-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Comments
And the manual is quicker and much more fun to drive... and that includes driving in heavy traffic, IMHO.
Interesting...assuming you do not use CC in a manual, is it safe to say you can maintain a highway speed at a lower RPM than that in an auto - which in turn provides a greater FE?
In an automatic, the car will shift down to a lower gear with CC on if you come to a hill, for example. There is no way to do that automatically in a manual so they make a 5th gear with higher revs so the engine can keep up if one approaches that same hill.
Again, I don't agree with it but based on what others have posted elsewhere, almost all manufacturers do it that way.
Filled up at the same pump, put in the same 1.1 gallons after the first click while pumping on the slowest notch on the pump handle. Put in a total of 13.3 gallons. That is 41.3 mpg.
Lifetime average is now at 31.6 mpg for 3,700 miles.
Cruise was set at 65, temp was high 50's early to high 70's. Very limited A/C use ( I suffered a little for the good numbers
The scangauge only indicated 39.5 mpg for the trip, but I had already dialed it back by 4.7%. Add the 4.7% back in, and it is right back at 41.3 mpg.
When I filled up there were still two ticks left before the tank was on E and the light had not even flickered once (4+ gallons were left). I had gone 345 miles just as the tank indicated half full.
One note regarding the higher rpm of the manual at highway speeds. All things being equel a low rpm is better for mpg, but throttle angle is what determines fuel use, so a vehicle that is turning slightly higher rpms's but is revving extremely easily may get better mpg than a vehicle running lower rpms, but is lugging every so slightly (requiring more throttle to get up hlls etc.)
The advantage of the automatics gearing will be most apparent at the highest speeds.
BTW to illustrate how conditions effect mpg. Last time I tood this trip driving the same speed I got 33 mpg. The temp was 15 degrees and it was extremely windy, with some snow in spots.
.....at odo 34.5, my AV6 6M fuel efficiency numbers look like this: around the state capital (30C/70FWY) mean - 27.5, median 27.4, mode 27.8.
...point to point freeway driving has shown particularly stellar numbers, the most notable was deep in the flat-ess Arizona desert enroute from Phoenix to Yuma: 39.3
...Over 33 highway is routine. Multiple freeway trips have repeatedly calc'd above 34 (35, 36, and 38).
As an aside, were I not there pumping the fuel and performing the calculations, I would doubt these numbers.
But it's true. Those Honda engineers get my vote.
cheers, ez...
I coasted to the stop signs - there are about 4 or 5 times where a highway just ends and you have to make a turn. This trip does not really have any hills for coasting, so I was on cruise control just about all the time.
The Accord does coast quite well though. Going 65 mph I can pop into neutral 1 mile from a stop sign on level ground (if nobody is too close behind me).
Do you use any Hypermilling techniques for those numbers?
Also, does the coupe have an advantage for FE than the sedan?
I'm wondering if tread depth can affect mileage at all? Also, at what tread depth should you replace tires? I've never had a car more than about 7 months and haven't had to deal with it before. I'm only 19 and know some of the smaller stuff, but tires I'm at a complete loss. As of right now my tires are going about 6/32.
Any responses would be great.
....'geek, I'm no foamer(hypermiler)...just an average joe with a healthy respect for manual transmissions, Honda engineering capabilties and Crown Royal.....no particular order shown.
Sedan versus coupe fuel economy questions are way beyond my Naval Reserve pay grade.
cheers, ez..
many tires now have tire wear bars - i think if the wear bars are at the same level of the tread, you should replace them.
even before you see lincoln's hairline, or the wear bars, you need to consider you're more likely to hydroplane if you aren't displacing the water via the openings in the tread pattern... so slow down. :shades:
Thank you for your responses.
I got home TODAY (and am very tired!) from a round trip to Oklahoma City from Birmingham, AL. The highway part is 700 miles each way, 1400 total, with over 200 miles on U.S. highways (not interstates). With approximately 700 pounds in the car (three of us and luggage for five days of vacation), we got an overall average of 35.46 MPG. I wasn't the only one driving my car (my best friend is a little less fuel conscious, but not too racy). Conditions, you may ask?
-Heavy rain for much of the trip
-Temps in the 70s, low 80s
-Air Conditioning on the full time (to prevent fogging)
-33PSI in the tires
-Started with 70% oil life, ended with 40%
-20,400 miles on the car
-Highway speed usually pegged on 75MPH, with some fluctuations around Little Rock, Arkansas, and Memphis, Tennessee; included several situations where one of us had to really get on it to pass and safely keep on our route.
