Honda Accord Real World MPG

robertsmx

Not all "features" can be spelled out. For example, is the new Accord more refined than the old? Perhaps. Does it have greater overall appeal than the old (styling, performance, handling etc)? On spec sheet features, it offers more room, more power, more torque, promises better fuel economy and bigger wheels (tires are slightly wider). The key here is, for not a whole lot more! Of course then you would say, "but '07 can be had for a lot less". Sure... what do you think the reason would be? People want new things. You may be okay with old, and automakers would love to have people like you, but the market as a whole doesn't work that way.

dudleyr

I wonder how the new Accord feels in everyday driving with more weight and hardly any more torque - the extra hp does not come into play until the upper revs.

I suspect that in the real world the extra weight will hurt city economy more than the EPA test shows (or doesn't show).

thegraduate

Nothing I have seen so far has led me to want to exchange my 06 for an 08.

jaxs1

More size and bigger engines with more power are no benefit unless that was a shortcoming of the previous car that was being "corrected" by the redesign.
The old Toyota Tundras had weak engines that couldn't carry the loads full sized pickup owners expected and Toyota fixed them with with bigger engines at the redesign. There wasn't really any power shortage to fix with Honda engines.
It doesn't hurt to have more power, but they could have increased mileage more instead if they didn't add the weight and then needed bigger engines to pull the excess weight.
The next redesign may be even larger with bigger engines required to pull around the increased weight and more technology required to attempt to maintain the current MPG in EPA tests. Not much progress.
I'm not even seeing reviews saying the new engines make the car quicker than before.
Things are just getting bigger with higher HP numbers just for the sake of getting bigger.
In a couple generations, the Civic will be as big as the 2008 Accord, the Fit will be as big as a Civic and there will have to be a new vehicle smaller than the Fit to be the "small car" for Honda.

ezshift5

.....in the real world the extra weight will hurt city economy more than the EPA test shows (or doesn't show)........

.....speaking of the EPA, fuel efficiency, ad infinitum:

..EPA indicates (old standard) 20/30 and (new std) 18/27 for me.

The September fuel receipts:

33.7 (100% Interstate)Baker-Sacramento
29.0 (70/30 mix)
25.7 (40/60 mix)
31.3 (80/20 mix)
31.8 (95/05 mix) Sacramento-Reno/rtn (Air Races)

AV6 6M

best, ez....

blufz1

Think you're right re tendenancy for minimal city mpg improvement. Will be interesting to see some 08 mpg numbers. Really am displeased with the car limiting acceleration to 20. I want to drive my car unfettered by electronic interference. I want to decide whether to "smoke 'em,if I got 'em." I do think the above 20 rolling acceleration will be interesting. 40 ft. pounds of torque is substantial but look at all that front end drag! Sould be fun to see some in depth numbers. I want the most Honda torque vs. the least overall length,so I'll wait to see the CRV Diesel.

robertsmx

Here is something to think about.

Case 1:
Honda puts 3.2/V6, rated 260 HP @ 6200 rpm and 235 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm, at least 90% of peak torque is available at 2500 rpm. Estimated overall mileage is 23-24 mpg.

Case 2:
Honda puts 3.5/V6, rated 268 HP @ 6200 rpm and 248 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm, at least 90% of peak torque is available at 2000 rpm. Estimated overall mileage is 22-23 mpg.

Case 3:
Honda puts 3.5/V6, rated 268 HP @ 6200 rpm and 248 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm. This engine is tuned to perform like 3.2/V6 under 3500 rpm (low speed driving/acceleration) but not by design but due to design, and like a 3.5/V6 above that (high speed acceleration). Estimated overall mileage is 25-26 mpg.

Honda went with #3. You seem to want #2. I have been arguing with a few who apparently would have been happier with #1 (all they talk about is getting “only” 268 HP from 3.5 is not technological improvement since 2003 Accord got 240 HP from only 3.0-liters, or 80 HP/liter). I see #3 as offering best of both worlds.

If you are going to be happy with a diesel, I don’t see why you would complain about limited acceleration (which will be far superior than the diesel). Since when was 220 lb-ft or so at 3000 rpm “not enough”?

