The fan setting dictates how often the compresser kicks on, not how stongly it kicks on. The compressor is either on or off. The fan speed is what sends the signal to the compressor as to the cooling demand in the car.
All the temp knob does is regulate the amount of warm outside air that is mixed in.
At least that is the theory. I researched it a little bit and some claim high fan speed some claim low. Just like some sites say windows down is better on the freeway and some say windows up with A/C is better.
As far as windows go, I do think an SUV at 55 is a far cry from an Accord at 70.
Now have 21k on my 4 cyl Accord w/auto. We're averaging 24-27 city driving and just got back from a 625 mile (1 way) trip down to FL. Averaged 37 on the way down w/out AC, cruising at 79MPH. Averaged 34.5 coming back at same speed w/AC on. We never dropped under 75 and kicked up to 85 for short burst to stay with traffic on I-95. The car was loaded w/luggage and 4 people.
As to the AC questions ..... does it matter ? If it's hot I'm going to keep cool. With an economy car I'm not seeing a significant difference w/mpg.
Overall very pleased with the ride and handling. Extremely happy with gas mileage. Wish they could make an SUV (+ 6 passenger) that even came close.
Looking at a > 2006 Honda Pilot since they finally came out with 2WD and variable cylinder mgt.
All the temp knob does is regulate the amount of warm outside air that is mixed in.
That depends. If it is auto climate control, and the temperature is set lower than the outside temp, I don't think any warm air is mixed in. The compressor just cycles more or less, depending on the setting. With the old type temp control, I think you're right.
I researched it a little bit and some claim high fan speed some claim low.
I think fan speed makes little difference, one way or the other.
"Wish they could make an SUV (+ 6 passenger) that even came close. "
An Accord wagon would offer much more room with the same mpg, but the whole SUV thing ruins gas mileage. Look at the mpg of the CRV with the same engine. It is quite a bit worse.
Peugeot used to make an Accord sized wagon with three rows of forward facing seats - it can be done.
BTW that is amazing for that speed. Don't see how people can get less than 30 on the highway as some claim.
Peugeot used to make an Accord sized wagon with three rows of forward facing seats - it can be done.
Cross-over SUVs are more accepted now. They have higher roofs, making the third row seat easier to access than in a wagon. Don't think we will ever see the Accord wagon again. It would be good for extra storage space, but not so much, for a third row seat.
My car just got the best mileage that I've been able to calculate. My brother drives my car every other weekend because he has to drive and pick up his child. A 240 mile round trip, his car an 85 Riviera aka gas hog. You can see why he takes mine. Anyway to the point, I just got back from the gas station and put 10.639 gallons of gas into the tank and there were 327.5 miles on the trip. So that comes to about 30.8 mpg. Very happy. I have a 95 Accord EXI4 in case anybody is wondering. Thought I'd share. Love my car. Wish I could get great mileage, but live too close to work, lots of short trips with cold engine. But I'm darned if I'll walk to work at 9:30 at night and back home at 6:30 the next morning, sorry to segue.
I just hope that it's true. My brother has this really annoying habit of resetting the trip meter even when he doesn't fill the thing to the top. Bothers me.
Two friends have Honda Accords. One is a 2007 EX 4 cyl and the other owns a 2006 EX 6 cyl. Both Accords are automatics. Both owners are very reliable in keeping fuel records. On a long road trip last year the 6 with cruise control set at 65 MPH got 34 MPG. This past weekend the 4 on an 1100 mile interstate trip with cruise set at 73 got 29 MPG. Is this to be expected?
Now I know that wind resistance accounts for a great deal in influencing MPG. However I find it difficult to accept that the 4 gets significantly lower MPG then the 6. Also the final gear ratio is lower on the 4 then the 6 therefore the 4 cyl turns more RPMs then the 6 at any given speed.
I have seen claims on this board that some have gotten as high as 40 MPG on the 4. To that I say go back and learn how to divide. 40 MPG for a 4 Accord is impossible under normal driving conditions. However a 4 getting lower MPG then a 6 does not make sense.
Has anyone here experienced similar MPG results as what my friends did above? I am not talking about one trip. I am talking about consistent MPG numbers on several trips.
Has anyone here experienced considerably higher or lower MPG numbers then the posted EPA numbers? Again this is for an automatic transmission.
