Nissan NV Cargo Van
- Thread starter Neuman65
- Start date
Expect more along the lines of 17 mpg. Maybe 19 for the V6. No way they're in the 20's.
The NV is a very nice van however it isn't the best for expediting due to the short body. They are supposedly going to have an extended version around the end of the year with 20" more cargo length. That would help it be more "livable" since you'd have 9' for cargo plus another 30" or so for personal space but still not enough for true 3 skid capacity with any size skids.
Can it do 25mpg? Maybe once in a blue moon under optimal conditions. What's more important is the overall average fuel economy day in and day out, year in and year out. If your hero is the tortoise not the hare and if you use a very light foot on the throttle when accelerating and if you maintain large following distances so you can mostly coast and not touch the brakes and if you are zealous about maximum tire inflation and maintenance and if you do everything else possible to maximize fuel economy you might get away with using 18mpg as your calculation number in the OOIDA spreadsheet. Don't figure on 25mpg under any circumstances whatsoever. Oh, and that's v6. Subtract 2mpg for v8.
Can it do 25mpg? Maybe once in a blue moon under optimal conditions. What's more important is the overall average fuel economy day in and day out, year in and year out. If your hero is the tortoise not the hare and if you use a very light foot on the throttle when accelerating and if you maintain large following distances so you can mostly coast and not touch the brakes and if you are zealous about maximum tire inflation and maintenance and if you do everything else possible to maximize fuel economy you might get away with using 18mpg as your calculation number in the OOIDA spreadsheet. Don't figure on 25mpg under any circumstances whatsoever. Oh, and that's v6. Subtract 2mpg for v8.
From Truck Trend..."And its 317-hp 5.6-liter V-8, while providing ample power for carrying heavy loads, returned a mediocre 14 mpg overall during its 25,616 mile journey with us."
And that was a low roof model.
guido4475
Not a Member
Ovm and I were just discussing that. And a 28 gallon fuel tank. Alot of fill-ups on a long run.
exactly!! Knock off at least 1 mpg for extra tall.....and ONLY 28 gal. fuel tank! you'd spend half your time at the fuel island...LOL A lot of shower credits tho....
Those magazine guys drive them hard. I still think 17 is the number driven lightly. Nissan just doesn't make fuel efficient gas engines. 6k empty weight too wow.
I just talked to yet another Nissan. Owner a couple hours ago. Like all i talked to about 16 is what he gets. Even trying 58mph didn't go over 16.5. I have heard the same results every time. I honestly have trouble buying the 18 or 18.5 story we have heard a couple times.
I had a chance to see one of these the other day. It was an Enterprise van, the tall version.
My impression: It was short. Too short for two skids. If you load the freight loose, though, it may be that the cubic capacity is similar to a standard CV. Hard to tell. The height of the van I saw makes up somewhat for the lack of length if the freight is stacked loose, and I suspect that if we were talking of loading 2' x 2' x 2' boxes the Nissan van and my van-- a standard Chevy CV-- would have been close for the number of boxes that could be fit in there. If you're loading skids-- forget about it. The Nissan van can only handle one skid, the rest of the freight would have to be loaded loose-- if you can. It looks like they started with a good idea--- a van that can compete with the Sprinter-- but failed on the execution of that idea.
My impression: It was short. Too short for two skids. If you load the freight loose, though, it may be that the cubic capacity is similar to a standard CV. Hard to tell. The height of the van I saw makes up somewhat for the lack of length if the freight is stacked loose, and I suspect that if we were talking of loading 2' x 2' x 2' boxes the Nissan van and my van-- a standard Chevy CV-- would have been close for the number of boxes that could be fit in there. If you're loading skids-- forget about it. The Nissan van can only handle one skid, the rest of the freight would have to be loaded loose-- if you can. It looks like they started with a good idea--- a van that can compete with the Sprinter-- but failed on the execution of that idea.
It's a two skid van. Just under 10' to the seats.
You'll get 20+ mpg only with strong wind from behind! Usually I get 16 mpg. It's a comfortable ride, but the cargo area stinks. No room at all.
Indeed. I gotta stop for fuel every 250 miles. Well, that's because I don't let it go empty, otherwise with a full tank it goes a little over 400 miles.
It takes easily two skids. If they're not too tall, you can stack over and put four skids. I had once four, it was a nightmare! I drove from Romeo, Michigan all the way to Nogales, AZ. At that time I still had that dumb console between the seats...
Where did you sleep?
guido4475
Not a Member
Is a Nissan a nice alternative to a sprinter? Think about it..a sprinter has close to 16 ft of cargo space..a Nissan? A little over 8. Ask your self that question once again. Get the biggest van you can. Do not limit your self in areas of Freight capabilities.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app