Drive an 05 EXL coupe(5 speed/4cyl w/14k miles) On a recent trip to Pittsburgh from NJ I got 29mpg. Rpms were 3k or higher most of the drive & cruise control was almost always on. Lots of hills didn't help. Got 34mpg coming back. Have managed 37mpg keeping it under 65.
Just did a run today, with some uphill highway, some in town, and mostly freeway, of 390 miles. My MPG was 28.75. My car is the SEV6, which is an automatic, and I have under 3,000 miles on her. Loren
When you are driving a brand new car, you cannot expect the stated mileage status, until your car's engine is properly broken in. When I got my 06 accord, it was a little off on gas mileage at first, and performance was tight at first, meaning it didn't have its peak performance that the engine would have with a couple thousand miles on it. At the time I did not really take note of it, but noticed that when it did have some miles on her, the engine really opened up, and mileage is absolutely great now. The engine is suprisingly torquee, and people think I drive a V6.
The saleman did tell me that if I were to drive a new 4cyl with no miles, I would notice that the engine would feel weak to me, compared to my broken in 4cyl.
I drive about an estimated 30 miles a day and usually more, 6 days a week, and I can usually go about 2 weeks without filling up. Plus when the low fuel light comes on, I still have plenty in reserve.
Ok - had the car for a little over a month now and have a little more fuel data. It is starting to get impressive.
2007 SE 4-cyl stick shift.
Overall mileage for 2,200 miles is about 31 mpg.
My last tank of all city driving yielded 23.5 mpg. This is with maximum trip length of 3 miles and a maximum speed of about 40 (with one or two zips up to 50), and in some cold morning starts (20's and 30's). I think that is very good - better than my Integra, and just a little worse than my old Corolla (both also stick shift). It should also improve with a little more breaking in and synthetic oil.
Just took a highway trip and checked my mileage with my now calibrated scangauge II. 100 miles each way. Way there - 50 degrees at start, no wind 1,000 ft elevation gain. 37.2 mpg. Way back - 65 degrees 1,000 ft elevation loss. 38.9 mpg. Overall about 38 mpg. Average speed for the trip was 68 mph.
This is very encouraging. I am quite sure that I will gain about 1 mpg from further break in, 1 from using syntetic oil, and if I slow down to 65 mph another 1. This would put me at 41 - we will see.
For a car with as much room and power as the Accord these numbers amaze me.
Your experiences are really mirroring mine, with only a small difference. In my overall numbers and typical commute, I average between 29 and 30 MPG. This is probably due to me being in an automatic (24/34 EPA) and you in a manual (26/34). My highway numbers have actually topped 40 MPG twice (only twice though) in very strict highway conditions.
Enjoy your new Accord, the mileage will continue to be great. (By the way, let me know if you beat 40.92 MPG, that's my personal best!).
Almost afraid to post this as there will probably be naysayers.
2007 SE 4 MT
Just got 43.8 mpg on an almost all highway trip. Keep in mind this was going slower than I ever have (cruise at 60 mph). I also dropped into neutral on the steep downhills, and gently slowed down on the uphill (driving like a semi), but was using cruise about 80% of the time.
This was recorded with a scangauge II which is quite accurate. Conditions were just about ideal. The temp was 55 and partly sunny, so no A/C or heat was neaded (warm engines are the most efficient and turning on the heat draws some heat from the engine). I also had a warm engine at start. Terrain was fairly hilly and curvy 2 lane roads along the Missouri river, but overall starting elevation was about the same as ending.
Love the scangauge so far. It gave me my max speed 74, Max water temp 195 F, Average speed 57 mph (part of the road was gravel so I went slow there), elapsed time, gallons per hour etc, etc. It even keeps track of 4 different trips - current, today, yesterday, and user progamable.
BTW just for kicks I checked the mpg while puttering through a town. It gets 52 mpg going 45 mph in 5th gear. I also must confess that I run 39 psi in my tires.
Can't wait for the first oil change - 0w20 mobil one will only help.