I am going to purchase an Accord and am trying to decide between the 4 or the 6. If the 6 gets MPG which is equal or better then the 4 then the choice for me is clear. But if the 4 consistently gets the EPA number of 34 MPG on the highway and the 6 gets only 29 MPG or less, I am going to select the 4.
Again do not promote mileage numbers on a short one time trip. I am looking for reliable numbers which were actually experienced on several trips.
What a poor example. It wasn't even the same route at the same speed with the same drivers at the same time (weather etc.). "Both owners are 'very reliable'." What does that mean, exactly? That doesn't even take in account any city driving where the 4 cylinder real world mileage advantage is greater. You would need much more controlled conditions with two perfectly tuned cars or a large numbers of cars to make any useful claims.
Frankly, I don't know how anyone could manage only 29 mpg on a highway in a 4 cyl Accord. I've made several 250 mile trips that included mountain passes, snow and cold temps and never did that poorly at that speed.
As for saying that 40 mpg is impossible, how on earth would you know??? I'm sure thegrad will be giving you division lessons shortly.
I don't know what year you are looking for, but I have a 95 which has been getting a consistent combined mileage of 23 mpg. Now this is probably different than a lot of others because I only live a mile from work, but as I said in a previous post I'm not about to walk. I love my car.
I can't say anything about the newer cars because I don't have one, but would assume that advances in technology have probably pushed the mileage ratings a lot higher.
Good luck and I hope you make the right decision. Finally, have fun with your car when you do get it. I've heard that they are all fun to drive 4 or 6. One thing I have read though, if you are looking for power, is that there isn't much difference in acceleration between the 4 and 6, but that was a buyer review I read.
I'm sure thegrad will be giving you division lessons shortly.
I would, but frankly, I'm afraid my head would get bitten off, since I'm lying about my mileage and have so much to gain by doing so :sick: .
I'm headed to Oklahoma next Saturday with three of my friends, to see my parents who recently moved to OKC. Round trip, that's 1,500 miles, with A/C, probably close to 80 MPH the whole time. I'm expecting 36 MPG or so MPG given the added 500 pounds, the A/C usage, the speeds that are about 8-10 MPH higher, and the fact that one of my friends will be helping me drive, as opposed to my typical trip to the beach which was getting me around 40MPG, because it is closer to 70 MPH, with less weight in the car (sometimes just me in it!), could be very conservative with my passing maneuvers, and didn't need the A/C (it has been early mornings when I've made the trips).
Oh yeah, the 40 MPG trips are on I-65 South, that's how I'm getting 40 MPG. It's downhill.
Maybe we can all lighten up instead of calling people liars? I average 29 MPG in my daily commute, so I'm wondering how someone could get 29 MPG on the highway if they were driving with any sort of steady speed (unless that speed was 90+ MPH).
One thing I have read though, if you are looking for power, is that there isn't much difference in acceleration between the 4 and 6, but that was a buyer review I read.
Below 50 MPH, the difference isn't all that much, but above that, punching it to pass a truck at 70 MPH, the V6 goes as if it were starting from a stop, where the I4 takes more time to build speed.
How is it that the friend that gets 34 mpg in the V-6 is reasonable to get 4 mpg over EPA highway, but anybody who gets 40 in a 4-cyl is lying about 6 mpg over EPA. 2 mpg is not a huge difference.
The only way to compare the mpg of your two friends accurately is to have them both drive the same trip at the same time.
The difference in what his friend got over sticker and what I got over sticker is a whopping 4%. (I got 17.6 % over EPA estimates, his friend got 13.3% over estimates). And for the division lesson, I got those numbers by dividing 40 into 34 (I4), and 34 into 30 (V6)
Just thought I'd throw some numbers out there to chew on.
I have seen claims on this board that some have gotten as high as 40 MPG on the 4. To that I say go back and learn how to divide.
The moderator would be quick to suggest that one should NOT make such a comment - but rather simply ignore posters who make claims that you find objectionable or unbelievable ! This can be difficult when the posters repeat the claim over and over, as if this somehow gives it some credibility.
daily commute is about 10 miles round trip, but even on longer city driving the mileage does not get any better. I have been driving for foty five years so i know how to compute mpg and this car is totally not right. It idles fine and the engine responds as it should but the mileage is just terrible.
