Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options

Fuel Economy Update for March - More Miles, Same MPG - 2016 Honda Pilot Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
edited May 2016 in Honda
image
Fuel Economy Update for March - More Miles, Same MPG - 2016 Honda Pilot Long-Term Road Test

Here is a fuel economy recap for the first 12,000 miles of our test of the 2016 Honda Pilot.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • Options
    wislausonwislauson Member Posts: 3
    Nine is clearly not enough...maybe they should try an 18 speed transmission. I'm sure that would pay off in the MPG department.
  • Options
    schen72schen72 Member Posts: 433
    I'm sure there is some point of diminishing returns when it comes to number of gears in the transmission.
  • Options
    reminderreminder Member Posts: 383
    More gears can't cancel the weight and shape of such a vehicle.
    A large mass shaped like a brick equals elevated fuel consumption.
  • Options
    wislausonwislauson Member Posts: 3
    My sarcasm about the 18 gears seems to have flown wide of the mark.
  • Options
    prndlolprndlol Member Posts: 140
    The caveman minifig is pretty sure you're his Uber and passing him by...
  • Options
    ctpaulctpaul Member Posts: 46
    our 2005 Pilot averaged about maybe 17 to 18 so this is an improvement (I think that was a 5 speed). But if I bought this brand new I would be disappointed, is equal to the CX9 we currently own which is a known gas guzzler.
  • Options
    wislausonwislauson Member Posts: 3
    Our 2015 CX9 matches these numbers too. Since pretty much all of the SUVs in this class do also I really think the CX9's rep as a "gas guzzler" is undeserved. We regularly hit 23-24 MPGs on the freeway loaded up with stuff.
  • Options
    guy1974guy1974 Member Posts: 119
    The new CX9 is 15% better at 22/28 with a 25 combined.
  • Options
    papanatepapanate Member Posts: 1
    I have a 2016 Honda Pilot Touring AWD - and I am getting 23.5 mpg in the city and
    27 mpg on the Highway. I used to own a 2012 Pilot EXL and was getting only 20 mpg
    in the city and maybe 24 mpg on the Highway. In both case I have used Premium 92
    Octane gas. I have observed that the few times I used regular 88 octane gas my mileage
    on the 2012 Pilot went down - 19 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the Highway. I also have
    a gas station near the house that has non Ethanol Premium - and on my 2012 Pilot using
    that gas I would easily get 25 mpg on the Highway and 22 mpg in the city.

    I think that is significant data (at least with my Pilot) to support using the highest octane
    gas available.
  • Options
    dougnutsdougnuts Member Posts: 26
    So if a turbo 4 gets 2.3mpg lower than EPA estimates, the comments are full of "here's another DI turbo that doesn't get expected mileage", but if a V6 does it, the comments are silent. Interesting.
  • Options
    kirkhilles1kirkhilles1 Member Posts: 863
    papanate said:

    I have a 2016 Honda Pilot Touring AWD - and I am getting 23.5 mpg in the city and
    27 mpg on the Highway. I used to own a 2012 Pilot EXL and was getting only 20 mpg
    in the city and maybe 24 mpg on the Highway. In both case I have used Premium 92
    Octane gas. I have observed that the few times I used regular 88 octane gas my mileage
    on the 2012 Pilot went down - 19 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the Highway. I also have
    a gas station near the house that has non Ethanol Premium - and on my 2012 Pilot using
    that gas I would easily get 25 mpg on the Highway and 22 mpg in the city.

    I think that is significant data (at least with my Pilot) to support using the highest octane
    gas available.

    I have a 13 Pilot and I've never heard of this data nor does it make any sense to me. Have other Piloteers had similar data? I'm already paying a ton to drive that monster around and getting 19 MPG. Not really interested in paying an additional premium, but might be interested if results are worth it.
  • Options
    metalmaniametalmania Member Posts: 167
    dougnuts said:

    So if a turbo 4 gets 2.3mpg lower than EPA estimates, the comments are full of "here's another DI turbo that doesn't get expected mileage", but if a V6 does it, the comments are silent. Interesting.

    Generally I pay attention to anything that gets significantly worse than EPA estimates, however there's a lot more hype out there about turbo 4's - the whole point behind them is supposed to be better fuel economy than a V6. I think there's more comments about them because almost none of them measure up to what is supposed to be their primary reason for existence in the first place. I also blame the EPA test for not being a realistic representation of how people drive, as well as manufacturers for tuning their drivetrains to do well on the test rather than real world application. I still think many of them are just too small for use in bigger, heavier vehicles - requiring the driver to push the engine harder which in turn uses more fuel. Sure, they can deliver the power of a larger engine and (somewhat) better fuel economy - just not both at the same time.
  • Options
    steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited July 2016

    papanate said:

    I have a 2016 Honda Pilot Touring AWD - and I am getting 23.5 mpg in the city and
    27 mpg on the Highway. I used to own a 2012 Pilot EXL and was getting only 20 mpg
    in the city and maybe 24 mpg on the Highway. In both case I have used Premium 92
    Octane gas. I have observed that the few times I used regular 88 octane gas my mileage
    on the 2012 Pilot went down - 19 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the Highway. I also have
    a gas station near the house that has non Ethanol Premium - and on my 2012 Pilot using
    that gas I would easily get 25 mpg on the Highway and 22 mpg in the city.

    I think that is significant data (at least with my Pilot) to support using the highest octane
    gas available.

    I have a 13 Pilot and I've never heard of this data nor does it make any sense to me. Have other Piloteers had similar data? I'm already paying a ton to drive that monster around and getting 19 MPG. Not really interested in paying an additional premium, but might be interested if results are worth it.
    This Pure-Gas site keeps a list of ethanol free gas stations. (I tried one tank of regular a few years back and saw no difference - YMMV).
Sign In or Register to comment.