Your car will use extra fuel trying to warm itself to proper operating temperature, only to be turned off again and have to go through the same process again.
Extra starts will use extra fuel as well (I think the rule is one start = 1 min idle time). Chances are if you are taking short trips then you are doing more stop and go as well. Another detriment for mileage.
My lowest tank ever was the first one from the dealership (25 MPG). Since there is at least always 100 miles of interstate in my 400 miles I go before filling, I average 28MPG on a bare minimum, sometimes closer to 31MPG depending on the amount of city driving I do.
On trips, 36-38MPG is typical, but dudleyr and I have both had 40+ MPG on more than one occasion when conditions have been right (no A/C needed, 70-72MPH, light load in the car).
I'd be curious to see your mileage after a purely highway trip.
I know the car has to be broken in though 10,000 miles seems like a long way away
Yes, I don't agree with the 10k suggestion. You shouldn't have to wait that long. It's the short trips that are killing you. As a member of the 40+ club, I suggest that you find a reason to take a long trip... at least 200-300 miles of strictly highway driving. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
And if not, there is something wrong with your car.... or you were driving way too fast.
I have an '07 Accord EX i4 sedan with only 1800 miles. Average is about 25 MPG in mixed city/highway driving. Yesterday did a round trip 470 mile trip from northern nj to central pa. 95% freeway miles at about 65-75mph, no AC. Result was 38 MPG. My '95 Civic on the same trip a couple of months ago only acheived 36 MPG, so I am VERY pleased with the numbers from the Accord, despite its low mileage.
You should have done better than 25 mpg on the way home from the dealer. My firt dealer tank was also about the same distance and I think I got 33 mpg driving erratically (from 55 - 80 for break in).
How fast are you driving on the highway? One thing that I noticed was my older Honda (Acura actually) indicated about 3-4 mph faster than my Accord when travelling the same speed. In other words If my Integra was indicating 65 I was only going 60 or 61, while my Accord is going 64 when it indicates 65. If I sped my old car up to match the speed of the new car mileage would suffer slightly.
What is your tire pressure? Got back from a trip of 520 miles yesterday (one tank of gas and no light yet) On the way there I only got 38.5 mpg, on the way back I got 41.9 mpg to average 40.2 mpg (scangauge). While there may have been some diffs in wind, temp etc. one main diff was I aired up the tires once there - to 39 psi as they had gone down to 34 psi. My best numbers for that round trip are 43.xx mpg, but that was a one time deal going 60 mph to see what would happen.
Thanks for the posts. On the way home from the dealership I was doing about 70. I am not that fast of a driver. My 91 accord this year was getting 29 MPG. I thought that was great for a 91. We are going to TN for a week in Sept. so I will be curious what the milage will be from the trip. I just expected even though I go to the mall, store, or where ever I would get better than 22 MPG. Regardless of the trip, time, rate of speed. For crying out loud I am not doing 90 from stop sign to stop sign. I am a reasonable person. It is my wifes car. She drives it when she goes somewhere though when we go out together I drive.
I calcuate the MPG by dividing the miles driven by the number of gallons used to fill the tank. I notice this when I have only at most 150 miles on a half of tank. Usually and I mean usually a half of tank on a car means that it is less than half full. Even if it is half full then 300 miles on a 17 gallon tank is awful.
I don't expect the 40 plus MPG though I would love it. Wow that would be great. I just want 30 MPG city and highway combined. That isn't asking too much.
I think there is something wrong with my car. Maybe not though 22-25 MPG on a brand new ACCORD.
I agree with thegraduate. I just got an 03 Accord LX I4 and as such am still getting used to it. Anyway when my gauge was reading empty and the light was on it only took about 12 gallons.
I had a 95 EX and it only got 23-25 for the longest time, but I looked and that was normal for the car. Overall I am very happy that, even though I drive the same as I always did, not too aggressive, but also not afraid to punch it, I still get above 26 mpg. I can't wait until I can get back into my schedule of filling every two weeks.
Anyway good luck and I hope your car either improves or gets fixed.
Don't forget that the dealer may not have topped off the tank. That can make a difference. Go through a few tanks to average out the filling error and see how it does.
I can't beleive people are calculating mileage on the way home from the dealer and then only eyeballing the gauge rather than personally filling the tank and subtracting gallons used. So sloppy.