About 6 stoplights.I have taken several long highway trips 200 miles round trip. Look I am not some teenager who jams on the gas when starting out or is a real aggressive driver so i know it is not my driving and this car is way off the estimates. As I have previously stated I got much better mileage with my previous car and it was a six cylinder. it just really frosts me when i see all these outragious claims for these 4 cyl cars. There must be something wrong with this particular one and I am 1005 confident the dealer is not going to address this issue.
...the south of California and the desert (NV/AZ) has come and gone.
My previous posts have indicated that the V-6 on the Interstate can post impressive numbers...............
Here is the significant leg: my '05 AV6 6M coupe pointed north Burbank to Lodi..........covered 355 miles in 5h/10m. Thats 68.5 mph. Used 9.1 gallons of RON 87. That's 39 mpg. Previous posts have surfaced the tuned-in word 'naysayers'.........cheez, if I wasn't there pumping the fuel and doing the calc's.... I would have trouble swallowing 39 for the V-6 myself.
It's true. Really. You 4-cylinder guys are OK. But you're not really the answer. (That's the Crown Royal talking; but the statement stands)..
3 drivers on this car. Used by me as a station car every 10 out of 15 weekdays. Just 1.5 miles each way. Terrible for mpg. Used by my wife as a commuter car every 5 out of 15 weekdays. Rountrip 65 miles per day, mostly highway. Pretty good for mpg. Used by my teenage daughter for driving practice on weekends. Not good for mpg. Used by me and my wife evenings and weekends for mixed highway/local driving to keep miles off other family cars. So so for mpg. Mpg going down since daughter started driving - many short local trips and practicing in parking lots. Used to average 24+mpg. Driving style (except for daughter) is fairly aggressive. Get up to speed quickly and then typically drive 10 to 25 mph above speed limits.
Before I bought my 03 V6 Accord I used to tell people who said their cars got over EPA estimates, they were either not calculating the mileage right, or were just plain lying (none of my previous cars got over EPA estimates). Taking trips from south Louisiana to Florida, I have had the chance to check it out for myself. I don't drive like grandpa on the interstate (80mph most of the way). Every time I calculate the mileage I come up with 33, 34, 32mpg. Since the EPA estimate for highway is 29mpg (and I don't think the EPA does 80mph with A/C on), I am eating my own words, and apologizing to those who I refused to believe before.
"Have the dealer to a mileage test - there is something wrong with the car." "Out of curiousity, how many rpm is your car doing at 60 mph on the highway?"
I plan to complain to the dealer but my experience is they will chalk it up to how I drive which is total BS. RPM's at 60, I think less than 2k.
I was just wondering if you were not locking in/or getting into top gear with numbers that bad. At about 2,000 rpm it sounds normal though.
Something is not right though.
I just took another trip today 100 miles each way. 65 mph average. 37.3 on the way there (cool start and some elevation change) and 40.0 on the way back. This is afer adjusting my scangauge down 5% (I think it is a little too much and will probably move it to 3%)
I hope you are measuring your mileage mathematically (miles on the trip odo/gallons pumped afterwards) to confirm your numbers. That's the purest way to get the most accurate MPG reading.
Yep, I do it mathmatically after every tank and it is always within a few percent. Problem is that the tank is big and the mileage is good so I can take a lot of trips (and have a lot of city driving) on one tank. Lifetime average is still just under 31 mpg after 2600 miles.
Actually I think there is more error in filling up than the there is in the scangauge (once dialed in). It is very repeatable when doing the same routes.
the thing is, the city mileage will vary considerably depending upon many conditions: driver style, traffic conditions, spacing / timing of lights, route...
generally, when people are trying to determine if their vehicle is operating properly, they drive on a long highway ride at nearly constant speed; maybe consuming a few back to back tanks, and average those results.
Just filled up my tank. 9.9 gallons 326 miles = 32.9 mpg. Scangauge indicated 32.0 mpg for the tank, so as I suspected, I may have overcompensated slightly when I adjusted the reading down. So, if anything, my last couple of trips were a tad better than indicated. A few more tanks and it will be calibrated as close as it can be. This tank was 40% very short trips (3 miles max) in the city and 60 percent highway.