I read a bit more about the ScanGauge II on their website. Seems like a nice tool.
I'm wondering about accuracy though. My Navi system figures mileage (using the same technology, I assume) but it is always off from when I check the traditional way (fill tank, drive until almost empty, fill tank again, divide miles by number of gallons pumped.)
As for very short distances, any kind of measurement won't be very accurate because of level of road surface, coasting, etc.
I'm not questioning the ScanGauge at all, just curious more than anything. And yes, I do understand the inaccuracy that may occur by figuring mileage the traditional way too.
So far the scangauge has been pretty close to my calculated figure, but I need a few more tankfulls to veryify for sure. It is adjustable (you can enter in a different engine size during setup to adjust the readings) and may not be spot on just yet, but I would venture to say that it is probably (I hope anyway) within 5% right now. I have a one day 500 mile trip coming up that will be perfect for getting one nice full tank to compare to the scangauge. Don't think I have the patience to go 60 mph on that trip though, but who knows it is company time.
For things I can double check with my navi, the scangauge is spot on. For instance when I am going an indicated 65 the navi and scangauge both flutter around 63 or 64.
I do calculate the old fashioned way but the Accord tank holds too much and I almost never get a full tank on the highway. So I use the scangauge for trips within the tank. I will fill up tomorrow and compare that number to the scangauge number for the tank and see how they compare.
I was just scanning the messages here and your note with 1996 mentioned caught my eye. In January I traded in my 1996 Accord LX for a used '98 Toyota T100 pick-em-up truck because I now work closer to home. I bought the '96 brand new and always got 30 mpg or better under most driving conditions. With 160,000 miles on the odometer it still had the original brakes, I kid you not! I serviced that car myself, i.e. oil (Mobil 1 5-w-30)changes every 3-4k, transmission (Mobil 1 fluid)changes every 30k, and Bosch Platinum spark plugs every 30k. Only big items were a brake master cylinder, radiator, and of course the 90k timing belt and water pump change-out, all of these were done by my Honda dealer. Not counting the nomal tires and battery replacements. It was one great car! My wife just traded her '05 Accord LX 4 cyl auto for an '07 Accord SE 4 cyl auto. We love the Honda 4 cyl engines for their economy and power. The SE is a nice upgrade for not too much more money. Sorry for rambling like this. Love the Honda's!
The scangauge indicated 33.4 for the tank, so it is off by about 3% high - still need several more tanks to calibrate after all the next fillup it could be 3% low. Still, if I applied a 3% correction factor to my 43.8 it would be about 42.5. I will take that.
This was a tank with probably 60% highway and the rest litte jogs around the city.
2,600 miles and lifetime calculated average is just under 31 mpg.
If you are going to try to get to that level of accuracy, you also need to account for any errors in the odometer. (The odometer is what gives you the 'miles' in miles per hour, or miles per gallon). The scangauge uses the vehicle sensors as it's inputs, so any error in the sensors will also effect the scangauge.
You can easily validate odometer accuracy by a GPS unit, or by interstate mileage markers over a considerable distance. As I understand it, a manufacturer can be plus or minus 5%. When I recently checked my vehicle w/GPS is was high by about 3%, as clocked over a 1K+ mile trip with a number of intermediate waypoints.
Seems reasonable to me that if a manufacturer was going to build in some inaccuracy (aka....take advantage of the situation), that they would want to error on the high side showing the vehicle going faster than it really is (boy, isn't my car quiet and smooth at 65!), and get better gas mileage than it really does. Also note that as tires wear their circumference gets smaller, thereby spinning slightly more for a given real distance....highlighting yet more error over time.
So if you use a scangauge to look at some of the detailed numbers, it would be worth understanding how much odometer error you are working with for your vehicle and tires.
I have checked the odomoter with my GPS and it is pretty close - within 1% or a tad more.
While no computer may be perfect - it has the potential to be better than filling it up and measuring (at least in a modern car).
The other nice thing about the computer is that it is repeatable and will show relative numbers quite accurately, as well as trends.