Have you driven an Acura TL? It weighs as much as the new Accord, and has similar power characteristics in low-mid range, but gives up to Accord at higher rpm. I would be the last person to complain that TL is slow, or can’t get the job done. I have long considered it having more power than is necessary. Fortunately, it still gets me 25-26 mpg in mixed driving (and I expect the Accord V6 to do better in my hands).

robertsmx

More size and bigger engines with more power are no benefit unless that was a shortcoming of the previous car that was being "corrected" by the redesign.

Apparently, you have missed it. People are complaining about Accord V6 as lacking mid range, when it is comparable to (or slightly better than) the 3.2/V6 in Acura TL. The new V6 (with VCM) is actually developing more torque at 2000 rpm than the old did at its peak (5000 rpm).

People have also complained about Accord’s interior size. Now that Honda has addressed that, I have already seen people complaining about small trunk. What Honda has delivered is a car whose exterior dimensions are similar to early 90s Legend and TL from a decade ago, except that the interior packaging is far superior (TL was a compact sedan despite of being within an inch or two in overall length). But somehow, the new Accord is “huge”. It is in the nomenclature far more than in reality.

It doesn't hurt to have more power, but they could have increased mileage more instead if they didn't add the weight and then needed bigger engines to pull the excess weight.

Could you list cars that have lost weight with recent redesigns. For each you list, I will list two that gained weight.

The way it all sounds, is Accord an aberration to a trend where cars are getting lighter? It is a sad thing, really, but the reality is, safety and features do come at a cost. And bigger engine is not purely for the sake of going bigger. See my explanation above. The idea IS to improve fuel economy. Honda managed to do something with the 3.5 they couldn’t have accomplished with 3.0. And while we can argue all we want, reality still exists that it is not easy to go bonkers trying to improve fuel economy, while still trying to stay within limits on costs.

More technology required to attempt to maintain the current MPG in EPA tests. Not much progress.

Well, I don’t think Honda puts too much emphasis on EPA estimates which puts literally no emphasis on performance (that is why I always end up arguing against associating power rating to EPA rating that virtually everybody has a tendency to). To give you an example, the worst fuel tank I have ever had on my 2006 TL (now over 30K miles) is 23 mpg. With current tank, I am at 22 mpg due to 95% city driving and excessive idling. In fact, it was at 21 mpg this morning, and I saw it jump to 22 mpg when I least expected it.

The car has made me realize that there is life beyond EPA ratings. There is a car that seems to put everything in driver’s hands. And with all that experience, I’m really curious to see how the new Accord V6 will respond (I don’t expect much improvement with I-4, if at all). I won’t be surprised getting 27-28 mpg in it, when I get 25-26 mpg in my 98 Accord I-4 and the TL, which is far better than I manage in other (comparable) cars.

I'm not even seeing reviews saying the new engines make the car quicker than before.

Which review might that be? Perhaps you should tell me, what expectations do you have from, say, an Accord V6 in terms of performance and fuel economy. Let us start there.

bobw3

According to the Honda webpage, the trunk of the Accord is 14CuFt, passenger volume 106CuFt, F/R legroom 42.2"/37.2" and it's overall length is 194" EPA is 22/31 mpg

Seems like pretty poor use of space to me. Heck my Fit is 37" shorter, yet has 21CuFt of cargo space behind the 2nd row, 90CuFt of passenger volume, and F/R legroom is 41.9"/33.7" EPA is 28/34 mpg. Granted the Accord is wider, which accounts for the extra passenger CuFt, but if you're only carrying 4 passengers, then there's no additional benefit there. It just means that the people have a smaller gap between them.

My Freestyle is only 5" longer than the new Accord yet has 3 rows and the cargo space behind the 3rd row is bigger then the Accord's trunk! The Honda Pilot is actually shorter then the Accord, holds 8 people, and has more luggage space behind the 3rd row as compared to the Accord's trunk.