When conditions are perfect, I get around 40 MPG. Detriments to the mileage would be 500 lbs more than normal weight, continuous A/C useage, higher speeds (I get 40 MPG closer to 70 MPH), and rainfall (higher friction, more wind with storms).
These are conditions in which anyone can get 35+ MPG. I did, and my friend did too, with me riding along.
Did this trip yield 40 MPG? Nah, conditions weren't right. Am I more than pleased? You betcha, especially when I filled up for $3.06 today in Oklahoma City, and made it to Memphis before refueling (yes, that's 500 miles).
Maybe my car is particularly good at getting great mileage, but getting 35-36 MPG required no effort at all. No special driving, no running with no A/C, no sacrificing speed/passing for mileage.
i think elroy5 has it right. btw, you'll see the wear bars before you get to minimal tread depth, but the time to be looking for a good replacement tire that meets or exceeds what you currently have on the car is now.
www.tirerack.com does have GREAT information on comparing tires. read some of the comments from purchasers and decide how much you are willing to spend.
if it were me, and i was replacing all 4, i would make sure the change involved tire balancing (of course) and an alignment. so be looking at the additional cost of alignment in the tally. there will probably be disposal fees, stem, etc.
right now, I have Michelin Harmony's on my '02 and am generally pleased with them. they've given me 30K+ of service thus far, and look like they might give me another 15K or so. not bad.
have fun learning about tires!
did the price via discount tire include alignment? personally, "free lifetime rotation doesn't get me all interested".
for a bit more per tire ($20) I might go with the michelin pilot exaltos.
so anyway, i can't answer your question - only you can. do you want someone to pick the tire for you? i didn't think so.
why not go on tirerack and see what other people are saying about the tire you currently have on the car, and what you might consider in it's place. if the tire was perfectly fine for you, you probably need not look further...
Phil on a trip from Baltimore to Minneapolis got just over 34 MPG with cruise control set at 70 MPH.
Tim who recently drove from Baltimore to Albany NY got just over 30 MPG with cruise control set between 70 and 75 MPH.
I was surprised that the V6 got well over 10% better MPG then the 4 cyl.
Can you tell me if you ever got 40 MPG or in the high 30s MPG (38 or 39MPG) on your 4 cyl and under what conditions was that achieved? Was it for a sustained number of miles such a 100 or more miles? Or was it for short distances such as less then 10 miles?
I have an LS430 2002 Lexus with a 295 HP engine. Generally the MPGs on a long trip on interstate highways is about 26 to 28 MPG with the cruise set on 70 MPH. However with the cruise set on 50 MPH on a level road I have gotten 40 MPG for short trips of less then 10 miles.
The MPG you got on your recent trip of just over 34 I think is the predicted EPA sticker number. But I wonder about the 40 MPG you claim.
My best full tank on the highway was 41.3 mpg over 549 miles (details above). Average just over 31 mpg over the 3,500 miles I have had the car, and my driving is small town short trips/stop and go 7 days a week with a long highway trip a few times a month.
Drivers and conditions make a huge difference in mpg. Funny, since I have the scangauge installed in the cubby below the HVAC all of my kids can see it when I drive. They are always making a game of how many mpg we get on the way to school etc. Instead of saying "Dad floor it" like I used to, they are always saying "Dad don't use the gas", because they can see the numbers go down every time I accelerate.
I have to make a 1,200 mile trip on the interstates in a few weeks. We will see what higher speeds does for my mileage.
I have an LS430 2002 Lexus with a 295 HP engine. Generally the MPGs on a long trip on interstate highways is about 26 to 28 MPG with the cruise set on 70 MPH. However with the cruise set on 50 MPH on a level road I have gotten 40 MPG for short trips of less then 10 miles.
Never trust a mileage figure where less than 5 gallons were used. The margin for error is WAY too high, and the "instant readout MPG" part of the trip computer isn't the best. Doing your own math is.
My 40 MPG claim was in perfect conditions, so don't think I got it by driving 85 MPH with the A/C blasting. Light wind, no A/C needed, only me in the car, 70MPH cruise. I filled up the tank next to the highway both times, so the only time my car wasn't in top gear at 70MPH was on the on-ramp, and the off-ramps, next to the gas stations.
