18th Mar 2010, 13:04
With respect to fuel consumption, I'm disappointed with the excessive fuel required for normal driving (50/50) city / highway. My X-Trail is a 2.5 L, 4 cylinder, 2006 model with automatic transmission. I'm not lead footed and don't drive at excessive speeds. Could it be that propelling the 4 x 4 AWD is the main reason for poor fuel results? The front wheel drive model will likely consume less fuel.
3rd May 2010, 08:46
The X-Trail is, by default, a front wheel drive vehicle if you keep it in "auto" mode. If it senses wheel spin, it will then direct traction to the rear wheels as well as the front. If you are driving in normal dry road conditions, keeping it in the "auto" mode should provide the same fuel economy as in "FWD" (front wheel drive) mode. If you are in reduced traction conditions, then you may want to run it in full time all wheel drive, under which conditions you may see a decrease in fuel economy.
3rd Feb 2011, 13:15
I'm bummed with the fuel economy with the 2006 I acquired just one short week ago. My calculations show 14 litres per 100 km combined city and highway. I sold a full size 4x4 truck with an 8 cylinder because of poor mileage, and although the Nissan is clearly better on fuel, I'm still not impressed. New air filter installed, what's next? Any suggestions?
8th Feb 2011, 05:34
I have a 2006 2.5 litre petrol model.
I have driven a vast range of 4WDs over the last 40 years from Land Rovers to Toyota Land Cruisers and consider my X-Trail an excellent vehicle for fuel consumption, versatility, reliability and initial price. Its ability in mud and snow is great because of its relative lightweight enhanced by a strong motor. Larger SUV have "bogged" in places the X-Trail goes.
At present I am travelling 40,000 km a year in the South Island of New Zealand.
Just remember, momentum is your friend.
28th Apr 2011, 07:56
Owned my X-Trail almost 5 years now and have over 100,000 km on it. No issues yet!
I did change the brake pads last fall, but they were not all that bad.
Very impressed especially considering this is the 4-Wheel drive version and my two teenagers learned to drive in this vehicle.
Not so happy about the dealer, but luckily I never have to see them.
23rd Aug 2008, 19:27
If want to use less gas, slow down. The fuel economy figure on the sticker wasn't based on traveling 110. Air resistance increase with the square of velocity. For example going from 100 km/h to say 110 km/h increases drag by 21%. That aside, EPA figures are completely unrealistic. I can barely manage 38 mpg (combined city/highway) in a 95 Civic Coupe.