Now my 1980 Scirocco could be filled up exactly (within a few cc) the same every time. The temp of the fuel probably played a larger role in gallons than the fillup error. There was just a tube going into the tank, and you could see and hear the tube filling up, and could stop it right at the brim every time.
I think one of the major reasons speedos are always a little optomistic is safety. If a speedo reads too low and a person judged a turn by the speed limit sign and the speedo - and wrecked!!
I traded in my 1996 Accord LX for a used '98 Toyota T100 pick-em-up truck because I now work closer to home.
The name T-100 brings back some bad memories for me. I bought a 97 SR5 new and it was very reliable, but had the worst ride of any vehicle I ever owned. On the highway it never stopped bouncing, and it was very difficult to balance tires on those skinny wheels. After 6 years of bouncing, I finally traded it for the 03 Accord. My brother-in-law had a 96 T-100 and his was not as bad, but still not a good highway truck.
My '98 T100 rides very good on the highway, even after recently installing Monroe Mag shocks on the truck. On secondary roads the ride is very tight and lets you know that it is indeed a truck. I don't want to write a review on it here. I will stop short and say that the Toyota T100 is a quality truck in all ways.
If Honda were to really manufacture trucks I would be interested in buying one. While the Ridgeline is a very nice multipurpose vehicle, it is NOT a truck. Nor is the versatile Element a truck. Honda should not boast that it has a truck line when in fact they don't, but they should!
Pickup trucks are some of the biggest sellers in the USA. It does not appear that this fact will change anytime soon.
On to the subject: I will be monitoring the mpg our new '07 Accord SE l4 auto with great expectation. The car currently has 285 miles on it so I am still in the early breaking it in stages. Of course I am taking it easy on the gas pedal and anticipating stops with a gentle brake pressure. A coming vacation trip to Branson Mo soon should finish off the 'break-in' period with all of the hills and valleys that the highway offers. Glad to see that Honda quality is evident in our new car. Why wouldn't it be?? It is a Honda!
I recently went on a 900 mile trip in my new SE I-4 auto. From Atlanta-Pascagula, Miss. 34mpg to Miss and 38 mpg on the return trip. The return trip was very slow my speed ranging from 35-55mph because of a raging thunderstorm with considerable winds and tons of rain. The decible reading inside my car must have been 80 or more as the sound was deafing!! I thought that if I ran into hail I would have a broken windshield. I'm thankful that it didn't hail but the rain was a flood and many had to pull under overpasses to wait it out. This went on from Mobile, Ala. all the way back to Ga. My return trip was about 50 lbs. lighter as I had dropped off some musical instruments in Miss. Hope you have a safe and enjoyable trip to Branson, let us know what your mpg were. Thanks :shades: BTW my SE now has 2600 miles on it. It had about 1100 at the time of this trip.
I'm curious how much the coasting increases mpg. If you want to,try one segment of you trip w/o coasting down the hills in neutral just to see what you get. I mean just leave it in gear on the declines as you would otherwise drive. Thanks.
I can try that, but I won't take that exact trip for a while and that is the only way to be fair.
I have been futzing around with that issue a little though. My understanding is that the fuel actually shuts off while coasting in gear, so theoretically that will provide better mileage. The problem is that you obviously do not coast as far, and modern engines use hardly any gas while idleing under no load.
While coasting down a real steep hill at 85 mph (real steep - and a different route) the instant mpg indicates well over 200 mpg, of course going up the other side it goes into the low teens (single digits if I step on it).
I am sure my mpg would go down on the trip without the coasting especially maintaing speed up the steep hills - I bled speed going up a few of the steeper hills. I will knnow if a few weeks - or course if the temp, or wind is much different it will mess things up.
I have heard that coasting in neutral for long distances, can hurt the transmission, which is why Honda recommends towing an Accord on a flat-bed truck. Don't know for sure, but it's something you may want to check on before long distance coasting in neutral.
