Archives

2007 Nissan Versa
Wee, But Well-Versed

By BOB GRITZINGER

AutoWeek | Published 03/31/06, 4:02 pm et

AT A GLANCE:
2007 NISSAN VERSA
ON SALE: June
BASE PRICE: $12,000 (est.)
POWERTRAIN: 1.8-liter, 120-hp, 125-lb-ft I4; fwd, six-speed manual
CURB WEIGHT: 2513 lbs (est.)
0 TO 60 MPH: 10.0 seconds (est.)
FUEL MILAGE (EPA combined/AW observed): 38.0/30.7 mpg

Nissan says its 2007 Versa subcompact has nearly the same cabin space as the company’s high-end Infiniti Q45 sedan. But Nissan might want to keep that little ditty under its corporate hat, because interior room isn’t the only thing this diminutive five-door hatch has over the Infiniti flagship.

If you’re measuring on pure appointments, sure the Q45, with its voice-recognition interface, navigation system, leather interior and V8 power, trumps anything the wee Versa can offer. But if you’re looking at affordability, fuel economy, practicality and functionality, Versa wins hands down. Put another way, for a savings of $40,000 or so, we’ll be happy to use a folding map or stop to ask for directions—especially if gasoline heads for $3 a gallon or up.

The Versa is well-versed for short errands, people and grocery hauling, and it is nimble in commuter traffic. Kids and adults alike find scrambling in and out of the front and rear seats easy via the gaping wide door openings. Once inside, even with the driver and front passenger seats pushed most of the way back, our back-seat passengers never complained of lack of legroom. And we still had 16.9 cubic feet of space out back under the hatch for a reasonable load of cargo.

The car can get buzzy, but shifting quickly through the gears keeps the revs low and the engine noise at bay. Alternately, holding to redline allows the driver to push for maximum thrust when needed from the 1.8-liter dohc four.

Out on the highway Versa attains and holds 80 mph with ease, thanks to the tall fifth and sixth gears in the standard transmission. A continuously variable transmission and a four-speed automatic are optional. Though most of our driving wasn’t on the highway, we still recorded a sensible 30.73 mpg for a tank of fuel.

Handling isn’t exactly Mini Cooper-caliber, thanks to the front-driver’s long wheelbase and long wheel travel that soak up plenty of bumps but can make the Versa feel a little top-heavy. At the same time the car never feels unstable, and can even be induced to oversteer on loose gravel.

Our test car came in the well-equipped $16,000 price range, which includes niceties like Intelligent Key keyless entry and ignition, sunroof, ABS, a high-end audio system and power windows.

Click on Link below for Picture:

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060410/FREE/60331007/1004/THISWEEKSISSUE

good to hear the 6spd has tall gears, thank god!

On paper I think I like this best vs. the Fit and Yaris. It reminds me of a tiny Nissan Murano, which is a car I would have considered if FE hadn't been a priority. Even though they have revised down the fuel economy estimate, that doesn't mean that a seasoned hypermiler couldn't coax the six-speed version into hybrid territory. I might have to go test drive one just for kicks.

good to hear the 6spd has tall gears, thank god!
Well not exactly. At 65mph, the Fit is spinning its engine at 3150rpm. The Versa in 6th is spinning 2930rpm. Now consider the fact the Fit is 1.5l and the Versa is 1.8l. At 65mph, the Fit pumps 2363 liters of air and the Versa pumps 2637 liters of air. This is likely why the Versa has lower EPA scores as well as greatly underperformed the Fit when C/D took both cars out for a 1000-mile drive.

I havent shown this car to my daughter that will be purchaseing in the summer or early fall yet.

Im sure she will choose it over the chevy, honda or yota.

The Aveo turned her off in a hurry.
Yaris was a no go also.
Fit maybe. She thinks it looks like a soap bar with wheels.
The versa looks to be a possible good choice.

Still in the running is the Civic and Cobalt. Im enjoying watching her look at cars and going to dealers with her.

Now consider the fact the Fit is 1.5l and the Versa is 1.8l. At 65mph, the Fit pumps 2363 liters of air and the Versa pumps 2637 liters of air. This is likely why the Versa has lower EPA scores as well as greatly underperformed the Fit when C/D took both cars out for a 1000-mile drive.

That's a valid point. Under WOT conditions (zero manifold vacuum) the bigger engine does suck more air, burn more gas, and produce more power accordingly. But since highway cruising will not happen at WOT it's hard to say how much air will actually be drawn by each engine. It is conceivable that the smaller Fit engine would require a more open throttle position than the larger engine, pulling a larger percent of its volumetric flow capacity than the larger Versa engine. You can take it a step further in complexity and worry about the pumping losses associated with one throttle position vs. another.

What I'm getting at is that it's too complicated to speculate. We just have to trust that Nissan and Honda optimized their respective drivetrains for American highways. Presumably the top gear of each car delivers the best fuel economy possible for that vehicle without making it a complete dog. Which one is better? We're just going to have to find out!

aw man screw these subcompacts, the only hope I have left is the Saturn Aura now!

man 22000 cnd with tax for a BASE MODEL honda fit, jeez.... although high gas prices is a good thing, it has changed how efficent cars are priced forever.

Hi Brick:

___Almost 3K RPM’s in the Versa and > 3K in the Fit at 65 mph is ridiculous! Can you imagine how tiring these things would be on an 8 hour + drive? Screw the performance. Downshift to third and be done with any talk of doggedness. Honda and Nissan screwed up and I don’t care how much the online community defends them, those RPM’s at those speeds plain and simply piss me off. The darn Corolla w/ a stick or the new Civic w/ its Atkinsonized Auto should not be eating these Sub-Compacts alive on the track and in the FE department given their much larger size and weight but they do. Where is the 1.3L lean burn with the HCH-I or II’s ratios? Nissan needs a much taller gearing as that 1.8 has 120 + on tap when needed.

___Just venting as all 3 manufacturers screwed up in the worse way just when the low price automobile purchaser needs something to not only conserve a precious natural resource but lower their TCO’s in a very big way :( I keep thinking back to the EPA – Indian with tears running down his face standing in front of a polluted landscape. It may not be a pollution/emission issue but it is a natural resource one.

___Good Luck

___Wayne