The tire pressure on my 05 EXL V6 Coupe:Front-32lb rear-30lb This comes right out of the owners manual.Where do you get running your tire pressure at 39lbs?What owners manual are you looking at? Doug
Many folks, dudley among them, add a few lbs of pressure to get better mileage. He can tell you if he notices any difference in the handling of his car.
Yes - no manual is being followed. The handling is a little crisper, the fuel mileage is a little better and the ride is a little harsher (still better than my Integra though). Some people go up to the max on the sidewall, some go behond (50+ psi - check the Prius forums). My comfort zone is staying under the 40 psi barrier.
EZ Pump em up to max sidewall, find a nice long back road with a low speed limit and keep it to 50/55. You will break 40 mpg even with the V-6. One key is to start with a warm engine (at least 10 miles of driving).
Choose a cool day so that no A/C is needed, but not so cool that you need to use the heat. The most efficient temp is the highest you can stand without the A/C, so cloudy days are usually better.
I am referring to the Owners Manual for the 05 Honda Accord Coupe,very last page under "Service Information Summary".You can run your tire pressure at "whatever".It's your tires.
We all know what the manual says. It is also posted in the drivers door. I was just trying to tell you that some folks don't follow it for the reasons they've mentioned.
Don't be too disappointed. Some of these guys are very good drivers and have very economical cars. Most people are doing good to get 30 on the hwy. Further, Dudley is wanted for coasting across state lines.
Dudley, I am curious what jacking up the tire pressure that high does to the braking performance on the car - do you know if it increases your stoppig distance?
Incidently, the best I got under great highway condtions on my 07 ex-l I4 auto was 35 mpg (really have only had one great highway condition such as this). This was calculated over 60 miles of highway driving, 40 miles of which were with very light traffic, no wind, no a/c, single occupant, driving between 55-68 mph; the other 20 miles had similar conditions, but included commute to work which was mostly highway with some rush hour traffic. The car had 800 miles on it. Tire pressure was as recommended in the manual.
I have been averaging between 25 and 29 in mixed metro area suburban and highway driving, which I hope will improve some, given some of the posts here. The car has about 2500 miles on it now. First dealer tank was 22-23 mpg, about 60/40 highway/suburban driving.
I actually do calculate full tanks of gas from the moment I leave the gas station. I specifically note when my numbers are from the scangauge for steady state cruising. For example one of my best tanks was about 41 mpg over 3 days of driving and several cold starts. The tank included about 30 or 40 miles of stop and go city driving after my highway trip was over. The highway trip itself was 520 miles at about 60 mph (no A/C) and returned 43.8 on my scangauge (which matched within a few tenths my overall tank figure). I realize 60 is not normal for most (or even me) but it was a test.
Yes, I do reccomend that people start a mileage test with a warm engine to eliminate the variable of a cold engine. In other words do you errands first then fill up, then go on your trip. This will give you a better indication of your highway mpg as it takes about 15 miles for the engine oil to fully warm up and your car to reach peak efficiency. Longer trips are more efficient.
Along with a cold engine, wind and speed are huge factors. Yesterday I drove 480 miles. I was in a hurry on the way down and was going 80 on the Interstate and 70-75 on the 2 lanes. There was also a variable headwind. My average was just under 34 mpg for the way down. On the way back I was going a little slower and had a tailwind for one leg. For that leg my mpg was 44 and I was going 70 mph. And yes that was steady state highway cruising from a running start - the only way to get mpg on a leg of a trip unless you want to pull over on the highway. (also not very little A/C on the way down and 100 degress and all A/C on the way back)
Can anybody expect to get 44 - or course not. Is it possible- of course it is. Not too many trees in SD, so it is always windy, but if you happen to have a tailwind for your trip you can get amazing mileage - or course if you turn around and come back it averages out. Almost all of my tanks have a return trip to average out prevailing winds - the cruising range is just to long to fill up at only 250-300 miles or so.
Taking out all instant readings my overall mpg for nearly 15,000 miles is 33.65 mpg. The mpg for my last 10 tanks is 34.6 mpg.
BTW I had a good lawyer and got off on the coasting charge.
I think 35mpg sounds about right for a car with very low miles on a not very long trip with some traffic. Under ideal conditions and a longer trip you should expect that number to go up.
As far as higher pressure effecting braking. I don't think there is much difference from what I have read (for the ranges we are talking about). tirerack.com has some good articles on tire pressure.
You need much more than 60 miles to calculate accurate mileage. With only 60 miles and approximately 2 gallons of gas, the margin for error is HUGE, and here's why.
