Honda Accord Real World MPG

ezshift5

..roger that. Guess I'm a living testimonial to the Navy concept of redundancy. It's hard for a leopard to change it's spots...........................

Not to lose focus: that's still great fuel efficiency........

best, ez..

stickguy

someday maybe I will get a chance to take my '05 on a long, steady highway trip. I am curious to see what kind of mileage I can get.

I think the best single tank I had was about 34, but I rarely get out on the highway (mostly use it around town), and the highways in NJ that I do take are not condusive for good mileage!

mattgg1

dudleyr -

How long have you been driving with 39 psi tire pressure, and what are your thoughts on using such a high PSI?

I've got a 2006 SE Auto, which I beleive specifies 32 Front/30 Rear. I run with 35 PSI at all four tires, and have been satisfied with ride/handling/gas mileage. However, I bumped up the PSI almost immediately after buying, so I can't really compare to the factory settings.

How are the ride/handling characteristics at 39 PSI. How much, if any, boost does that give to your gas mileage?

dudleyr

I bumped up the pressure right away so I cant really say how it compares to beforehand. The ride is a little rougher I imagine, but it is still quite a bit better than my Integra was, so no complaints.

The higher pressure (still well within the 44 psi max on the sidewall) stiffins the sidewall and makes handling a little crisper. It probably adds a mile or two per gallon in the right conditions. It really helps the car coast well. It also improves tire life as higher pressure tires flex less and don't heat up as much. Heat is what wears out a tire.

Of course the Firestone tire debacle is an extreme example of this. Pressure was too low tires heated up so much that they disintegrated. I have had a tire disentegrate on me in the desert (20 years ago in Egypt) - it is no fun.

Look in the owners manual of a European BMW or Benz and it will tell you to inflate to higher pressures for autobahn cruising and heavy loads (they reccomend 41 front and 48 rear on the 530i).

Depending on the weight of the car and the pressure, it may look like the center is wearing faster, but in reality the edges are just wearing very slowly.

Some of the hypermilers run at 50 psi without problems, but I would not take it that far.

To put it in perspective Lance Armstrong runs 120+ psi in his vehicle - with delicate 1" wide tires.

brgokey

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back.
My past honda Accord (2003) averaged about 25-30

On strickly highway the car averages 34-36...really fine mileage.
However, in strickly city driving, I get 14-15. Boston is very flat. Not many hills. Lots of lights and lots of slow, stop and go driving. But, I'm so aware of MPG that I NEVER accelerate hard, etc... I do what the manual says.

Last week I drove some city and about 60% of the time on highway driving. I averaged, at the end only 24.3 mpg.
City alone 14-15. I'm SOOOOOOO disappointed in the car.

Hope someone has some ideas.
Brian

blufz1

I think your car is ok if you got 24mpg w 60/40 highway. That's within the normal range. If your city is 15 then you must have been approaching 30 on the hi way portion. Seems average 2 me.

thegraduate

Your highway mileage averaging ABOVE epa estimates means your car isn't your problem. Its your city driving (not your fault, just the traffic wreaking havoc on your mileage).

Remember, for every second you are stopped, you are throwing 0 MPG into your average. I imagine in a large city like Boston, Mass you have a LOT of stop and go. This is HORRIBLE for gas mileage, especially the "stop" part. Buck up, and don't be disappointed in your car. If your car was the problem, you wouldn't be capable of mileage figures that EXCEED the EPA estimates.

dudleyr

One way to put it in perspective is to compare the time you are in traffic to the time on the highway. This will give a better representation of the percentage than comparing the miles.

Pure city traffic really brings the mileage down. Stop and go is not much better than idleing.