Filled up at the same pump, same time of day, facing the same direction, same method and just about the same temperature.
BTW I am not used to gauges that are so conservative. I was 1 mark over 1/4 tank and it only takes 10 gallons for a 17.1 gallon tank.
Yeah, the gauges are really pessimistic in the Accords. The light comes on about 2 tickmarks above E and it still has nearly 4 gallons left. I usually go to where the gauge reads 1/8th of a tank, and it takes about 12 gallons to fill.
Nah, I have only gone 35 miles after the light. The car took over 14 gallons to fill. I have no desire to see just how far I can get. I'd rather keep a few "security gallons" in the tank all the time. It doesn't hurt any to keep the tank with a little reserve.
Well, I'm driving to Oklahoma Saturday with three friends. I imagine we'll fill up the car before it ever reaches the quarter mark, if only because we need to stop and pee! That's still over 400 miles though, which means I should only stop for gas ONCE in 700 miles (Birmingham, AL, to Oklahoma City). NICE!
Yeah, no guts, I know, but I've never run out of gas in my life (knock on wood, eh?)
after my light has gone on, i think i've driven almost 90miles max. do i get an award? :shades: not bright, I admit it.
it's gonna vary from car to car and the situation your in.
once i ran low (very) on gas out-of-state and realized i didn't have my wallet with me. good thing the people in the office i was visiting were kind and generous.
ahh, well, the point is, it will depend on many factors. i consider myself lucky. maybe they don't calculate the volume of the filler tube in the total capacity, you know?
i've been promising myself, i've got to start calculating my MPG. i've got a lot of receipts in the car with gallons pumped and miles driven going back a few years i think. i just haven't had the time to write it down. i think i'm getting something in the high 20s. not sure.
Dunno re the filler tube. I'm a first click kinda guy. I put in 16.6 so I was lucky. I'm driving at night after bass fishing and the stations can be 10 miles apart so it's helpful for me 2 know what my range is.
I filled up yesterday. A painful experience in the wallet, but quite delightful in that with the most recent tank I went 406.1 miles on 11.743 gallons of gas for a grand total mpg of about 35, some of you have done better, but this is really good for me.
It sounds like you have the 2.4 liter 4 cylinder engine, Am I correct? We purchased an accord SE model with the 2.4 two weeks ago and we have 200 miles on it and we used just short of a half a tank of gas. Everyone wants to take it around the block so the mileage is all short trips. First impression: excellent fit and finish, tight, no rattles or squeaks, easy to handle and very good brakes.
thegraduate: I'm curious as to what type of mileage you are now consistently getting (on the highway) with your 06 Accord EX 4-cyl Auto.
I am in the process of purchasing a new commuter vehicle (150 miles per day, 95% highway at 70 MPH), and have narrowed it down to an 07 Fit Sport manual, which is rated at 38 mpg highway, and based on the Fit Actual Mileage forum, most are attaining that. But with the special financing on the Accord (2.9 for 3 yrs), and the option of getting a Special Edition at Invoice for only a few thousand dollars more than the Fit selling at MSRP, I'm exploring the Accord option. But only if I can realistically get similar highway mileage.
Can you provide any insight on your experiences with highway mileage with your auto Accord? Would the manual Accord offer similar mileage (both are rated at 34 mpg highway).
I have a 2.2 liter VTEC. My car is a little older, a 95, but still it is a great little car. I hope you have a lot of good luck with you car. Have a great day.
mgutai: your commute sounds almost identical to mine (155 miles per day 95% highway with speeds at 70+)
I cannot speak from hands-on experience with the Accord as of yet, but I have been doing research for the past 3+ months and have read every post in the Accord forum. After looking into an abundance of cars including the Civic Hybrid, Toyota Prius, etc... I believe there is no better value/reliability for the $ than the Honda Accord right now due to the 08' models coming out soon, you can get an 07' model below invoice.
As for FE(Fuel Efficiency), with our similar commute and from what I have read on this and other forums I am anticipating getting 36-40 MPG If I were to purchase the Accord I4 5spd manual sedan model and 30-34 if I purchase the Accord v6 6spd manual sedan. These numbers are based on 155 miles w/ 95% highway at constant speeds of 65-75mph with California weather conditions. FYI...If anyone does have the above models and can counter this statement I would love to hear from you!