Sometimes a pump may click off with, say, .3 gallons less gas in the tank than another gas pump down the road. If you drove 60 miles and got 35 MPG, I'll assume you calculated that with ~1.7 gallons of gas. If the pump clicked off 0.3 gallons early, then you really used 2 gallons and got 30MPG, a 5 MPG difference. On the other hand, if the pump had clicked off early BEFORE your trip, and you only used 1.4 gallons, you'd have 42.85 MPG, or nearly 8MPG different. Also, variances in where people "stop" filling up make the error worse (you know what I mean - when it clicks off and someone tries squeezing in that extra 50 cents worth).
Try using at least half of a tank before really judging your mileage too seriously, because the margin for error is just giant when you use less than 2 gallons.
I agree. I am not too cnovinced with that number myself given the length of the trip. Btw, your analysis was spot on, 1.7 sounds like the right number of gallons used for that trip - I remember because I was pleasantly surprised.
I am suspecting my 'real' mileage has room for improvement. Now that schools have re-opened and traffic is more typical, I plan to recalculate the mpg I am getting.
My 2007 4-cyl LX coupe regularly gets 28-30 mpg. It has about 5,500 miles on it (bought it in March) and it's an automatic. I drive 80% freeway, and always with a lead foot. One of these days, I'm going to have to slow down to see how much my mileage improves.
That would help - on my last 2 trips to S. California (420+_miles) with my 2006 Accord SE 4 auto - I set the cruise control to 70 mph. I hit stop and go traffic near LA (what else is new). I got:
37 MPG
36.33 MPG - more frequent use of AC with this trip.
I noticed improvement in the fuel economy at about 8k miles. So far, really happy with the car, which now has 20k miles.
I purchased a new SE (4 cyl, automatic) last month, and have been getting rather poor mileage in mostly city driving: first two tanks have yielded 19mpg and 16mpg respectively.
I know that mileage on new cars can improve after "break in" (though I don't understand why this is), but even, so 16 mpg is pretty awful for a car that should be getting 24 mpg in the city. (My 96 Camry got 24 mpg without any trouble.)
So my question is: have other new Accord drivers experienced low mileage at the start? Does it improve? How would I know if I have an issue to bring to the dealer's attention?
You may want to read some of the older messages here. This issue comes up rarely and everyone seems to question the driving habits of the owner. Short trips are a killer because the engine doesn't have a chance to warm up sufficiently. Cold weather (probably not an issue now) and hard driving are also big factors in the city.
Mileage does get better for some after the break-in period but I didn't notice much difference. I don't do a lot of short trips so I think I've only had two tanks of gas under 30 mpg and I think they were both 29.
You may certainly want to check with the dealer if it is that bad.
I read somewhere that any start will create a little worse MPG, because the engine needs to recharge the battery, which adds drag on the alternator, which reduces MPG somewhat.
I think while all the gimmicky electonic computers are nice to play with, the most accurate is to drive until the low fuel light comes on, fill up to about the same number of top-off-clicks, then average over many different tanks. It's true what the one guy posted that a few extra clicks can make 5-10mpg difference.
How would you describe the conditions you're driving in? Mileage does improve with a few thousand miles (based on my experiences) but it won't improve drastically (like going up from 16 to 24).
My observations suggest that most of the mileage is lost during acceleration. If you are involved in too much traffic and are constantly accelerating and braking, it will hurt the mileage, more so if you drive 5 miles or less on a regular basis.
I can't speak for new Accords, but my 1998 Accord which was rated 23/30 (under revised rating, it is 20/27) gets 26 mpg in mixed driving. The low fuel indicator will generally come around 350-370 miles and refueling takes 13.5-14.0 gallons. The driving involves 50% highway (I average around 65-70 mph but the car will see bursts of speed well above that depending on the rest of the traffic). The rest is city, ranging from 30 mph-45 mph with lights. And I drive almost 60 miles in it every day.
Unless there is an issue, and if your driving style is similar, you can expect to get 25-26 mpg or perhaps better in the Accord. BTW, I get that mileage in my TL too.
We bought our 2007 SE 4-cyl in april and after the odo hit 2000 miles we took a 1000 mile trip, 500 down and 500 back. Mileage was 30 going at between 65 and 80 and 36 coming back doing the speed limit. The moral here is to take the lead out of your foot as I have a written warning to prove I was doing 80. No, the trooper was not driving the usual car, he was in a Mustang...