Of course this is a MPG forum, so on the plus side, for a car of it's size it gets pretty good MPG.

thegraduate

You are also comparing two different styles of car; sedan and wagon. The wagon will inherently have more room due to its design.

As the owner of a 2006 Accord, I'll say I'm disappointed that they didn't offer more legroom for the driver (very few vehicles are a perfect fit for my 34/35 inseam). But then again, not everybody is 6'4."

bobw3

True, but if Honda can create 41" of legroom for the front passenger in the Fit at an overall length of only 157" you'd think they could make it at least 45" of legroom for the Accord!

stickguy

the difference is, when you use the legroom in the Accord, you can still fit a person in the back seat!

bobw3

Well, the Accord does have 3.5" more rear seat legroom then the Fit, so I guess that's how they utilize the 37" extra length :P

robertsmx

Let us talk about it when Fit gets a V6, double wishbone front and a rather complex double wishbone rear suspension, has the ride qualities and refinement of an Accord. At least I was comparing the new Accord to Legend and TL from the past.

"Sedans" are not as space efficient as wagons/hatchback, if that is the point you're trying to make. Besides, a car can be longer for a lot of reasons. For similar reasons that a Chrysler 300 can be shorter... just take the front bumper off and you shave off 2-3 inches. Punch the face so it is just (up)right instead of sloping, and you might have another 2-3 inches there. So, if you designed the Accord, it would have those attributes, and be about 188-189 inch long.

bobw3

Let us talk about it when Fit gets a V6, double wishbone front and a rather complex double wishbone rear suspension, has the ride qualities and refinement of an Accord

I hope you get something for the extra $10K

And what are the slalom speeds of the Accord vs the Fit :P

robertsmx

Yes, you do, and only for $4K more. The car is called Accord. :shades:

bobw3

I guess I'd rather pocket the $4K. Plus the versatility and cargo space of the Fit more than outweigh the V6 (which I don't need), "double wishbone front and a rather complex double wishbone rear suspension" But I'm biased because I'd never buy a sedan because of their poor use of space :shades:

robertsmx

Well, then why do you worry about Accord?

robertsmx

Well, then why do you worry about Accord?

bobw3

Just to talk alternatives to those who haven't thought about them with respect to MPG. I think my original post was in response to another post indicating something that I thought was incorrect.

peni007

Took a trip to Sunnyvale, CA on Sunday 9/30 from Placentia on I-5, temps 70s-low 90s. Cruise set at 65 MPH with many spurts to 80+ MPH, AC >60% of trip.

MPG for trip 1: 37.29 MPG

Return trip from San Jose, CA to Oxnard, CA on 10/3, temps 60s to high 80s

Cruise set on 55 MPH with AC use >50% of trip.

Total miles: 334.6
Gallons used: 7.750

MPG for trip 2: 43.17 MPG!!!

I was utterly surprise of the MPG for the second trip!

Model: 2006 Accord V6 6SPEED 4 door

PS: Fiancee was bored to death to say the least!

ezshift5

....I've 'ssentially identical engine/transmission. Your rtn trip makes my efforts look pale by comparison.

...best, ez..

peni007

EZ

My goal was to see if I can just meet the numbers you posted.

Again I am still amaze at the numbers I achieved.

blufz1

I just don't like the "machine" doing the driving. The acceleration is what it is. I just want to do the driving.

techy2468

city/hwy mixed mileage = 18-19mpg

kind of disappointed since i was expecting atleast 21-22

zzzooom

Car has 7K on it now. Just performed the 1st oil change per the MM @ 15%. My drive to work is 15% city/85% highway with speeds 45 - 60 MPH on hwy. 36-38 MPG with A/C off and pure gas. When I use 10% ethanol it drops to 34-36 MPG. Add the A/C and it drops further to 32-34 MPG. The A/C SUCKS the mileage from this car.

bobw3

with speeds 45 - 60 MPH on hwy

I hope you're not on the interstate :P

tankbeans

I thought all gasoline had at least 10% ethanol. I do know that they put more ethanol in during the winter months, at least here in MN.

tankbeans

Hey all-

I've been calculating my mpg for the last few months and I haven't really gone above about 27 mpg. I have the 03 Accord LX I4 auto. I'm not unhappy with this. Just wondering how people crack 32 at all. Anywho, not important I guess. Just thought I'd make a post.

bobw3

If you go to Shell stations, they say that there's no ethanol added. That's the only one that I know of.

tankbeans

There's one Shell station around me. I guess I shall have to try filling from Empty at Shell and see if my mileage improves. I think I'll do that within the next couple of weeks and post again.

thegraduate

I thought all gasoline had at least 10% ethanol.