I believe that going manual vs. auto will slightly increase your FE, and give you the ability to throw it in neutral and coast on downhill areas or approaching stoplights to maximize FE(though, may not be the safest thing to do). Also, driving a manual will give you a tad quicker acceleration and is $700 cheaper (for the VP). But, if you have allot of stop-and-go traffic then a manual can become a burden.
Again, my FE statements are based on real world Accord users and their specific driving conditions, which I take as near fact when iterated over from multiple users and forums.
Comments
All the temp knob does is regulate the amount of warm outside air that is mixed in.
At least that is the theory. I researched it a little bit and some claim high fan speed some claim low. Just like some sites say windows down is better on the freeway and some say windows up with A/C is better.
As far as windows go, I do think an SUV at 55 is a far cry from an Accord at 70.
As to the AC questions ..... does it matter ? If it's hot I'm going to keep cool. With an economy car I'm not seeing a significant difference w/mpg.
Overall very pleased with the ride and handling. Extremely happy with gas mileage. Wish they could make an SUV (+ 6 passenger) that even came close.
Looking at a > 2006 Honda Pilot since they finally came out with 2WD and variable cylinder mgt.
That depends. If it is auto climate control, and the temperature is set lower than the outside temp, I don't think any warm air is mixed in. The compressor just cycles more or less, depending on the setting. With the old type temp control, I think you're right.
I researched it a little bit and some claim high fan speed some claim low.
I think fan speed makes little difference, one way or the other.
An Accord wagon would offer much more room with the same mpg, but the whole SUV thing ruins gas mileage. Look at the mpg of the CRV with the same engine. It is quite a bit worse.
Peugeot used to make an Accord sized wagon with three rows of forward facing seats - it can be done.
BTW that is amazing for that speed. Don't see how people can get less than 30 on the highway as some claim.
Cross-over SUVs are more accepted now. They have higher roofs, making the third row seat easier to access than in a wagon. Don't think we will ever see the Accord wagon again. It would be good for extra storage space, but not so much, for a third row seat.
My car just got the best mileage that I've been able to calculate. My brother drives my car every other weekend because he has to drive and pick up his child. A 240 mile round trip, his car an 85 Riviera aka gas hog. You can see why he takes mine. Anyway to the point, I just got back from the gas station and put 10.639 gallons of gas into the tank and there were 327.5 miles on the trip. So that comes to about 30.8 mpg. Very happy. I have a 95 Accord EXI4 in case anybody is wondering. Thought I'd share. Love my car. Wish I could get great mileage, but live too close to work, lots of short trips with cold engine. But I'm darned if I'll walk to work at 9:30 at night and back home at 6:30 the next morning, sorry to segue.
I just hope that it's true. My brother has this really annoying habit of resetting the trip meter even when he doesn't fill the thing to the top. Bothers me.
Now I know that wind resistance accounts for a great deal in influencing MPG. However I find it difficult to accept that the 4 gets significantly lower MPG then the 6. Also the final gear ratio is lower on the 4 then the 6 therefore the 4 cyl turns more RPMs then the 6 at any given speed.
I have seen claims on this board that some have gotten as high as 40 MPG on the 4. To that I say go back and learn how to divide. 40 MPG for a 4 Accord is impossible under normal driving conditions. However a 4 getting lower MPG then a 6 does not make sense.
Has anyone here experienced similar MPG results as what my friends did above? I am not talking about one trip. I am talking about consistent MPG numbers on several trips.
Has anyone here experienced considerably higher or lower MPG numbers then the posted EPA numbers? Again this is for an automatic transmission.
I am going to purchase an Accord and am trying to decide between the 4 or the 6. If the 6 gets MPG which is equal or better then the 4 then the choice for me is clear. But if the 4 consistently gets the EPA number of 34 MPG on the highway and the 6 gets only 29 MPG or less, I am going to select the 4.
Again do not promote mileage numbers on a short one time trip. I am looking for reliable numbers which were actually experienced on several trips.
"Both owners are 'very reliable'." What does that mean, exactly?
That doesn't even take in account any city driving where the 4 cylinder real world mileage advantage is greater.