Thanks - just checked some of the older messages. It seems a few other owners have similar problems.
Most of my driving is short trips - 6.5 miles to work, stop-and-go city driving. But I'm a fairly conservative driver.
The question I haven't seen answered in previous postings: Has anyone gone to the dealer with a similar complaint and had the dealer do something to improve the mileage?
I know a guy who is a deputy in northern Fla. He and his wife took a trip to southern Fla and he got stopped for "excessive speed". Well this guy pulls out his badge and a few days later he is telling it to a judge. To this day I still laugh about it.
12,000 miles. Averaging 23.05mpg in mixed highway/city driving. Very few trips with long and flat highway stretches. Best tank (mostly highway) returned 28.51mpg. Worst tank (mostly city) returned 18.08mpg.
Just took a quick round trip (same day), philly to NY.
Got 36.55 mpg. I refilled to check, so it only took ~6 gallons, so even adding .1 for a fudge factor, still about 36.
4 cyl EX-L 5 speed stick.
Ran about 72-75 up, 65-72 back mostly. Rood open, windows up, no AC.
Oh, that includes about 30 minutes creeping in stop and go traffic getting out of a parking lot and through the city. All sitting or 1st-2nd gear creeping.
WOuld have been really good without that part!
Not bad at all for a roomy mid size car, with plenty of power and good highway manners.
Sub compact economy without compromising room or comfort!
Just thinking that the cost difference in your Accord and a little Kia 4dr sedan will buy a lot of gas!
Interestingly enough, per Edmunds TCO, a Kia Rio costs $0.44/mile to operate compared to Honda Accord which is only $0.46/mile. So while one pays less for the little Kia, its ownership costs are almost as much as an Accord. If saving money is the sole idea, Civic makes more sense. It is cheaper to operate than a Kia Rio and far more refined.
A lot of the cost to own is depreciation and the Hondas usually do better than anything else in their class based on MSRP minus residual value. However, I don't think they take into account street selling prices after all the incentives of the new cars when they calculate depreciation.
I wonder if the cost savings on a Civic vs a Kio Rio would still be there if they based depreciation cost on a well discounted street price after incentive vs basing it on MSRP. The discounting off Civic MSRP is still not very much on Civics in many areas.
It will be months before there will be much discounting on the 2008 Accords. People who buy 2008 Accords in the next few months will realize more real life depreciation despite the cars not losing any higher percentage from MSRP than the Accords that are purchased 6 months from now.
Percentage numbers of value retained from MSRP is far less important than actual "real dollars" lost.
Indeed. But taking only purchase price into consideration is short sighted approach.
People that are buying cars at MSRP are doing so because they feel the car is worth the price. You can’t convince them to buy a Kia Rio over an Accord. Market price depends on demand and supply. If cars can’t compete at a price, their transaction price must be lowered.
As far as TCO goes, it is an Edmunds’ thing. I doubt they are pulling thing out of thin air. While sources like Intellichoice might be using MSRP for ownership costs, Edmunds is considering street price and adding taxes etc, with the rest of the figures around a standardized buyer. For example, TCO on Honda Fit is based entirely on MSRP plus destination. While that starts with more than $2K above comparable Rio, there is a $6K swing in favor of Fit by the end of 5 years/75K miles. So, unless Kia were selling the Rio for $9K instead of $14K (that is at 35% discount), it costs more.
The bottom line: Purchase price is not the end of “value”. In fact, value doesn’t stop at price either. I feel that if more people did math and could afford initial payment, fewer cars will sell on the strength purely around lower price.
Some people who can't afford a brand new Accord or even a Civic would rather buy a brand new Kia Rio with warranty and lower maintenance costs than a 6 year old used Accord for the same price.
Regardless of Kias, a new Accord purchased today at near MSRP or higher is not going to be worth more than a new Accord purchased next spring for $2000 less. When the car is 5 years old, the Accord bought this month won't be worth any more than a 2008 bought for less in January will be worth when it is also 5 years old.
That extra money people spend buying the few 2008 Accords sprinkled on dealer lots in October of 2007 vs waiting for the dealers to get fully stocked and start dealing is money that is wasted and completely thrown down the trash.
Many people like the idea that their New Accord will still look like the "New Accord" until the next generation comes out in 5 years. If you wait until 2011 to buy one, you may get a cheaper price, but it will only have the New Model look for 2 years. It's also about the "Latest/Greatest" thing. The new model will typically have more features than the last generation. How important is it, to YOU?
