" cars of the era, only in midsize cars and up (generally luxury and sports cars). If you want to see bare bones (and lightweight, and 40+ mpg) look at a 1985 Honda CRX. Why do you think the Insight had optional AC when it was released?

I agree that modern manufacturers have done a generally sh*itty job of using technology to keep cars lighter and more efficient, but apparently the market wants SUVs...

Reply

↓↑report

Although there are new limits on emissions added since the 90's affecting the mpgs negatively you would think that with all of our technology like CVT, gas mileages would be in the 40's.

I have also seen all three subcompacts (Versa, Fit and Yaris) and the Versa is by far a more efficient use size and power then the other pint size siblings.

Reply

↓↑report

Don't know why Kevin felt the need to make his point like an eight-year-old, but unfortunately, he's right. Cars have gotten much, much heavier since the early 1990s.

Part of the reason is that our reference point for vehicle size has shifted. We call the Versa, Yaris, Fit, etc... "subcompacts" now, but they're not that small by '90s standards. For example, the Versa is as long as an early-'90s Sentra, measures several inches taller, and weighs 2,700 lbs versus the Sentra's 2,300 (the numbers are from Car & Driver). The Yaris sedan is only four inches shorter than a mid-'90s Celica, and the Fit weighs more than a late-'90s Civic.

This issue isn't as "duh" as more weight leading directly to large fuel-economy losses. The other half of the equation is that consumers want more amenities and more heft in their cars, but without any loss in performance. So engines need to be bigger and more powerful to keep performance at the same (or higher) level.

It's easy to see why people want bigger cars when the top-selling vehicle is a Ford F-150 and your daily commute involves slaloming around Yukons and Suburbans whose drivers are on the phone. But personally, I wish it was easier to just get crank windows, manual locks, a single-slot CD player, and so forth on a modern car and shave off a hundred pounds.

Reply

↓↑report

just wanted to toss in my 2 cents.

New cars are getting heavier not only because of size and ameneties, but there have been quantum leaps in safety over the past 15 years. As well as significant increase in chassis stiffness, all of which are all bound to add on weight.

Let's not forget too, performance and displacement are increasing pretty much across the board while car manufacturers have taken huge steps with emissions. More restrictive exhausts and cats sap power, forcing increases in displacement.

Reply

↓↑report

Yes I know that cars are heavier, but the mid 90's (not 80's) civic were only 2350-2400 lbs, looks like they need to go on a diet, today. Plus, what everyone hasn't really addressed was my main point. Shouldn't we be progressing further for fuel economy instead of regressing? something not right about not getting better fuel economy than we did in the past..

Say whatever the reason, but they should be better today than the past in terms of fuel economy..

Reply

↓↑report

The versa looks OK. I will need to drive this car before I decide anything in concrete. When is this car supposed to come out, anyway?

On another topic...

Just for laughs I priced out a Mercedes B-class car, and I choked when I saw it started at 30K!! Whoah. And that car only had 122 bhp!

I can get a Mazda 3 GT which has 160, or better yet, a Civic Si (197) for that price.

Stoneman from

Stoneman Auto Reviews

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/sar

Reply

↓↑report

Damn, my bad. It's 134 bhp.

Stoneman

Reply

↓↑report

Say thanks to the ginormous SUV and people that are generally getting bigger, hight wise as well as width wise. Those factors lead to bigger and heavier cars which need bigger engines and which get worse fuel economy. The cars are built for the market, bigger more powerful cars is what the market wants right now. Even in the smallest of cars.

Reply

↓↑report

Ideally, Mark, yes... people should be willing to give up some power, size, and creature comforts to achieve better fuel efficiency. But the average motorist only thinks about fuel economy to the extent that affects his or her own pocketbook. So until consumers develop a more holistic view of fuel efficiency (or, more likely, until another fuel crisis or price spike occurs), what automakers "should" do isn't what will keep them in business.

A perfect example of this: hybrids that deliver more power with the same fuel efficiency, rather than the same power with more fuel efficiency. Do I really need an Accord Hybrid that does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds? No. Would I trade a couple seconds for gas mileage that breaks out of the 20-MPG range? Certainly. But for now, it seems that many buyers disagree (the fact that it's "A Hybrid," and is thus fashionable, seems to be enough for some).

If and when consumer's priorities shift, so will these automotive trends.

Reply

↓↑report

I had a 87 ford tempo with a manual five speed that got 39 mpg hwy.

"Besides.. things should be getting BETTER in the fuel economy department not regressing.. It's funny that a 10 year old car gets better mpg's than one today."
Mark.

Reply

↓↑report