Nissan Almera Tino: Too much of a good thing?

Hey everyone!

After parting ways with my Renault Megane, I am now the owner of a Nissan Almera Tino (V10) turbodiesel (equipped with the 2.2 Di 16V engine), manufactured in December 2000.

Here's a problem that has not yet been solved:

The fuel consumption is between 7.5 and 7.8 liters per 100 km, with a driving style focused on fuel efficiency. I shift gears at approximately 2000 RPM. This is how I managed to reduce the fuel consumption of my previous diesel cars to 5.5 liters.

Facts: The factory-specified capacity is 6.4 liters!

On Langzeittest.de, you can read about the experiences of a private tester who achieved fuel consumption figures of 5.05-6.4 liters per 100 kilometers with the same model, using an equally economical driving style. Based on my own experience, I have always managed to achieve lower fuel consumption than the manufacturer's stated figures with my diesel vehicles.

The following items have already been checked or repaired by the workshop:

'The EGR valve was replaced because it was stuck. According to the workshop foreman, the channels behind the EGR valve weren't yet heavily clogged with soot. However, I wasn't able to assess that myself.'

2. The front brakes were serviced with new pads; apparently, a brake pad was stuck (causing the car to pull to the right and vibrate the steering wheel).

3. The mass airflow sensor (MAF) was checked using a test run; according to the mechanic, it read 4.3 volts, which is acceptable. He didn't need to check the boost pressure because if the boost pressure wasn't okay, the MAF wouldn't read 4.3 volts (his statement). I'm not entirely convinced. The test run was performed before the EGR valve was replaced.

4. The mechanics checked the 'suspected' turbocharger blow-off noise while the car was stationary, and it wasn't blowing off, therefore, supposedly, the turbocharger is sealed. However, I believe that the turbocharger only builds up pressure under load, so it would only blow off during driving? (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Can a leaking turbocharger cause increased fuel consumption?

Facts AFTER the AGR replacement and brake pad change:

The engine is now much more responsive. It has more torque and better acceleration in the lower RPM range. That's already a good thing!

Nach ca. 400 Km Fahrt: Zieht immer noch nach Rechts, Lenkrad flattert nach wie vor. Sichtprüfung: Oh Gott!! Bremsscheibenkante mit Flex entfernt! Wat dat denn? Kenne das eigentlich, das man wohl die Klötze anfeilt, aber flext man neuerdings an den Scheiben rum? Klötze sind aber neu. Scheibe krumm? Spur/Sturz stimmt wohl, zumindest habe die die Schnell- Meßplatten, über die man einfach drüberfährt. AngebOK.

Fuel consumption is still not improving; it's actually getting worse. However, that could also be due to the fact that the engine ran for a long time while stationary during the diagnostic process.

Do you have any ideas about where the problem might be?

He doesn't visibly smoke, and the engine runs smoothly. However, it idles too low without me pressing the accelerator. I haven't turned on the air conditioning yet (I'm afraid it will make the problem even worse). The air filter is still okay, but I'll replace it soon.

I can't quite understand where the problem lies at the moment.

Please share any information you have about potential reasons why a diesel engine might exhibit increased fuel consumption!

Greetings,

Maik.

Sure.

Does anyone have any ideas?

It would be very helpful to me if you could simply list what (besides the accelerator pedal ) can increase diesel consumption. More specific symptoms are described above.

I would be very grateful for your help.

Greetings,

Maik.

Riding at extremely low RPMs due to laziness in shifting gears.

Yesterday, I went for a drive of about 100 km on country roads with a friend, and I was also monitoring his fuel injection amount on the screen.

In front of us was some kind of Corsa or similar car, and the driver was too lazy to shift from fourth to third gear, really straining the engine at around 1100 RPM. You could tell by the sound – a very bass-heavy rumble. I observed that the fuel injection amount was increasing, apparently to prevent the engine from stalling.

But that's just a random thought for now.

And also, city driving, constantly maintaining maximum speed, or always accelerating with full throttle are real fuel guzzlers.