It depends on what features are new and important. What important new features does a 2008 EXV6 (cloth) have that a 2007 LX V6 doesn't have? VCM and an aux input? It has a bigger engine with more power. Not important unless you felt the 2007 V6 had inadequate power. New styling? Not important. Some hate the bug eyes and busy-blocky look of 08 vs smooth, clean 07s. Some are disappointed that the glowing gauges got discarded for 2008 and the dash board got really busy-looking with all those buttons.
Comments
Your car will use extra fuel trying to warm itself to proper operating temperature, only to be turned off again and have to go through the same process again.
Extra starts will use extra fuel as well (I think the rule is one start = 1 min idle time). Chances are if you are taking short trips then you are doing more stop and go as well. Another detriment for mileage.
My lowest tank ever was the first one from the dealership (25 MPG). Since there is at least always 100 miles of interstate in my 400 miles I go before filling, I average 28MPG on a bare minimum, sometimes closer to 31MPG depending on the amount of city driving I do.
On trips, 36-38MPG is typical, but dudleyr and I have both had 40+ MPG on more than one occasion when conditions have been right (no A/C needed, 70-72MPH, light load in the car).
I'd be curious to see your mileage after a purely highway trip.
Yes, I don't agree with the 10k suggestion. You shouldn't have to wait that long. It's the short trips that are killing you. As a member of the 40+ club, I suggest that you find a reason to take a long trip... at least 200-300 miles of strictly highway driving. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
And if not, there is something wrong with your car.... or you were driving way too fast.
You should have done better than 25 mpg on the way home from the dealer. My firt dealer tank was also about the same distance and I think I got 33 mpg driving erratically (from 55 - 80 for break in).
How fast are you driving on the highway? One thing that I noticed was my older Honda (Acura actually) indicated about 3-4 mph faster than my Accord when travelling the same speed. In other words If my Integra was indicating 65 I was only going 60 or 61, while my Accord is going 64 when it indicates 65. If I sped my old car up to match the speed of the new car mileage would suffer slightly.
What is your tire pressure? Got back from a trip of 520 miles yesterday (one tank of gas and no light yet) On the way there I only got 38.5 mpg, on the way back I got 41.9 mpg to average 40.2 mpg (scangauge). While there may have been some diffs in wind, temp etc. one main diff was I aired up the tires once there - to 39 psi as they had gone down to 34 psi. My best numbers for that round trip are 43.xx mpg, but that was a one time deal going 60 mph to see what would happen.
How are you calculating your mpg?
I calcuate the MPG by dividing the miles driven by the number of gallons used to fill the tank. I notice this when I have only at most 150 miles on a half of tank. Usually and I mean usually a half of tank on a car means that it is less than half full. Even if it is half full then 300 miles on a 17 gallon tank is awful.
I don't expect the 40 plus MPG though I would love it. Wow that would be great. I just want 30 MPG city and highway combined. That isn't asking too much.
I think there is something wrong with my car. Maybe not though 22-25 MPG on a brand new ACCORD.
Thegrad
2006 Accord EX
24,200 miles
I had a 95 EX and it only got 23-25 for the longest time, but I looked and that was normal for the car. Overall I am very happy that, even though I drive the same as I always did, not too aggressive, but also not afraid to punch it, I still get above 26 mpg. I can't wait until I can get back into my schedule of filling every two weeks.
Anyway good luck and I hope your car either improves or gets fixed.
Tankbeans
2003 Accord LX
37,974
rear-30lb
This comes right out of the owners manual.Where do you get running your tire pressure at 39lbs?What owners manual are you looking at?
Doug
Many folks, dudley among them, add a few lbs of pressure to get better mileage. He can tell you if he notices any difference in the handling of his car.
I usually keep around 34 and 32 in mine.
....comfort zone nonwithstanding, the 40 MPG barrier continues to elude...................
..ez..
Choose a cool day so that no A/C is needed, but not so cool that you need to use the heat. The most efficient temp is the highest you can stand without the A/C, so cloudy days are usually better.
I checked my air pressure and it is 34 on the front and 33 on the rear. I haven't adjusted the air pressure since I've had the car.