Tell us how many miles you drive in a day of your pure city driving and how much time it takes. What is the max speed during your pure city driving? That will tell a lot about your commute.

jaxs1

If you sit in a lot of traffic, hybrids are best.

brgokey

Thanks for the responses. All good points. When I realized I was doing well on pure highway driving, I figured that the car was actually doing OK. But, I did assume that stop and go driving is in fact what city driving should be and I expected around 20...not 15 or 16 which is 1/3 less than advertised. I love the car otherwise. I thought about a Prius or a Civic Hybrid---the Accord was just so much more comfortable. And so it goes...

dudleyr

I know it is small consolation, but just look at the people next to you in their Explorers et al and know that they are getting under 10 mpg in those conditions.

wise1

I bumped up the tire pressure on my SE soon after purchase and am averaging 30 mpg city can't say much for highway driving yet. The ride is a bit harsh and the road noise is loud but when the michelins are replaced at a later time maybe I'll find a tire that is much quieter. I run all 4 tires at 39 psi. 28 psi for the fronts are just too soft for a car this heavy. These tires sure do pick up a lot of rocks-MXV4. Is this the standard brand of tires on all the SE's?? When it comes time to replace them do any of you have any experience with a same size replacement?? The 06 and 07 accords are the same aren't they?? :shades:

blufz1

My '02 Accord V6 EXL was "beating me" so I got some Goodyear assurance comfort treads when the oems were gone at 48k. Quieter and much smoother ride. They don't handle as well as the MXV4 tire. $400 80k warranty. Hope this helps.

elroy5

I bought some Bridgestone Turanza's and they are quieter, smoother, and have a lot more grip (especially on wet roads). But, there is a drawback. The Turanza's have me averaging 3mpg less than the MXV4's. The Michelin MXV4's are designed for high mileage. The Turanza's are not. What's more important to you? Better tires, or better mileage?

bvdj84

Does it hurt your tire to put more air in the tire than required? Does it make it more dangerous? Also does it cause them to wear more? is the 28psi the required air for the SE tires which I believe are michellin arent they?

I really like the firm suspension on the accord! In fact I would like for it to be a bit more firm. I like to feel the road!

elroy5

Does anyone do tire testing for mileage? Like we need more things to consider when buying tires. :confuse:

blufz1

Same thing on my 02. The goodyears were 1.5 mpg less than the oem Michelins, but when when you are being beaten by your car you just want it to stop.

dudleyr

The SE also has Bridgestone tires - that is what mine came with. They do pretty well with mileage, but I do think the Michelin's are the best at that.

My Bridgestones also pick up a lot of stones.

Consumer Reports tests tires every year or so, and they indicate which ones have the lowest rolling resistance.

blacktop986s

'07 Accord EX-L 4 cyl sedan, automatic transmission. Two months old and just turned over 4,000 miles. On a trip this weekend along I-81 to I-77 averaged 35.0 mpg on the southbound leg, averaged over 300 miles of driving and with one rest stop.

On the northbound leg over 275 miles and 100% highway driving average 40.6 mpg. Pleasantly surprised. I maintained roughly 71 mph and had the a/c on, no rest stops. Once I hit the city and did another 50 minutes of stop and go driving, the mileage dropped to an overall average of 38.0.

Normally with half city and half highway I get around 26 mpg. With 85% highway driving I average aroun 30 mpg.

blufz1

Thanks for the CR reference. Stay smooth.

thegraduate

Just returned from a FANTASTIC weekend in Gulf Shores. I went with a friend of mine, and we took my 2006 EX (cloth) Accord 5AT.

Going down, we only got 32 MPG, but, having sat in traffic for nearly an hour (not topping 25 MPH in that hour), and having my regular commute from two days before (about 70 miles worth), it wasn't half bad. Also, I didn't drive my typical 75 MPH. We had to maintain closer to 80-85 MPH with a couple of stints above 90 due to the insane speeds that people on I-65 were driving.

Also, back home today, I filled up after work (about 35 miles total), which also had the remnants of the trip (250 hwy miles at 80 MPH) and I got 34.8 MPG.

This is with me, my friend, and our stuff (probably close to 450 lbs between it all), and the A/C on 100% of the time.

I'm pleased yet again.

Oil life is at 20% now, time to get serviced soon!

georgporsche

Well...I'm extremely pleased to say that I have joined the 40mpg club today. I have a 2007 VP auto I4. I filled up with 281.7 miles on the odometer, and it took 7.01 gallons!

I had been averaging around 36mpg...mostly highway, some stop and go. The only thing that is different, is that I finally changed the old factory oil and put in synthetic (Pennzoil because it was on sale). I dont think this would make a difference, but I'll keep an eye on this.

ezshift5

..pleased to say that I have joined the 40mpg club..

I'm impressed. (4 cylindros nonwithstanding, you have joined a painfully small fraternity....)

I have tried repeatedly to no avail.