If you are constantly doing things like coasting down hills, and driving slower than you normally would, I would not consider that "Real World" mileage. Seems to me the mileage you get while driving your normal everyday routes, in the normal everyday driving style, would be more important than special occasion trips. Of course, if you actually like driving this way, go ahead and enjoy the ride.
You have just summed up my feelings exactly. Only going 55 or 60 with cruise on is too artificial for me. In my state, as well in many others I'm sure, if you are going way to slow people drive up on your tail-end, swing around you and give you the one finger salute. I have to go at least the speed limit 70mph. I just try to squeeze a few more miles out by maybe starting a little more slowly.
This is off my little rant, but my car seems to get better mileage with the A/C on. I was wondering if my car is just weird, but maybe is it possible for somebody to try and go on a trip with all the windows open maybe somebody with a sunroof, and then do the identical trip with the windows closed and the A/C on. If someone could do that it would be great. I just want to see if my car is weird or if I'm imagining things.
I have never gone 55 for a trip (the milege would be better still), and 60 is a reasonable speed on a twisty two lane road through the country - popping up and down the hills along the Missouri.
Just letting people know what the car is capable of and I post my speed so everybody knows, not trying to hide anything. I have also posted mileage going faster. The whole point is to give a range of mpg under different conditions.
My state is different than most - most of you live in a county that has more people than my state (SD). On my last couple of trips I can count on one hand the vehicles I met in either direction and was not passed by one vehicle (nor did I pass any).
Coasting in neutral may be bad for an automatic, but it is no problem with a manual - just one of many advantages for a manual .
80 degrees - yikes. There is only one real steep hill that gets me to 85, and it is perfectly straight and you can see 3 miles ahead (up the other side) if anybody is coming.
BTW re the same trip with cruise the whole way. I did that on the way there, but had cruise set at 65 not 60, also the car was cold at the start and I had the heat on, and I did a little bit more in town driving at the beginning. That trip was 37.3 mpg.
As far as better mpg with the A/C on goes. Heat plays a huge role in mpg. I notice it more and more with every trip. All my low mpg (33 on one trip at < 20 degrees) has been in cold temps. Cold engines are not as efficient, cold oil is thicker, cold grease in the CV joints does not roll as easily, cold tires have less air pressure, cold air is denser and has more resistance.
You will always get better mpg with the A/C off, but the heat may offset this when comparing to non A/C.
You will get your best mileage at the highest temp you can stand without turning on the A/C. Cloudy days are good because the temp can be higher without a need for A/C.
but my car seems to get better mileage with the A/C on.
Yes, I think A/C off only helps if you can keep the windows up. With all the windows down, the wind resistance would slow you down more than the A/C compressor will. I read that somewhere, but don't remember exactly where.
But I think that has been debunked. AC on does not offset the wind resistance. I think Mythbusters did something on this awhile back. There was also a discussion on some thread here sometime last year too.
Sorry to hear about your lousy gas mileage but glad to hear I am not the only one getting crappy mileage. I have a 2006 Accord 4cyl(3200 miles) and in the city average 15mpg..that's right 15...on the highway I get about 22 if..I got rid of a 6cyl car to buy this one and regret it everyday. the 6cyl got better mileage than this one. Going to the dealer next week but doubt they will do anything.
How long is your average trip? How high do you typically rev when
merging, going stoplight to stoplight,
?
With me, a conservative driver (merging rarely tops 4,000 RPM, stoplight to stoplight driving stays under 3,000 RPM), I've NEVER had a tank under 26 MPG, and on trips, average between 36 and 40 MPG.
How long is your daily (city?) commute mileagewise, and timewise? If you are going 3 miles in 30 minutes, you won't see better mileage. If you are going 14 miles in 25 minutes (like I do daily) you should see at least mid 20s. My average mileage is just under 30 MPG.
What is the definition of highway driving that produces 22 mpg? 100 1 mile trips on the highway will get terrible mileage, but 1 100 mile trip should do well above 30 mpg. My absolute worst highway mileage was the first tank from the dealer and I averaged about 73 mph varying speed wildly for the break in. That tank still gave me 32.5 mpg.