And he doesn't start calculating the mileage until after the engine warms up, and he's on the highway. How can that be "Real World"? :confuse:
Incidently, the best I got under great highway condtions on my 07 ex-l I4 auto was 35 mpg (really have only had one great highway condition such as this). This was calculated over 60 miles of highway driving, 40 miles of which were with very light traffic, no wind, no a/c, single occupant, driving between 55-68 mph; the other 20 miles had similar conditions, but included commute to work which was mostly highway with some rush hour traffic. The car had 800 miles on it. Tire pressure was as recommended in the manual.
I have been averaging between 25 and 29 in mixed metro area suburban and highway driving, which I hope will improve some, given some of the posts here. The car has about 2500 miles on it now. First dealer tank was 22-23 mpg, about 60/40 highway/suburban driving.
cb2k
Yes, I do reccomend that people start a mileage test with a warm engine to eliminate the variable of a cold engine. In other words do you errands first then fill up, then go on your trip. This will give you a better indication of your highway mpg as it takes about 15 miles for the engine oil to fully warm up and your car to reach peak efficiency. Longer trips are more efficient.
Along with a cold engine, wind and speed are huge factors. Yesterday I drove 480 miles. I was in a hurry on the way down and was going 80 on the Interstate and 70-75 on the 2 lanes. There was also a variable headwind. My average was just under 34 mpg for the way down. On the way back I was going a little slower and had a tailwind for one leg. For that leg my mpg was 44 and I was going 70 mph. And yes that was steady state highway cruising from a running start - the only way to get mpg on a leg of a trip unless you want to pull over on the highway. (also not very little A/C on the way down and 100 degress and all A/C on the way back)
Can anybody expect to get 44 - or course not. Is it possible- of course it is. Not too many trees in SD, so it is always windy, but if you happen to have a tailwind for your trip you can get amazing mileage - or course if you turn around and come back it averages out. Almost all of my tanks have a return trip to average out prevailing winds - the cruising range is just to long to fill up at only 250-300 miles or so.
Taking out all instant readings my overall mpg for nearly 15,000 miles is 33.65 mpg. The mpg for my last 10 tanks is 34.6 mpg.
BTW I had a good lawyer and got off on the coasting charge.
I think 35mpg sounds about right for a car with very low miles on a not very long trip with some traffic. Under ideal conditions and a longer trip you should expect that number to go up.
As far as higher pressure effecting braking. I don't think there is much difference from what I have read (for the ranges we are talking about). tirerack.com has some good articles on tire pressure.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=1
Sometimes a pump may click off with, say, .3 gallons less gas in the tank than another gas pump down the road. If you drove 60 miles and got 35 MPG, I'll assume you calculated that with ~1.7 gallons of gas. If the pump clicked off 0.3 gallons early, then you really used 2 gallons and got 30MPG, a 5 MPG difference. On the other hand, if the pump had clicked off early BEFORE your trip, and you only used 1.4 gallons, you'd have 42.85 MPG, or nearly 8MPG different. Also, variances in where people "stop" filling up make the error worse (you know what I mean - when it clicks off and someone tries squeezing in that extra 50 cents worth).
Try using at least half of a tank before really judging your mileage too seriously, because the margin for error is just giant when you use less than 2 gallons.
I am suspecting my 'real' mileage has room for improvement. Now that schools have re-opened and traffic is more typical, I plan to recalculate the mpg I am getting.
37 MPG
36.33 MPG - more frequent use of AC with this trip.
I noticed improvement in the fuel economy at about 8k miles. So far, really happy with the car, which now has 20k miles.
I know that mileage on new cars can improve after "break in" (though I don't understand why this is), but even, so 16 mpg is pretty awful for a car that should be getting 24 mpg in the city. (My 96 Camry got 24 mpg without any trouble.)
So my question is: have other new Accord drivers experienced low mileage at the start? Does it improve? How would I know if I have an issue to bring to the dealer's attention?
Mileage does get better for some after the break-in period but I didn't notice much difference. I don't do a lot of short trips so I think I've only had two tanks of gas under 30 mpg and I think they were both 29.
You may certainly want to check with the dealer if it is that bad.
I think while all the gimmicky electonic computers are nice to play with, the most accurate is to drive until the low fuel light comes on, fill up to about the same number of top-off-clicks, then average over many different tanks. It's true what the one guy posted that a few extra clicks can make 5-10mpg difference.
My observations suggest that most of the mileage is lost during acceleration. If you are involved in too much traffic and are constantly accelerating and braking, it will hurt the mileage, more so if you drive 5 miles or less on a regular basis.