I have a good excuse (V6 6M)...but I keep trying - - (39 twice). Numerically close but I'm afraid a long way from the 40 MPG barrier..........

..best..

.ez.

thegraduate

What georgporsche should be REALLY happy about is that he's averaging better highway mileage than many Fit owners, in a MUCH larger, nicer, and more powerful car to boot.

I didn't get near 40 MPG this time, but I must say I didn't drive in a way that anybody could call prudent.

davidd3

Averaging 23.17mpg over the past 7 months and 7,500 miles, with a high of 28.5 (mostly highway) and a low of 18.1 (mostly city and laps in parking lots).

Car is used by wife 1 out of every 3 weeks to drive to work (65 miles roundtrip, mostly highway).

Car is used by me 2 out of every 3 weeks to drive to the train station (3 miles roundtrip, city).

Car is used for teaching teenage daughter how to drive - started in parking lots.

Car is used by anyone weeknights and weekends for whatever and for driving practice.

walterquint

40mpg!! Makes you wonder why anyone would get a Civic. The Accord gets almost as good mileage.

I don't see the Accord v6 lasting much longer. It's a superb engine but it never sold much. (Even the hybrid version was dumped.)

jaxs1

Because whatever type of driving gave you 40 mpg in an Accord, would give you higher mpg in the Civic. 40 mpg is way over the EPA estimates for the Accord and extremely few people will attain it.

dudleyr

The Accord is quite close to the Civic in highway driving, but in the City the Civic will do much better.

tallman1

I don't see the Accord v6 lasting much longer. It's a superb engine but it never sold much.

I am a huge fan of the I4 but I highly doubt that Honda is going to dump the V6 anytime soon. (And there will be some V6 fans who will be here soon to REALLY disagree with you.)

bvdj84

Yes, that is a car manufacturers passion on creating a better and efficient engine, and that is including an awesome v6. Also they dump time and effort to create the wonderful I4 engine. Actually though a bit more expensive, the honda V6 is not much more inefficient than the I4. The V6 will suprise you on how well it does, but only with a easy driver behind the wheel. Also keep in mind the I4 is catching up with the v6 power ratings in the past, you can pretty much get by with most 4cyl(depending on the car)engines. The 4cyl is not as lacking as it was in the past, and are willing to put up a tough fight. I have noticed the newer accord 4cyl is geared towards efficiency, if built for pure performance. WOW! imagine that. It'd be awesome!! I am though thinking of the 6cyl for the next 08 accord.

thegraduate

Exactly. I've gotten 40 MPG on two tanks over 22,000 miles in my '06 Accord 2.4L EX Automatic. Over those tanks, I'm very careful to keep my speed under 75 MPH (usually average 72 MPH), and I have literally NO stop and go - I fillup near the interstate, and then refuel near the interstate.

With the Civic, I'd imagine 45 MPG would be attainable if driven in the same manner as I drive my Accord to get such numbers.

I must mention, that I drove without caring about my mileage on my last trip (I also had the A/C on 100% of the time, and an extra person from normal). I averaged around 80 MPH, and got 35 MPG. Quite a big drop from 40 MPG. Just goes to prove that a HUGE factor in MPG is driving style.

dudleyr

Here is an excellent summary of some gas saving tips posted in the Fit mpg forum by jkandell.

http://kandell.googlepages.com/mpg2232

blufz1

Ah yes, the 40 mpg club is in session. Grad,watch out for those 11 year olds on a sugar buzz,I can't always get your back. Dudley, no more death defying downhill coasts, windows down because of the 80mph tail wind you are try to milk. It'll damage you window tracking.

thegraduate

HAHA...

Have a great weekend!

blufz1

Great article. Thanks,man.

blufz1

You too........and be careful.

bikerider7

I am wondering why I should by a civic. I recently went on a road trip in my '03 accord LX 4 cyl automatic and was trying for hypermileage. Bike in the trunk (no rack), Colorado mountains (only a little a/c), tires pumped up to 40, gentle driving, lots of descents in neutral. Got 39 MPG and that included 70 miles of unpaved roads in a 460 mile trip. I have heard that an accord will get 50 mpg if driven at 50-55 mph on flat highway at sea level.