Throw in some speed fluctuations, A/C use, more weight, (or all three like I just did on my trip, in a major way) and your mileage will go down.
Took a 200 mile trip today. 100 miles each way at 65 mph with cruise control on hilly rural roads. I checked my mileage with a scangauge II (this has always been within +/- 5% of my hand calculations).
The the way there I was heading W into a NW wind, so I was being pushed back and to the left. The wind was quite strong at a steady 40 mph. My gas mileage was horrible at just over 30 mpg.
On the way back the wind was behind me and pushing me to the right. The wind had dropped a little to about 30 mph. It was definately helping, but it was still pushing me off the road. My mileage for this leg was right at 44 mpg, also driving at 65 mph with the cruise control. Previous trips of this same route have usually been between 37 and 41 mpg.
So if I was one to complain I would say the car stinks and only gets 30 mpg on the highway. If I were to brag I would say it got 44 mpg. Wind makes a big difference.
Temp makes as big a difference as I have mentioned previously.
YMMV
Wind can indeed be a big factor (as you've just illustrated). One might think that a .29 drag co-efficient usually would tend to mimimize wind effects on mpg. However - - - as you've shown - - - headwinds et al.....are to be taken seriously....
....cheers....
eZ
The sedan's drag coefficient is listed at 0.30 on the website I believe. But, the difference in air-speed (if he drove directly into the wind and out of the wind on the trips each way) would vary by as much as 80 MPH, with the trip there returning mileage as if her was going 105 MPH (65 MPH road speed + 40 MPH headwind pushing against), while the trip home would have an "airspeed" of 25 MPH (65 - 40 MPH tailwind). Of course, it is unlikely that the wind was DIRECTLY at the head and tail of the car on these trips, but even reducing it by half menas the different in pushing the car at an equivalent of 85 MPH (at which my 4-cyl Accord gets about 30-31 MPG) and 45 MPH (which I've never managed for a long distance).
You can imagine it would make a difference. You are right, they are to be taken seriously. That's why the "your mileage may vary" should probably read "your mileage will vary."
One point I about the accuracy of the car's on board computer in computing MPG. I have found that consistently the MPG computed by the on board computer are very accurate, if not dead on.
The LS430 uses 91 octane fuel which is not available at the pump. The only way to get it is to mix 1/3 87 octane with 2/3 93 octane. I do this on a regular basis and this saves me the usual 20 cents difference between the 87 and 93 octane fuels on each fillup. If the computer indicates the tank average is 18.7 MPG, I merely divide that number in the number of miles traveled which is usually about 250 miles. In this example the result would be 13.36 gallons. In doing a fillup the pump usually auto cuts off at about 12+ gallons and then the additional 1+ gallon has to be coaxed into the count. In all I am able to get 13.36 gallons if that is the overall indicated amount used. I am mentioning this since I have found the mileage computer to be consistently very accurate. Perhaps this is not the case with other brands of cars but my LEXUS LS430 computer is accurate.
As for the reason in choosing a 4 or 6 cyl Accord. Yes the 6 does provide better performance but except for passing on a two lane road the performance of a V6 is not needed. At least that is my opinion. Once I reach cruising speed of 65 to 70 on an interstate highway the extra power of the V6 is not needed. Perhaps all of this is a moot point since for 2008 the Accord's V6 will have variable displacement technology which will shut off 3 of the 6 cylinders at cruising speed. Because of that feature I am leaning more to waiting to purchase a 2008 V6 Accord. I know that since the 2008 Accord will be newly designed I will not be able to get as good a deal on the 2008 as I am now able to get on a 2007 model. But the 3/6 cylinder switching I am expecting will result in highway MPGs similar or close to the current 4 cylinder. Time will tell.
Thanks again for your reply.
I'm not sure how meaningless they are. If conditions are favorable, and I drive conservatively and alone in the car, I get 40 MPG or so at 70-72 MPH. If my car is loaded, with A/C, and I pay no attention to how cautiously I accelerate etc... I STILL get above EPA estimates (as evidenced by my trip to Oklahoma).
It may not be useful if you never plan to maximaize your mileage, but I imagine at least a few people searching out Accord MPGs online will be trying to get the most mileage for their buck, especially since the big news story today is gas being at a record high in the country.