I can't speak for new Accords, but my 1998 Accord which was rated 23/30 (under revised rating, it is 20/27) gets 26 mpg in mixed driving. The low fuel indicator will generally come around 350-370 miles and refueling takes 13.5-14.0 gallons. The driving involves 50% highway (I average around 65-70 mph but the car will see bursts of speed well above that depending on the rest of the traffic). The rest is city, ranging from 30 mph-45 mph with lights. And I drive almost 60 miles in it every day.
Unless there is an issue, and if your driving style is similar, you can expect to get 25-26 mpg or perhaps better in the Accord. BTW, I get that mileage in my TL too.
Most of my driving is short trips - 6.5 miles to work, stop-and-go city driving. But I'm a fairly conservative driver.
The question I haven't seen answered in previous postings: Has anyone gone to the dealer with a similar complaint and had the dealer do something to improve the mileage?
Got 36.55 mpg. I refilled to check, so it only took ~6 gallons, so even adding .1 for a fudge factor, still about 36.
4 cyl EX-L 5 speed stick.
Ran about 72-75 up, 65-72 back mostly. Rood open, windows up, no AC.
Oh, that includes about 30 minutes creeping in stop and go traffic getting out of a parking lot and through the city. All sitting or 1st-2nd gear creeping.
WOuld have been really good without that part!
Not bad at all for a roomy mid size car, with plenty of power and good highway manners.
Sub compact economy without compromising room or comfort!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Too bad they don't make an Accord hatch or wagon...then I'd get one, but I need something more versatile than a 4dr sedan.
Interestingly enough, per Edmunds TCO, a Kia Rio costs $0.44/mile to operate compared to Honda Accord which is only $0.46/mile. So while one pays less for the little Kia, its ownership costs are almost as much as an Accord. If saving money is the sole idea, Civic makes more sense. It is cheaper to operate than a Kia Rio and far more refined.
However, I don't think they take into account street selling prices after all the incentives of the new cars when they calculate depreciation.
I wonder if the cost savings on a Civic vs a Kio Rio would still be there if they based depreciation cost on a well discounted street price after incentive vs basing it on MSRP. The discounting off Civic MSRP is still not very much on Civics in many areas.
It will be months before there will be much discounting on the 2008 Accords. People who buy 2008 Accords in the next few months will realize more real life depreciation despite the cars not losing any higher percentage from MSRP than the Accords that are purchased 6 months from now.
Percentage numbers of value retained from MSRP is far less important than actual "real dollars" lost.
People that are buying cars at MSRP are doing so because they feel the car is worth the price. You can’t convince them to buy a Kia Rio over an Accord. Market price depends on demand and supply. If cars can’t compete at a price, their transaction price must be lowered.
As far as TCO goes, it is an Edmunds’ thing. I doubt they are pulling thing out of thin air. While sources like Intellichoice might be using MSRP for ownership costs, Edmunds is considering street price and adding taxes etc, with the rest of the figures around a standardized buyer. For example, TCO on Honda Fit is based entirely on MSRP plus destination. While that starts with more than $2K above comparable Rio, there is a $6K swing in favor of Fit by the end of 5 years/75K miles. So, unless Kia were selling the Rio for $9K instead of $14K (that is at 35% discount), it costs more.
The bottom line: Purchase price is not the end of “value”. In fact, value doesn’t stop at price either. I feel that if more people did math and could afford initial payment, fewer cars will sell on the strength purely around lower price.
Regardless of Kias, a new Accord purchased today at near MSRP or higher is not going to be worth more than a new Accord purchased next spring for $2000 less. When the car is 5 years old, the Accord bought this month won't be worth any more than a 2008 bought for less in January will be worth when it is also 5 years old.
That extra money people spend buying the few 2008 Accords sprinkled on dealer lots in October of 2007 vs waiting for the dealers to get fully stocked and start dealing is money that is wasted and completely thrown down the trash.
In market value dollars, yes. To them, having that new Accord WASN'T money sent down the tubes.
What important new features does a 2008 EXV6 (cloth) have that a 2007 LX V6 doesn't have?
VCM and an aux input? It has a bigger engine with more power. Not important unless you felt the 2007 V6 had inadequate power.
New styling? Not important. Some hate the bug eyes and busy-blocky look of 08 vs smooth, clean 07s.
Some are disappointed that the glowing gauges got discarded for 2008 and the dash board got really busy-looking with all those buttons.