Something is wrong with the car or the definition of highway. What was the previous V-6 car and what mpg did it get? Were the conditions the same or have driving patterns changed?
So if I'm doing 70mph on the interstate, I will burn more gas with the windows up, and A/C on, than with A/C off, and windows down.
Yup... according to that show and other things I've read.
I had heard what you heard a long time ago and it made sense to me. Actually, it was said that not using AC in the city and rolling widows down was better but using AC with windows up on highway was better (wind resistance was greater). But the Mythbusters boys did significantly better with no AC and windows down on a race track using SUVs, I think. It was pretty funny because the one using AC was all bundled up because it got so cold.
You can find part of the old discussion here by searching this thread for "Mythbusters". I was thinking there was an even better discussion somewhere but not sure where.
Something is wrong with the car or the definition of highway.
Well said. I'd also add that something may be wrong with the driver. Not picking on anyone but 22 mpg on the highway means something is very wrong. To be honest, I think I could only do that if I were going up a steep hill the entire trip... or varying my speed greatly.
The guys on Mythbusters have the coolest jobs. There are many "myths" that are simply not true, and it's nice that they can prove or disprove these things. Thanks for the info, tallman1. It may come in handy in the future.
Yes and did you see the recent episode about getting out of a car that is sinking in water?? You'd drown before the pressure equalized enough to open the door. I'm going to buy one of those little hammers. :surprise:
One of those hammers would be a good thing to have, just in case. An interesting thing about that is many people are so panic stricken, they drown with the seatbelt still on. :sick:
I wonder if the significant aerodynamic advantage of an Accord (or any sedan) over an SUV means that the windows down will cause more drag in relation to the power needed to maintain highway speed.
I also wonder if the results had been different if the A/C was not all the way up (did not see that show, but if they were wearing coats!). A/C is most efficient on the coolest temp at the lowest fan speed.
I thought that mileage would decrease no matter what speed the fan speed was. I could feel my 95 lose power when I turned on the AC, especially when accelerating (not sure about the 06) but it didn't matter how the fan was set. Once the compressor starts, that's all she wrote. Didn't someone just post something like this on another thread???
With the fan on the lowest setting, the air coming out is the coldest. Maybe, I dunno what he meant to be honest. My compressor runs the same with it set on low, high, vent or defrost, etc...
Probably means with fan running slower the air moves more slowly and has a chance to be cooled to a lower temperature before it comes out of the vents.
Either way, the point was about mileage. My understanding is that fan speed has no effect on mileage, only if the AC is on or off. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding of auto a/c is that the temp of the cool air is regulated by bringing in warmer outside air. So anytime you turn up the temp you are bringing in more warm air and reducing the efficiency of your a/c.
Also the compressor cycles according to the fan speed since the highest speed will demand the most cooling (even with the temp up because of the mixing).
This means the most efficient way to use the a/c is with the temp all the way down and the fan on the lowest setting. Obviously if you need more cooling, turn it up.
If is inneficient to have the fan up high and the temp in the middle.
I've never been able to tell that the compressor cycled any less with the A/C fan speed set on lower vs. higher. Where is the threshold for it running differently? My Accord has 12 notches for fan speed.
I don't think the fan speed is going to affect mileage. The temperature outside the car (if you have auto climate control), combined with the temperature setting in the car, will determine how much the compressor cycles. The fan is taking power from wires (not much). The compressor is taking power directly from the engine. When the compressor kicks on, you can feel it, when the fan is turned up, no difference.
Comments
If the car is coated with ice I let it run while I scrape though - why not have the heaters help a little.
Anyway it does use more gas and needs to be taken into account if gas mileage is low.
On a recent trip to Pittsburgh from NJ I got 29mpg. Rpms were 3k or higher most of the drive & cruise control was almost always on. Lots of hills didn't help. Got 34mpg coming back. Have managed 37mpg keeping it under 65.