Just do it the way the driving instructor always wanted: use engine braking and coasting, accelerate with partial throttle, drive proactively, and maintain a smooth flow – but I'm sure you already do all of that.

Best regards, BigB.

Just do it the way the driving instructor always wanted: use engine braking and coasting, accelerate with partial throttle, drive proactively, drive smoothly, but you probably already do all of that.

M.f.G. BigB

Exactly...

'I haven't changed my driving style; I drove the previous diesel cars in the same way, and the fuel consumption was fine then...'

I always use engine braking – I ease off the accelerator and downshift when I'm driving at lower RPMs, for example.

Therefore, I don't understand the consumption .

Greetings,

Maik.

Wassibaby wrote:

.... After approximately 400 km of driving: It still pulls to the right, and the steering wheel continues to vibrate. Visual inspection: Oh my God!! The edge of the brake disc has been removed with a grinder! ...

I would first change the workshop .

I would immediately report a workshop that is grinding or cutting brake discs to the trade association... that's more than just petty mischief .
Even when brake discs are professionally resurfaced, it is not always accepted by the technical inspection authorities (TÜV).

Unfortunately, I don't know your car, but I am aware of two drivers named Tino (unfortunately, they drive gasoline-powered cars) who are also frustrated by their cars' inexplicable fuel consumption habits.

Hi.

"@ Wassibaby: I was talking to a driving instructor at the gas station recently; he drives an Almera as a driving school car. He said his fuel consumption was roughly in the range you described (7 liters at a constant speed of 110-120 km/h on the highway). He was very happy with the car and thought it was economical."
"I approached him because it was almost impossible to tell that it was a diesel engine, and he was at the diesel fuel station. The engine is so quiet! It's certainly not something you can say about my old clunker (1Z)."

/Jan

Hello.

'@ Wassibaby: I was recently talking to a driving instructor at the gas station who drove an Almera as a driving school car. His fuel consumption was roughly in the range you described (7 liters at a constant speed of 110-120 km/h on the highway). He was very satisfied with the car and thought it was economical.'
'I approached him because it was almost impossible to tell that it was a diesel engine, and he was at the diesel fuel station. The engine is so quiet! It's certainly not something you can say about my old clunker (1Z).'

/January

'Then he probably already has the newer model with the ReNull machine...the 2.2 dCi engines are quieter than the Nissan scooters.'

'My car is definitely not quiet; it's known for sounding more like a truck. But when it's warmed up, it's bearable, at least I've heard louder ones.'

He might be satisfied with the fuel consumption as a driving instructor, but that's different because driving school cars have completely different drivers.

'Furthermore, the factory-specified fuel consumption for a mix of driving conditions is 6.4 liters per 100 kilometers (for my car). 7.5 liters, even with economical driving, seems quite high to me...'

As I mentioned before ----> here http://www.langzeittest.de/nissan-almera-tino/index.php you can find information that shows the same vehicle consumes significantly less fuel than mine. And it is definitely the same model. And this is truly a long-term test...

Greetings,

Maik.

Oh, that reminds me of a rule of thumb: '100 kilograms over 100 kilometers uses one liter [of fuel].'

Are you perhaps carrying around too much unnecessary stuff, are you too lazy to remove the roof rack, or are you maybe even afraid of the scale?

Best regards, BigB.

Oh, that reminds me of a rule of thumb: '100 kg over 100 km uses one liter.'

Are you perhaps carrying around too much unnecessary stuff, are you too lazy to remove the roof rack, or are you maybe even afraid of the scale?

M.f.G. BigB

No, the trunk, rear seats, etc., are standard and empty; no roof racks or attachments, and it's without a trailer hitch. I also don't have any heavy modifications or installations.

And of course, I'm dreading getting on the scale, but I already weigh (almost) that much... it's not that.

Seriously now, I'm not that naive.

I'm looking for things that aren't so obvious.

I don't believe that tires, for example, which have a higher rolling resistance, can account for a 20% increase in fuel consumption; something else must be wrong. Besides, I don't drive on cheap Far Eastern tires, but rather well-tested Fulda tires. It certainly won't be the tires causing the problem.