Anyway, I was thinking of buying a new civic in Sept. That would mean having to take off my seat post, in addition to the front wheel, to fit my bike in the trunk. Will I get much better mileage in the civic? It is amazing to me what low rpms the accord 5A achieves when driven gently. Anyone have any experience with civic hypermileage?

thegraduate

In the city, the Civic will likely give you a noticeable improvement in mileage, but on the highway, the Accord and Civic are way to comparable to warrant selling your Accord to get a Civic for the improvement. The Civic would probably buy you a couple of MPG highway, but nothing drastic. Throw in the Accord's more torquey engine, roomier interior, and more family-friendly attributes, and the Accord simply wins for me (in spite of the Civic's superior "flingability" handling-wise). This, from a soon-to-be 20 year old college junior. I love my Accord EX (cloth automatic), and like it much better than my dad's 2007 Civic EX.

dudleyr

Just back from a 527 mile round trip.

2007 Accord I4 SE MT. Mobil One oil 39 psi.

43.8 mpg.

This is on rural 2 lane highways. Started out going 65 with the A/C, then got bit by the bug and turned off the A/C and slowed down to 60 mph (61 on the speedo - gps was 60). Reasonable on these lightly travelled roads. I think that is about as slow as I can manage for any length of time

Highlight - 51.5 mpg over 40 miles with a stiff tailwind (this is with a warm engine and a running start as recorded on the scangauge - including warming up and getting to speed the mileage was 47.8).

Lowlight - thunder storm with very heavy rain had to slow down to 50-55 mph and still only got low 30's for about 10 miles.

Used cruise control, but did glide trough small towns.

Even after 527 miles the fuel gauge was between the third and fourth tick. 325 miles at midpoint.

Three biggest factors for mpg.

Wind
Speed
Temperature

I was lucky to have a tailwind for more than half of the trip, the temp was warm enough for good efficiency but cool enough to require minimal A/C use.

dudleyr

1000.

Couldn't resist.

marcwd

Hi Dudley,

Thanks for the trip report. Impressive mileage!

How low, BTW, was your mileage during the time at the beginning of your trip when your speed was 65 and you had the AC on?

Regarding the Scangauge, how easy have you found it to calibrate? I suppose you've seen Wayne Gerdes' review of the Scangauge on cleanmpg.com. He does like the product, but he says that, as the Scangauge doesn't monitor fuel usage directly, but rather airflow, it does require regular re-calibration as external conditions (ie, temperature) change. What's been your experience with this?

Also, how often does the Scangauge update the instantaneous mpg display? This mode would seem to be the tool's most useful. Can you easily correlate fast-changing adjustments in driving behavior with fuel usage?

And now that you've had the Scangauge for awhile, do you feel that it continues to be a very useful tool for adjusting your driving habits for fuel savings in ways that you wouldn't otherwise be aware of?

dudleyr

My mpg was not terrible at first, but it was considerably lower. I had only gone about 10 miles and it had not really stabalized yet, but was hovering just below 40 mpg.

I decided to see the effect of A/C on mpg. Seeing how much the A/C brought down the numbers is what prompted me to turn it off - as luck had it this was on a Sunday and I was in shorts and a T-shirt so it was not too hot.

When engaged the A/C cuts mpg by nearly 10 at those speeds. Of course the A/C (compressor) is not engaged all the time so the real difference seems closer to 4 or 5 mpg. Just seeing the higher numbers without the A?C (jumping around the mid 40's) is what propted me to try going without. Before I knew it I had gone far enough and the numbers were high enough that I figured why not keep going.

The scangauge is extremely easy to calibrate and is done constantly ( I have the scangauge II - not sure what wayne tested). Every time you fill up you reset the gauge and it prompts you for how many gallons you put in. You can then chose to accept that the gallons used was close enough to what was actually used or you can enter a correction. If you correct the number of gallons your scangauge is recalibrated. I have not had to adjust it in months. Right now it is set for a 2.7% reduction in measured numbers. I would say 7 out of 10 times it reports more fuel use than I measure, and even then only by a small percentage.

As far as reading the air goes and nothing else - I don't know. As long as it is accurate, and it seems to be.

In instant mode the scancauge updates extremely fast. If you take your foot off of the gas you mpg will skyrocket within a second. As I said before it is sensative enough (and fast enough) to let you know when the compressor kicks in.