Talk about your mileage may vary. Those who can keep their car running on 3 cylinders for long distances will get much much better mileage than those who can't. To me, that would just suck all the fun out of driving.
Would the thought of being able to run on just 3 cylinders change the way you drive? Would it bother you every time you accelerate?
If you don't, then just keep flooring the pedal and deal with it at the pump.
..ez..
If so, they most likely have it set so you can at least maintain the highway speed limit on 3 cylinders.
Most likely it would also been tuned to maximize the results achieved in EPA mileage testing and counteract some of the loss of the new 2008 mileage calculations.
If you want to drive 80 or do alot of passing and aggressive driving, you won't benefit.
.....point well taken.
(.....that's why a little diesel trucklet lurks alongside my AV6 6M). Circa 50 horsepower;55 fwy mpg capable.......
Like to see some of that magic on a six-speed manual shift Accord while remaining sub-6 second 0-60/14.5 1/4-mile capable?
Read my lipps: VCM (it's coming!).
..cheerz..(Crown Royal)
..ez..
Filled up again. 443 miles 13.1 gallons pumped (usual drill) calculated to 33.8 mpg. Scangauge reported 34.2 mpg. (within a couple percent as usual). Lifetime average is creeping towards 32 mpg after 4,000 total miles.
I wrote down a little more data off of the computer this time. My average speed for the tank was 34 mph, and I spent 12.7 hours driving for the tank. Now I took two highway trips on this tank for a total of 340 miles.
On the surface it seems like the tank was just over 75% highway driving, as is the case if I figure the percentage by miles driven. However if I compare the time spent driving on the highway vs stop and go short trips in town it is a different story. My 340 miles took a little under 6 hours which means about 45% of my driving time was on the highway.
So while I spent more miles on the highway I spent more time driving in the city. This is partly why people can vary so much when they say how much highway driving they do for a tank - depends on how they figure it.
I think it is more valid to compare the time vs the miles as seems to be evidenced by my 34 mph average speed.
Warm weather and reducing my speed helped me hit 40.9 when I filled up. I drove around town after arriving at my destination (over 250 freeway miles) so it would have been higher. When I got off the freeway, the navi trip computer showed over 42.
The moonroof was open the whole trip but I didn't use the AC. I did have to cross a couple of mountain passes though. I tried to keep my speed around 60-65.
Kidding about the shirts, not about the welcome.
It is a neat feeling getting such mileage in such a large comfortable car, isn't it?
I drove my Accord hard a couple of weeks ago (2.4L, 5AT). Lots of city time, one 90 minute trip that took me a whopping 8 miles (that's HORRIBLE for mileage). Total mileage? 26 MPG. YUCK! I've never had such bad mileage. I knew it was gonna be a rough tank when my needle started dropping from its perch above the "F" line within 20 miles. It usually takes about 40 miles to line up evenly with the "F" line.
I shouldn't be as hard on the car this time, just back to regular old 30 MPG.
After 2 years and 31000 miles, I finally took an all highway trip this weekend. 450 miles one way and got 39.85 mpg. Can I round up to 40 MPG? No A/C and cruise set at 74 mph for most of the trip. On the way home, A/C on and a different route with about 50 miles on two lane roads and about 6 full throttle passes mileage dropped to 34.68 mpg. I also had cruise set at 80 mph once back on the interstate.
Also glad I went with the larger Accord (over Civic, Mazda3 et all) since we have actually taken it on a 400 mile day trip with the whole family (2 adults 3 kids). Driving the Accord instead of the minivan saved $20 in gas in just one day.
Off topic, but it gives me sick feeling everytime I see a brand new full sized SUV/truck with temporary tags. What are these people thinking. I figured it would cost me $4,000+ per year in gasoline to drive one of those rigs - that is insane. As it is I am already looking forward to a diesel Accord - it could save close to $50 per month in fuel. Hope they 1)keep it affordable and 2)have a stick shift available.
The van gets the heavy duty travel when we bring everything including the kitchen sink.
I still have never taken a long, steady highway trip with the Accord, but a few weeks ago I took a trip that included a couple hundred highway miles, at varying speeds and traffic (gotta love the NJ highways!), and backing out the around town portion I estimate I got around 33 on the travel part.
Now that the weather has warmed up, I am still getting around 25-26 per tank, but that is in real short hop, stop and go, rarely on a highway for more than a few miles.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Loren