The Thirst is Real: Nissan Rogue Sport Gets Worse Fuel Economy Than Larger Rogue Sibling

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Less cargo capacity, less horsepower, a lower entry price and … worse fuel economy? That’s the reality for buyers of the 2017 Nissan Rogue Sport, also known as the Nissan Qashqai in Canadian and overseas markets.

The Environmental Protection Agency has released its thirstiness rating for the slightly smaller compact crossover, which was tossed into the Nissan’s North American lineup to fill a narrow gap in the brand’s utility offerings, and some might find the official numbers disappointing.

As we just told you, the entry-level Rogue Sport retails for $2,400 less than the larger Rogue. That $22,380 MSRP buys a front-wheel-drive vehicle with a 2.0-liter four-cylinder and a continuously variable transmission. Pretty standard fare for many vehicles in the segment.

In base trim, the Rogue and Rogue Sport boast the same coefficient of drag (0.33), with the smaller model’s curb weight ringing in at 3,225 pounds — 199 lbs less than the Rogue. At 141 horsepower and 147 lb-ft, the smaller model makes 29 fewer horses and 28 fewer pounds-feet than its 2.5-liter sibling. Both models come equipped with a standard CVT.

While many believe that vehicle size dictates thirstiness, that’s obviously not the case. There’s a myriad of factors that can negatively impact fuel economy. In the Rogue Sport’s case, the combination of smaller engine and very slightly lower curb weight seems to have conspired to shave one mile per gallon from the rating of its more powerful brother.

The Rogue Sport carries a rating of 25 miles per gallon in the city, 32 on the highway, and 28 combined. In contrast, the larger, more powerful, and not all that much more expensive Rogue is rated at 26 mpg city/33 mpg highway/29 mpg combined. For the Rogue Sport, the figures place it below the larger base Mazda CX-5 and Honda CR-V, but above the Toyota RAV4.

Of course, because competitive pricing is Nissan’s forte, cross-shopping buyers are more likely to pay more attention to the numbers that come after “MSRP” than those after “EPA.”

[Image: Nissan]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 33 comments
  • Bikegoesbaa Bikegoesbaa on Apr 26, 2017

    "Of course, because competitive pricing is Nissan’s forte, cross-shopping buyers are more likely to pay more attention to the numbers that come after “MSRP” than those after “EPA.”" And if I know Nissan customers, they'll be even *more* interested in numbers that come after "Only 72 low, low, monthly payments of "

  • Amca Amca on Apr 27, 2017

    Or, as Jeremy Clarkson calls it, the Nissan Kumquat. He didn't want to try to pronounce Quarashi, and I don't blame him.

  • Wjtinfwb Ford can produce all the training and instructional videos they want, and issue whatever mandates they can pursuant to state Franchise laws. The dealer principal and staff are the tip of the spear and if they don't give a damn, the training is a waste of time. Where legal, link CSI and feedback scores to allocations and financial incentives (or penalties). I'm very happy with my Ford products (3 at current) as I was with my Jeeps. But the dealer experience is as maddening and off-putting as possible. I refuse now to spend my money at a retailer who treats me and my investment like trash so I now shop for a dealer who does provide professional and courteous service. That led to the Jeep giving way to an Acura, which has not been trouble free but the dealer is at least courteous and responsive. It's the same owner group as the local Ford dealer so it's not the owners DNA, it's how American Honda manages the dealer interface with American Honda's customer. Ford would do well to adopt the same posture. It's their big, blue oval sign that's out front.
  • ToolGuy Nice car."I’m still on the fill-up from prior to Christmas 2023."• This is how you save the planet (and teach the oil companies a lesson) with an ICE.
  • Scrotie about 4 years ago there was a 1992 oldsmobile toronado which was a travtech-avis pilot car that had the prototype nav system and had a big antenna on the back. it sold quick and id never seen another ever again. i think they wanted like 13500 for it which was steep for an early 90s gm car.
  • SunnyGL I helped my friend buy one of these when they came in 2013 (I think). We tried a BMW 535xi, an Audi A6 and then this. He was very swayed by the GS350 and it helped a lot that Lexus knocked about $8k off the MSRP. I guess they wanted to get some out there. He has about 90k on it now and it's been very reliable, but some chump rear-ended it hard when it was only a few years old.From memory, liked the way the Bimmer drove and couldn't fathom why everyone thought Audi interiors were so great at that time - the tester we had was a sea of black.The GS350's mpg is impressive, much better than the '05 G35x I had which could only get about 24mpg highway.
  • Theflyersfan Keep the car. It's reliable, hasn't nickeled and dimed you to death, and it looks like you're a homeowner so something with a back seat and a trunk is really helpful! As I've discovered becoming a homeowner with a car with no back seat and a trunk the size of a large cooler, even simple Target or Ikea runs get complicated if you don't ride up with a friend with a larger car. And I wonder if the old VW has now been left in Price Hill with the keys in the ignition and a "Please take me" sign taped to the windshield? The problems it had weren't going to improve with time.
Next