After researching my new work ute, I chose to invest my $50,000 plus into the new Nissan Navara NP300. The final deciding factor was it claimed fuel economy (6.3/100) and leader in its class. Since receiving my vehicle I have never come close to achieving these results (11/100 - tested by fuel used not its onboard dash range) and further testing by reputable car/4 X 4 reporters have exposed a 25% plus inaccuracy. Further more is the fuel gauge reading is about 100-150 km out and the fuel range computer is also the same, causing frustration, deciving results and a major failure of components is evident. I have no trust that the car will make it to the next destination and should not have to manually work out what distance this car will make. Nissan dealerships are of no help and avoid the issue and have not been able to tell me how much of the 80lt tank is actually usable. Many fellow NP300 forums are sharing this same frustration and we would like a recall of these major failured components immediately at the expense of Nissan Australia. Failing this, I would like to request a full refund for false advertising and misleading the public. Reviews- Nissan claims 7.0/100km combined for the ST-X is this guise – as low as 6.3 mated in 2WD manual Navara – which, again, looks class-beating on paper. On test, however, over hundreds of kilometres mixing everything from highway cruising to hard-core off-roading, our test car returned a less impressive if reasonably fit 8.8 average figure. Below is our list of utes, ranked lowest to highest in terms of claimed consumption, and the second column shows the actual consumption on test, while the third column is the percentage higher or lower than the claim these results put each ute: Ute Claimed Actual Variance Navara 7.0L/100km 8.8L/100km 26 per cent over Triton 7.6L/100km 8.2L/100km 8 per cent over D-Max 8.1L/100km 10.9L/100km 35 per cent over Amarok 8.3L/100km 8.2L/100km 1 per cent under HiLux 8.5L/100km 11.7L/100km 38 per cent over Ranger 9.0L/100km 9.9L/100km 10 per cent over BT-50 9.2L/100km 11.5L/100km 25 per cent over Colorado 9.7L/100km 10.4L/100km 7 per cent over It’s clear the VW was the best here for fuel use, while the HiLux was terrible. It is worth noting that our HiLux and BT-50 had both been on their recent local launches, and each had the lowest number of kilometres on their respective clocks (around 1500km), so both may not have been completely run in to their optimum levels. - Caradvice 2016 “While some companies are doing the right thing, others are treating consumers’ statutory rights to replacements, refunds or repairs as an optional extra,” says Kirkland. Brand — percentage with problems: Holden — 68% Ford — 65% Audi — 62% Hyundai, Jeep, Nissan, Volkswagen — 61% BMW — 57% Mitsubishi — 55% Kia — 54% Subaru — 53% Suzuki — 51% Toyota — 50% Honda — 49% Mazda 44 % Problem areas: In-car technology (Bluetooth connectivity) — 21% Battery/electrical — 20% Car interior — 20% Engine — 15% Tyres/wheels/suspension — 14% Brakes — 11% Bodywork/exteriors — 11% Gears — 9% Clutch — 6% Exhaust — 4% Odometer fraud -news.com.au MARCH 14, 20167:24PM http://www.qld.gov.au/law/laws-regulated-industries-and-accountability/queensland-laws-and-regulations/fair-trading-services-programs-and-resources/consultation-regulatory-reform/lemon-laws/ Regards, Disappointed but faithful Nissan owner (2 X 2004/2008 Patrol's, 1 X 2010 Nissan Navara D22, 1 X 2016 Nissan Navara NP300)