We are 107,000+ car owners sharing real-world car information.Join Us
|Year||Make/Model||Repair Trips Per 100 Cars||Compared to all models for the same year|
Fewest Trips Most Trips
|see reported repairs|
|34 Muranos, 9.4 months of data per Murano, average 9800 miles
Redesigned for this model year.
|2015 Nissan Murano Gas Mileage: Pros|
|2015||Within today's Nissan, fuel economy seems a far higher priority than performance. The Murano's base engine remains a naturally aspirated, port-injected 3.5-liter V6 good for 265 horsepower. In some applications Nissan's V6 can be thirsty. But in the Murano it's somehow efficient. Much credit is likely due the CVT (continuously variable transmission). Together the pair achieves EPA ratings of 21 mpg city, 28 mpg highway with either drive train--very good for a crossover of this size and power. Ford also offers a naturally-aspirated, port-injected 3.5-liter V6, but rated for 280 horsepower. Paired with a six-speed automatic it manages only 18/26 with front-wheel drive (FWD) and 17/25 with all-wheel drive (AWD)--well short of the Nissan's figures. A new performance engine, a 315-horsepower turbocharged, direct-injected 2.7-liter V6, earns ratings similar to the 3.5's. The new base engine, a 245-horsepower turbocharged, direct-injected, 2.0-liter four-cylinder, does about as well as the Nissan's V6, 20/30 with FWD and 20/28 with AWD. But a four never sounds or feels as a good as a V6, even if it is as strong. If we compare apples to apples, the Nissan scores a clear win on fuel economy. I wasn't able to drive either car on my regular route, so I cannot comment yet on real-world fuel economy. My experiences in other Nissans and Fords suggest that the Nissan's advantage will be larger in typical driving. full 2015 Nissan Murano review|