Topic: Test Drive: 2012 Nissan Sentra 2.0 S

[Autos_Editor]

Though it's due to be redesigned soon, the current Nissan Sentra is a class-leader in one particular area.

Read More...

[Frontier1]

This is a very informative write up, comparisons!  Instead of having to read about how a writer feels about the car we can read about advantages and shortcomings instead, lot's o numbers.  Middle age people that have driven big Buicks and Crown Vics all their lives and want to downsize, the Sentra is the car that will still give them the plush ride and quietness which they value .  On the other hand someone who always drove Civics would likely have issues with this, the difference is huge.

[JohnM]

+1 for Juke's comments.  There is a lot to be said for a small quiet and cheap long distance cruiser.

I'd love to know what the consumption level is on a long trip.  1800RPM at 100km/hr is where small cars should be going (are you listening Honda??) and the efficiency with this low a number has to be pretty damn good.

Cheers,
John M.

[theonlydt]

+1 for Juke's comments.  There is a lot to be said for a small quiet and cheap long distance cruiser.

I'd love to know what the consumption level is on a long trip.  1800RPM at 100km/hr is where small cars should be going (are you listening Honda??) and the efficiency with this low a number has to be pretty damn good.

Cheers,
John M.

I have the SER and have seen 7.2 on a 160km trip with speeds between 90kmh and 110kmh. 40mpg, not bad for a 2.5 with 175bhp.

I do wonder how well you can do with the 2.0.

[hemusbull]

As a Civic/Acura riding guy I do not have any issue with this article. Instead, I found it very well prepared in terms comparison with others in the class. Articles like this one are very useful when years pass. Good stuff for new car when it gona be on the used car market...If there is Automotive Journalist Award for article of the year, this is the one for me.

[JohnM]

"I have the SER and have seen 7.2 on a 160km trip with speeds between 90kmh and 110kmh. 40mpg, not bad for a 2.5 with 175bhp."

What RPM is the SER turning at 100km/hr?

Cheers,
John M.

[libraman]

Nice underrated car in my opinion. I would get the manual though. It may rev a little higher but is probably still more efficient in the actual driving.

[Frontier1]

As a Civic/Acura riding guy I do not have any issue with this article. Instead, I found it very well prepared in terms comparison with others in the class. Articles like this one are very useful when years pass. Good stuff for new car when it gona be on the used car market...If there is Automotive Journalist Award for article of the year, this is the one for me.

Yes sir, I second that, something to be learned here instead of having to read why a certain reviewer feels a certain car is not his/her cup of tea and consequently make it look like a bad buy. I'll leave it at that.

[Blueprint]

Mine has the manual, and on a Montreal-NYC roundtrip last fall, I averaged (trip computer and calculator) 6.9 l/100km at 115-120 km/h and with the a/c on.

RPM quite near 3000 at 120-ish, but this is a smooth sailor for long trips.  You could do 10 hr shifts at the wheel, no problemo.

I tried my best to stay at the speed limit for Montreal-Ottawa, and went down to 5.9.

Typical commuting is in the 7's (summer), 8's (winter), but those figures easily climb into the 9's in heavy traffic.  The manual proves thriftier in the real world (my Dad has a 2.0 S/CVT/lux pkg for comparison purposes).

The trick to save fuel is to use the gears, and 5th is quite ok at 50 km/h, with no undue lugging.

[dkaz]

Not too shabby but lets put that into a different context.  Over the same highway distance with the cruise set at 110 km/h (with winter tires) my 365 hp / 420 lb ft trq F150 4x4 did 9.8 l / 100 km earlier this week.  I would have anticipated the Sentra to have compared better.

At highway speeds, you have different factors compared to city driving. With city driving, your pickup truck will use more fuel because you need to accelerate all that weight. At highway speeds, weight becomes less relevant compared to wind resistance, rolling resistance, etc. Some of your extra fuel consumption compared to a smaller vehicle is due to weight for sure, but most of it is due to extra frontal area creating extra wind resistance.

The Sentra SE-R has a performance engine in it, it's certainly not tuned for fuel economy. My old Corolla could cruise at 110km/h and do 5.7L/100km. At 95-100km/h and no A/C, I could do 4.8L/100km.

[dkaz]

Agree with all the above, except he was posting fuel economy for highway travel not combined.

I know. For a full size half ton pickup I would expect combined fuel economy to be in the 13-15 L/100km range.

[ArticSteve]

The SENTRA sells to the ill informed.  The payment shopper.  Mostly ladies who are captured by a good sales person.  Oh, and 0%/72 kinda helps 

It's Mexico's national car and there is nothing wrong with that! 

[Snowman]

  I think this says it all:

Deals of the week: Ugly cars mean beautiful bargains

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/new-cars/deals-week/deals-of-the-week-ugly-cars-mean-beautiful-bargains/article2317520/

[bridgecity]

Agree with all the above, except he was posting fuel economy for highway travel not combined.

I know. For a full size half ton pickup I would expect combined fuel economy to be in the 13-15 L/100km range.

You're being very optimistic  .  Have another look at what vehicles reviewed on this website get for mileage in the real world (as I'm sure you have).  James' numbers would probably provide a good reality as I believe he has a mix between highway and city.  Some smaller SUV's are 13+L/100km.

[dirtyjeffer]

It's Mexico's national car and there is nothing wrong with that! 

there are several plants in Mexico now, but Nissan has just announced they are building a brand new $2 Billion plant there...Honda is also building a plant there too.

[ArticSteve]

Yes I know.  They're attempting to move as much production to Mexico as politically possible.  Largest offenders are Nissan and Ford.

[theonlydt]

What RPM is the SER turning at 100km/hr?

Cheers,
John M.

About the same as the regular 2.0 - 1800rpm I'd say, At 90kmh it's about 1500rpm, at 80kmh it's 1100rpm. You can accelerate from 20kmh to 80kmh without moving from 1100rpm - so if you drive smart I can get high 7s with no problem in combined driving (and when I say combined I'm talking 120kmh on the highway, at about 2100rpm).

The thing with the SER is that when the 2.0 revs to 3000 for a slight incline the SER has more torque and barely raises the revs at highway speeds. For a more serious incline the torque peak is 2800rpm in the SER and the engine just sits there - the 2.0 will be at 4krpm (I drove a rental 2.0 after our SER was hit) due to a higher torque peak. For example on the same incline my Mazda 5 2.3 auto will downshift in to third and rev at 4.5k, for milder inclines where the SER doesn't move it at least uses the torque converter for 3krpm at 110, or drops to 4th for 3.5k. A GM car I drove constantly hunted gears on those inclines - but generally it requires a lower gear (and higher rpm) for a traditional auto to climb a hill than the CVT which can use exactly the right ratio for fuel economy.

[JohnM]

Really good comment.  Thanks

John M.