Loren
The saleman did tell me that if I were to drive a new 4cyl with no miles, I would notice that the engine would feel weak to me, compared to my broken in 4cyl.
I drive about an estimated 30 miles a day and usually more, 6 days a week, and I can usually go about 2 weeks without filling up. Plus when the low fuel light comes on, I still have plenty in reserve.
I love my Accord!!
2007 SE 4-cyl stick shift.
Overall mileage for 2,200 miles is about 31 mpg.
My last tank of all city driving yielded 23.5 mpg. This is with maximum trip length of 3 miles and a maximum speed of about 40 (with one or two zips up to 50), and in some cold morning starts (20's and 30's). I think that is very good - better than my Integra, and just a little worse than my old Corolla (both also stick shift). It should also improve with a little more breaking in and synthetic oil.
Just took a highway trip and checked my mileage with my now calibrated scangauge II. 100 miles each way. Way there - 50 degrees at start, no wind 1,000 ft elevation gain. 37.2 mpg. Way back - 65 degrees 1,000 ft elevation loss. 38.9 mpg. Overall about 38 mpg. Average speed for the trip was 68 mph.
This is very encouraging. I am quite sure that I will gain about 1 mpg from further break in, 1 from using syntetic oil, and if I slow down to 65 mph another 1. This would put me at 41 - we will see.
For a car with as much room and power as the Accord these numbers amaze me.
Your experiences are really mirroring mine, with only a small difference. In my overall numbers and typical commute, I average between 29 and 30 MPG. This is probably due to me being in an automatic (24/34 EPA) and you in a manual (26/34). My highway numbers have actually topped 40 MPG twice (only twice though) in very strict highway conditions.
Enjoy your new Accord, the mileage will continue to be great. (By the way, let me know if you beat 40.92 MPG, that's my personal best!).
2007 SE 4 MT
Just got 43.8 mpg on an almost all highway trip. Keep in mind this was going slower than I ever have (cruise at 60 mph). I also dropped into neutral on the steep downhills, and gently slowed down on the uphill (driving like a semi), but was using cruise about 80% of the time.
This was recorded with a scangauge II which is quite accurate. Conditions were just about ideal. The temp was 55 and partly sunny, so no A/C or heat was neaded (warm engines are the most efficient and turning on the heat draws some heat from the engine). I also had a warm engine at start. Terrain was fairly hilly and curvy 2 lane roads along the Missouri river, but overall starting elevation was about the same as ending.
Love the scangauge so far. It gave me my max speed 74, Max water temp 195 F, Average speed 57 mph (part of the road was gravel so I went slow there), elapsed time, gallons per hour etc, etc. It even keeps track of 4 different trips - current, today, yesterday, and user progamable.
BTW just for kicks I checked the mpg while puttering through a town. It gets 52 mpg going 45 mph in 5th gear. I also must confess that I run 39 psi in my tires.
Can't wait for the first oil change - 0w20 mobil one will only help.
I'm wondering about accuracy though. My Navi system figures mileage (using the same technology, I assume) but it is always off from when I check the traditional way (fill tank, drive until almost empty, fill tank again, divide miles by number of gallons pumped.)
As for very short distances, any kind of measurement won't be very accurate because of level of road surface, coasting, etc.
I'm not questioning the ScanGauge at all, just curious more than anything. And yes, I do understand the inaccuracy that may occur by figuring mileage the traditional way too.
For things I can double check with my navi, the scangauge is spot on. For instance when I am going an indicated 65 the navi and scangauge both flutter around 63 or 64.
426 miles 13.1 gallons = 32.3 mpg.
The scangauge indicated 33.4 for the tank, so it is off by about 3% high - still need several more tanks to calibrate after all the next fillup it could be 3% low. Still, if I applied a 3% correction factor to my 43.8 it would be about 42.5. I will take that.
This was a tank with probably 60% highway and the rest litte jogs around the city.
2,600 miles and lifetime calculated average is just under 31 mpg.