Here is the review

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/reviews/t-cleanmpg-reviews-the-scangauge-ii-4495.html

andysd

I filled up for the first time and got 24.0 mpg, mixed freeway and local in San Diego area. Brand new '07 Accord SE 4-cyl auto sedan. Tires at specified 32/30, a.c. on most of the time. How much do you think that will improve to - considering the following comparison to my previous car?

I love my new Accord, but this makes me miss the '04 Civic EX auto sedan I traded; I got 32 mpg for the same type of driving.

andysd

I wanted to delete my posting (as a waste of your time), but couldn't catch it, so I'll edit it. A variable I didn't consider is the accuracy of the odometers. I know the speedometer in the Accord is accurate because I checked it with a Garmin Streetplotter at 65.

Honda was sued for high-reading odometers by a group in connection with the warranty mileage. Maybe that ties in, and my later-built Accord has a more accurate odometer.

marcwd

OK, thanks, Dudley. I understand the Scangauge calibration procedure now.

So your mileage - even while using the A/C and going 65 - was still exceptional at just under 40. I've not been able to do better than 36 mpg at this point ('07 Accord LX 5M/T). That's calculated over at least 10 gallons used, largely highway driving, and with the A/C almost always off. Tire pressure is about 37lbs. What's likely hurting me is my 65-75mph highway speeds. Very hard to keep the speed down on the major roads here in the Boston area.

I've been thinking about getting a Scangauge, but I'd like to be assured that it will provide some real utility over time and not become little more than a novelty.

BTW, did you notice any improvement in mileage after simply putting some miles on the new car?

elroy5

The odometer reading higher than actual mileage would give you more MPG. The mileage estimates posted on this thread are far from what I call "Real World".

dudleyr

Speed is definately a factor 75 mph will not get the mpg that 65 does. Also the MT is geared shorter than the AT and loses its advantage at higher speeds.

By stating that you are driving highway around Boston you must be commuting for your highway miles. Every time you start a cold engine it takes many miles to reach peak efficiency. Usually between 5 and 15 miles depending on temps. The only way to get the real high mpg numbers is on long trips that minimize the number of cold starts.

There is a huge difference between largely highway driving and pure highway. You can take a 500 mile trip, and if you fill up 50 miles after you return you may lose 2 to 4 mpg off of that trip. It does not take much to bring down your numbers.

If you drive 65 mph in your MT and there is no headwind, no A/C use and no other poor conditions (steep hills etc), then you will get 40 mpg. Go for a nice drive through NH at a leisurely pace - or go up to Maine, Lobster is almost in season.

The scanguage will always have to ability to read (and reset) any codes that your engine throws, so in that regard it will never lose its utility.

tallman1

I agree with Dudley.... to get outstanding numbers in the manual, you have to slow down. I was able to get over 40 mpg by keeping my 06 EX-L I4 under 70 mph. It actually made the trip much more relaxing too.

ezshift5

...engine rpm big mpg factor. Both my approaches to the 40 barrier were on long trips using about 2150 rpm. This is right at 65 for the AV6 6M coupe that I drive.......

..dude who said that performance and economy are mutually exclusive (IMHO) was dead wrong.

..best, ez..

geonerd

92 Wagon, 2.2L, 5 speed. 165K miles.

M1 10-30 and reasonable maintenance. Tires at ~36PSI, otherwise they wear unevenly. The factory suggestion of 32 is, IMO, far too low. (After reading several other posts, I might bump it another PSI or two and see how it feels.) I'm careful to look far ahead, and attempt to minimize 'damage' caused by those #$%@$# stop lights. "Glide, Grasshopper, glide...."

Best tanks (4): 36.9
This was a long relaxed road trip, mostly following rural two lane highways. Average speed of 60 or so. Lots of cruising around 50~60. Only a few small cities and one steep mountain pass to hurt economy. I've hit low-mid 36s on several other backroad tours.

Worst single tank (probably more noise than data): 26.5
Cold weather, more city slogging than usual. Roughly 1/2 the miles were stop and go.

Average commute mileage is 32. 9 miles to work over 4 lane surface streets. One ~3 mile uninterrupted section of 55~60 MPH offset by about 8 stop lights, several of which invariably manage to catch me.

Superslab mileage starts around 31 when blasting along at 75. Slowing to 65 gets 33~34.

-Greg