You would need much more controlled conditions with two perfectly tuned cars or a large numbers of cars to make any useful claims.
As for saying that 40 mpg is impossible, how on earth would you know??? I'm sure thegrad will be giving you division lessons shortly.
I can't say anything about the newer cars because I don't have one, but would assume that advances in technology have probably pushed the mileage ratings a lot higher.
Good luck and I hope you make the right decision. Finally, have fun with your car when you do get it. I've heard that they are all fun to drive 4 or 6. One thing I have read though, if you are looking for power, is that there isn't much difference in acceleration between the 4 and 6, but that was a buyer review I read.
Once again good look. Sorry to ramble.
I would, but frankly, I'm afraid my head would get bitten off, since I'm lying about my mileage and have so much to gain by doing so :sick: .
I'm headed to Oklahoma next Saturday with three of my friends, to see my parents who recently moved to OKC. Round trip, that's 1,500 miles, with A/C, probably close to 80 MPH the whole time. I'm expecting 36 MPG or so MPG given the added 500 pounds, the A/C usage, the speeds that are about 8-10 MPH higher, and the fact that one of my friends will be helping me drive, as opposed to my typical trip to the beach which was getting me around 40MPG, because it is closer to 70 MPH, with less weight in the car (sometimes just me in it!), could be very conservative with my passing maneuvers, and didn't need the A/C (it has been early mornings when I've made the trips).
Oh yeah, the 40 MPG trips are on I-65 South, that's how I'm getting 40 MPG. It's downhill.
Maybe we can all lighten up instead of calling people liars? I average 29 MPG in my daily commute, so I'm wondering how someone could get 29 MPG on the highway if they were driving with any sort of steady speed (unless that speed was 90+ MPH).
Below 50 MPH, the difference isn't all that much, but above that, punching it to pass a truck at 70 MPH, the V6 goes as if it were starting from a stop, where the I4 takes more time to build speed.
The only way to compare the mpg of your two friends accurately is to have them both drive the same trip at the same time.
40 mpg is very doable in an Accord 4-cyl.
Just thought I'd throw some numbers out there to chew on.
The moderator would be quick to suggest that one should NOT make such a comment - but rather simply ignore posters who make claims that you find objectionable or unbelievable ! This can be difficult when the posters repeat the claim over and over, as if this somehow gives it some credibility.
I'm the only one who gets to do that!!
CR got the 4-cyl Accord at 16 mpg in the city, so lots of true city stop and go will not yield spectacular results.
The only way to test the car is to take a long highway drive at a reasonable and steady speed. City mileage just varies too much to compare.
Have the dealer to a mileage test - there is something wrong with the car.
Out of curiousity, how many rpm is your car doing at 60 mph on the highway?
My previous posts have indicated that the V-6 on the Interstate can post impressive numbers...............
Here is the significant leg: my '05 AV6 6M coupe pointed north Burbank to Lodi..........covered 355 miles in 5h/10m. Thats 68.5 mph.
Used 9.1 gallons of RON 87. That's 39 mpg. Previous posts have surfaced the tuned-in word 'naysayers'.........cheez, if I wasn't there pumping the fuel and doing the calc's.... I would have trouble swallowing 39 for the V-6 myself.
It's true. Really. You 4-cylinder guys are OK. But you're not really the answer. (That's the Crown Royal talking; but the statement stands)..
...good to be home..
.best, ez..
8,000 miles on it.
Averaging 22.68 mpg.
3 drivers on this car. Used by me as a station car every 10 out of 15 weekdays. Just 1.5 miles each way. Terrible for mpg. Used by my wife as a commuter car every 5 out of 15 weekdays. Rountrip 65 miles per day, mostly highway. Pretty good for mpg. Used by my teenage daughter for driving practice on weekends. Not good for mpg. Used by me and my wife evenings and weekends for mixed highway/local driving to keep miles off other family cars. So so for mpg. Mpg going down since daughter started driving - many short local trips and practicing in parking lots. Used to average 24+mpg. Driving style (except for daughter) is fairly aggressive. Get up to speed quickly and then typically drive 10 to 25 mph above speed limits.
What is the question?
BTW I want a 6th gear too.