You can easily validate odometer accuracy by a GPS unit, or by interstate mileage markers over a considerable distance. As I understand it, a manufacturer can be plus or minus 5%. When I recently checked my vehicle w/GPS is was high by about 3%, as clocked over a 1K+ mile trip with a number of intermediate waypoints.
Seems reasonable to me that if a manufacturer was going to build in some inaccuracy (aka....take advantage of the situation), that they would want to error on the high side showing the vehicle going faster than it really is (boy, isn't my car quiet and smooth at 65!), and get better gas mileage than it really does. Also note that as tires wear their circumference gets smaller, thereby spinning slightly more for a given real distance....highlighting yet more error over time.
So if you use a scangauge to look at some of the detailed numbers, it would be worth understanding how much odometer error you are working with for your vehicle and tires.
While no computer may be perfect - it has the potential to be better than filling it up and measuring (at least in a modern car).
The other nice thing about the computer is that it is repeatable and will show relative numbers quite accurately, as well as trends.
Now my 1980 Scirocco could be filled up exactly (within a few cc) the same every time. The temp of the fuel probably played a larger role in gallons than the fillup error. There was just a tube going into the tank, and you could see and hear the tube filling up, and could stop it right at the brim every time.
I think one of the major reasons speedos are always a little optomistic is safety. If a speedo reads too low and a person judged a turn by the speed limit sign and the speedo - and wrecked!!
The name T-100 brings back some bad memories for me. I bought a 97 SR5 new and it was very reliable, but had the worst ride of any vehicle I ever owned. On the highway it never stopped bouncing, and it was very difficult to balance tires on those skinny wheels. After 6 years of bouncing, I finally traded it for the 03 Accord. My brother-in-law had a 96 T-100 and his was not as bad, but still not a good highway truck.
If Honda were to really manufacture trucks I would be interested in buying one. While the Ridgeline is a very nice multipurpose vehicle, it is NOT a truck. Nor is the versatile Element a truck. Honda should not boast that it has a truck line when in fact they don't, but they should!
Pickup trucks are some of the biggest sellers in the USA. It does not appear that this fact will change anytime soon.
On to the subject: I will be monitoring the mpg our new '07 Accord SE l4 auto with great expectation. The car currently has 285 miles on it so I am still in the early breaking it in stages. Of course I am taking it easy on the gas pedal and anticipating stops with a gentle brake pressure. A coming vacation trip to Branson Mo soon should finish off the 'break-in' period with all of the hills and valleys that the highway offers. Glad to see that Honda quality is evident in our new car. Why wouldn't it be?? It is a Honda!
I have been futzing around with that issue a little though. My understanding is that the fuel actually shuts off while coasting in gear, so theoretically that will provide better mileage. The problem is that you obviously do not coast as far, and modern engines use hardly any gas while idleing under no load.
While coasting down a real steep hill at 85 mph (real steep - and a different route) the instant mpg indicates well over 200 mpg, of course going up the other side it goes into the low teens (single digits if I step on it).
I am sure my mpg would go down on the trip without the coasting especially maintaing speed up the steep hills - I bled speed going up a few of the steeper hills. I will knnow if a few weeks - or course if the temp, or wind is much different it will mess things up.
If you are constantly doing things like coasting down hills, and driving slower than you normally would, I would not consider that "Real World" mileage. Seems to me the mileage you get while driving your normal everyday routes, in the normal everyday driving style, would be more important than special occasion trips. Of course, if you actually like driving this way, go ahead and enjoy the ride.
This is off my little rant, but my car seems to get better mileage with the A/C on. I was wondering if my car is just weird, but maybe is it possible for somebody to try and go on a trip with all the windows open maybe somebody with a sunroof, and then do the identical trip with the windows closed and the A/C on. If someone could do that it would be great. I just want to see if my car is weird or if I'm imagining things.
Thanks.
Just letting people know what the car is capable of and I post my speed so everybody knows, not trying to hide anything. I have also posted mileage going faster. The whole point is to give a range of mpg under different conditions.