I think there's probably something wrong with the mechanics (for example, the AGR valve was definitely closed, but there's no entry in the error memory).

Something must be wrong there...

Greetings,

Maik.

Hi,

I'm not familiar with the fuel injection system of your car, but in a gasoline engine, the start of fuel delivery/injection could be incorrectly adjusted.
That can sometimes make Diesel a heavy drinker.

The same principle generally applies to the camshaft/timing belt adjustment.

A blown-out turbocharger can also increase fuel consumption, but in that case, I would be more concerned about the risk of turbocharger damage due to overload!

Quote:

According to the workshop foreman, the channels behind the EGR were not yet very heavily coated with soot. However, I was unfortunately unable to assess it myself.

-> Trust is good, but having your own control is better.


If your car utilizes several of these features, you can very quickly reach your desired consumption range, in my opinion...

Hello,

How many kilometers has it driven? Has the glass been polished/repaired?

Best regards,
Christian.

It currently has 83,000 kilometers on the odometer, which isn't a huge amount for a diesel engine.

But...

...Yesterday, I simply went to a 'general' repair shop, which had the latest diagnostic equipment and computers available.

Okay, what can I say... the AGR valve control isn't working. I thought it had been fixed! The mechanic said he could manually activate the valve, but basically, the control unit is showing 0% for the activation signal!!!

He then manually adjusted it to 50% (half open), saved this setting, and restarted the system again. Then, the valve remained at 50%, and only when the load increased did the control unit close it further. So, it does indeed reduce the opening (close) but doesn't seem to open it.

I drove to my 'friendly' acquaintance's place and explained the situation to him (including the issue with the 'warped' brake discs) in a calm conversation, just the two of us.

My salesperson at the time insisted that he was unaware of such things happening in their workshop. He stated that he would address those responsible and personally ensure that we were satisfied with the car.

That's quite a word...

I hope this all ends up in the right hands now.

Greetings,

Maik.

Wassibaby wrote:

And, what can I say... the AGR valve control is not working. I thought it had been fixed! The master technician said he could manually control the valve, but basically, the control unit's setting for it is at 0%!!!

However, this "deficiency" probably doesn't explain your high fuel consumption. If 0% EGR activation on the Nissan means "EGR closed," then technically speaking, your engine is running at its best and with the lowest possible fuel consumption.

Hmmm......that's right......

What now?

I think the workshop should take a look first, otherwise I can offer to have them bring the car to a diesel specialist at their expense. We have two of those specialists in our town.

But I'm waiting a bit longer; he's supposed to go back to the Nissan workshop tomorrow.

I just hope that I'll be able to drive again soon without having to worry about fuel consumption.

Greetings,

Maik.

HI,

While this is quite old, I don't want to leave it without comment:

Quote:

In front of us was some kind of Corsa or similar car, and the driver was too lazy to shift from fourth to third gear, really straining the engine at around 1100 RPM. You could tell by the sound – a very bass-heavy rumble. I observed that the fuel injection amount was increasing, apparently to prevent the engine from stalling.

Higher injection volumes at low RPMs don't necessarily mean high fuel consumption, because the amount of fuel injected is specified by the engine control unit (ECU) in milligrams per cycle (or a similar unit), and the engine only performs a relatively small number of cycles when running at low RPM. Therefore, it's clear that more fuel is injected when driving under the same load in a higher gear compared to a lower gear, but often this still results in lower overall fuel consumption.

Regarding the engine speed: I always drive around 1100 RPM when in the city, and it runs smoothly. With that setting, I achieve fuel consumption figures between 5.0 and 5.7 liters per 100 kilometers (manufacturer's specification: 6.4).

Best regards,

January.

You're right! I checked the log again. It measures that in mg/R (presumably revolutions). However, we need to see if the injection amount at 1100 RPM is actually a bit more than the amount at 1800 RPM multiplied by 1800/RPM.

Then you would have two injection amounts for one minute, and you could see which one is less.

Best regards, BigB.