"Out of curiousity, how many rpm is your car doing at 60 mph on the highway?"
I plan to complain to the dealer but my experience is they will chalk it up to how I drive which is total BS.
RPM's at 60, I think less than 2k.
Something is not right though.
I just took another trip today 100 miles each way. 65 mph average. 37.3 on the way there (cool start and some elevation change) and 40.0 on the way back. This is afer adjusting my scangauge down 5% (I think it is a little too much and will probably move it to 3%)
Actually I think there is more error in filling up than the there is in the scangauge (once dialed in). It is very repeatable when doing the same routes.
generally, when people are trying to determine if their vehicle is operating properly, they drive on a long highway ride at nearly constant speed; maybe consuming a few back to back tanks, and average those results.
Just filled up my tank. 9.9 gallons 326 miles = 32.9 mpg. Scangauge indicated 32.0 mpg for the tank, so as I suspected, I may have overcompensated slightly when I adjusted the reading down. So, if anything, my last couple of trips were a tad better than indicated. A few more tanks and it will be calibrated as close as it can be. This tank was 40% very short trips (3 miles max) in the city and 60 percent highway.
Filled up at the same pump, same time of day, facing the same direction, same method and just about the same temperature.
BTW I am not used to gauges that are so conservative. I was 1 mark over 1/4 tank and it only takes 10 gallons for a 17.1 gallon tank.
Yeah, no guts, I know, but I've never run out of gas in my life (knock on wood, eh?)
it's gonna vary from car to car and the situation your in.
once i ran low (very) on gas out-of-state and realized i didn't have my wallet with me. good thing the people in the office i was visiting were kind and generous.
i've been promising myself, i've got to start calculating my MPG. i've got a lot of receipts in the car with gallons pumped and miles driven going back a few years i think. i just haven't had the time to write it down. i think i'm getting something in the high 20s. not sure.
I filled up yesterday. A painful experience in the wallet, but quite delightful in that with the most recent tank I went 406.1 miles on 11.743 gallons of gas for a grand total mpg of about 35, some of you have done better, but this is really good for me.
Just thought I'd share.
We purchased an accord SE model with the 2.4 two weeks ago and we have 200 miles on it and we used just short of a half a tank of gas. Everyone wants to take it around the block so the mileage is all short trips.
First impression: excellent fit and finish, tight, no rattles or squeaks, easy to handle and very good brakes.
I am in the process of purchasing a new commuter vehicle (150 miles per day, 95% highway at 70 MPH), and have narrowed it down to an 07 Fit Sport manual, which is rated at 38 mpg highway, and based on the Fit Actual Mileage forum, most are attaining that. But with the special financing on the Accord (2.9 for 3 yrs), and the option of getting a Special Edition at Invoice for only a few thousand dollars more than the Fit selling at MSRP, I'm exploring the Accord option. But only if I can realistically get similar highway mileage.
Can you provide any insight on your experiences with highway mileage with your auto Accord? Would the manual Accord offer similar mileage (both are rated at 34 mpg highway).
Thank you.
I cannot speak from hands-on experience with the Accord as of yet, but I have been doing research for the past 3+ months and have read every post in the Accord forum. After looking into an abundance of cars including the Civic Hybrid, Toyota Prius, etc... I believe there is no better value/reliability for the $ than the Honda Accord right now due to the 08' models coming out soon, you can get an 07' model below invoice.
As for FE(Fuel Efficiency), with our similar commute and from what I have read on this and other forums I am anticipating getting 36-40 MPG If I were to purchase the Accord I4 5spd manual sedan model and 30-34 if I purchase the Accord v6 6spd manual sedan. These numbers are based on 155 miles w/ 95% highway at constant speeds of 65-75mph with California weather conditions.
FYI...If anyone does have the above models and can counter this statement I would love to hear from you!
I believe that going manual vs. auto will slightly increase your FE, and give you the ability to throw it in neutral and coast on downhill areas or approaching stoplights to maximize FE(though, may not be the safest thing to do). Also, driving a manual will give you a tad quicker acceleration and is $700 cheaper (for the VP). But, if you have allot of stop-and-go traffic then a manual can become a burden.
Again, my FE statements are based on real world Accord users and their specific driving conditions, which I take as near fact when iterated over from multiple users and forums.