My state is different than most - most of you live in a county that has more people than my state (SD). On my last couple of trips I can count on one hand the vehicles I met in either direction and was not passed by one vehicle (nor did I pass any).
Coasting in neutral may be bad for an automatic, but it is no problem with a manual - just one of many advantages for a manual
80 degrees - yikes. There is only one real steep hill that gets me to 85, and it is perfectly straight and you can see 3 miles ahead (up the other side) if anybody is coming.
BTW re the same trip with cruise the whole way. I did that on the way there, but had cruise set at 65 not 60, also the car was cold at the start and I had the heat on, and I did a little bit more in town driving at the beginning. That trip was 37.3 mpg.
As far as better mpg with the A/C on goes. Heat plays a huge role in mpg. I notice it more and more with every trip. All my low mpg (33 on one trip at < 20 degrees) has been in cold temps. Cold engines are not as efficient, cold oil is thicker, cold grease in the CV joints does not roll as easily, cold tires have less air pressure, cold air is denser and has more resistance.
You will always get better mpg with the A/C off, but the heat may offset this when comparing to non A/C.
You will get your best mileage at the highest temp you can stand without turning on the A/C. Cloudy days are good because the temp can be higher without a need for A/C.
Yes, I think A/C off only helps if you can keep the windows up. With all the windows down, the wind resistance would slow you down more than the A/C compressor will. I read that somewhere, but don't remember exactly where.
So if I'm doing 70mph on the interstate, I will burn more gas with the windows up, and A/C on, than with A/C off, and windows down.
do you see evidence of the transmission shifting up through all the gears and going into torque convertor lockup?
have you looked to see there is no obstruction in the engine air filter?
does it idle properly?
ask them to check your MAF sensor, O2 sensor, and fuel injectors. perhaps they need to install a new cat convertor.
merging, going stoplight to stoplight,
?
With me, a conservative driver (merging rarely tops 4,000 RPM, stoplight to stoplight driving stays under 3,000 RPM), I've NEVER had a tank under 26 MPG, and on trips, average between 36 and 40 MPG.
How long is your daily (city?) commute mileagewise, and timewise? If you are going 3 miles in 30 minutes, you won't see better mileage. If you are going 14 miles in 25 minutes (like I do daily) you should see at least mid 20s. My average mileage is just under 30 MPG.
Something is wrong with the car or the definition of highway. What was the previous V-6 car and what mpg did it get? Were the conditions the same or have driving patterns changed?
Yup... according to that show and other things I've read.
I had heard what you heard a long time ago and it made sense to me. Actually, it was said that not using AC in the city and rolling widows down was better but using AC with windows up on highway was better (wind resistance was greater). But the Mythbusters boys did significantly better with no AC and windows down on a race track using SUVs, I think. It was pretty funny because the one using AC was all bundled up because it got so cold.
You can find part of the old discussion here by searching this thread for "Mythbusters". I was thinking there was an even better discussion somewhere but not sure where.
Well said. I'd also add that something may be wrong with the driver. Not picking on anyone but 22 mpg on the highway means something is very wrong. To be honest, I think I could only do that if I were going up a steep hill the entire trip... or varying my speed greatly.
Yes and did you see the recent episode about getting out of a car that is sinking in water?? You'd drown before the pressure equalized enough to open the door. I'm going to buy one of those little hammers. :surprise:
I also wonder if the results had been different if the A/C was not all the way up (did not see that show, but if they were wearing coats!). A/C is most efficient on the coolest temp at the lowest fan speed.
Maybe what he means is this:
With the fan on the lowest setting, the air coming out is the coldest. Maybe, I dunno what he meant to be honest. My compressor runs the same with it set on low, high, vent or defrost, etc...
Also the compressor cycles according to the fan speed since the highest speed will demand the most cooling (even with the temp up because of the mixing).
This means the most efficient way to use the a/c is with the temp all the way down and the fan on the lowest setting. Obviously if you need more cooling, turn it up.
If is inneficient to have the fan up high and the temp in the middle.