In the south (Alabama) I have to struggle to FIND a station with that much ethanol. Things are different outside of the corn belt I guess.

tallman1

Just wondering how people crack 32 at all.

Where and how you drive makes all the difference in the world. I'm able to "crack 32" all the time.

thegraduate

To "crack" 32, I have to have a significant amount of highway driving. Otherwise, my mixed commute yields somewhere around 28 MPG.

robertsmx

Driving conditions play a huge role in observed mileage. My typical driving involves 50% highway (65-70 mph, no lights) and 50% city (30-50 mph, lights and stop signs). Over weekends, I’m usually in severely congested uptown locations. My observed mileage over virtually every tank is 24-26 mpg in my TL and 25-27 mpg in my 1998 Accord EX-L/I-4. The lower numbers are obtained with leadfooted driving or major traffic jams.

My Accord isn’t equipped with a trip computer that calculates average speed and indicates average mileage but my TL does (and it is quite accurate when compared to my calculated mileage). The following is my observation for more than a year (Average speed versus observed mileage)
20 mph: 20 mpg
25 mph: 22 mpg
30 mph: 23 mpg
34 mph: 24 mpg
38 mph: 26 mpg

On the current tank, I’ve driven a little more on the highway, so the average speed is indicated as 41 mph and indicated mileage is 28 mpg, but only after 29 miles. I will report back about 350 miles later in a few days.

On freeway, steady state cruising on level ground with little to no wind has taught a few things.
60 mph: 35-36 mpg (light foot, just maintaining speed, instead of accelerating/decelerating regularly, no cruise control)
75 mph: 31-32 mpg
80 mph: 28-29 mpg

I expect 2003-2007 Accord V6 to return similar mileage as my 2006 TL. The I-4 should do a little better (especially in city).

My 1998 Accord (which was rated 23/30 mpg in its day, and under the new rating it has been re-rated 20/27 mpg) gets 32 mpg at 75 mph (calculated average speed on highway). The best (mixed driving) mileage in the Accord was actually just two tanks ago when I got 27.2 mpg and this car has 182K miles on it. The best combination of speed and mileage was observed on a 500+ mile trip from Dallas to Memphis a few years ago. My average speed was 76 mph and I did not have to stop for refueling anywhere. The fillup took 15.8 gallons after 507 miles and that turned out to be exactly 32 mpg. I have tried maximizing these two aspects in my TL too during road trips, and the best yet has been ~72 mph (average speed) and 32 mpg. My TL is auto as well.

May be your driving involves a lot of short trips (5 miles or less) or too many lights that require acceleration to speed (and staying under 40 mph) and having to brake again. Another helpful bit is that the best mileage shows up between 45-70 mph. Any slower or faster will reduce fuel economy.

zzzooom

My highway is actually a 2 lane rural road in southern VA, not an interstate.

zzzooom

Along the east coast from VA border up through New England, all gas has 10% ethanol. In NC it does not. I live near the VA/NC border, so I have access to both. I can tell you for sure, ethanol sucks mileage. So much that it is cheaper for me to run pure gas over ethanol if its .20 cents per gallon more than the ethanol blend.

firefly9696

After reading some of your posts they sound like my honda before it started sucking down the gas. At one point I was getting (the very highest I saw) 37mpg on the highway. My car is a 4 cylinder. Around town 25-28. Here lately I am getting around 18mpg. I have cleaned the Throttle body, changed spark plugs, air filter, tire pressure, injecter cleaner, and none of this has helped me any. My check engine light came on after cleaning the throttle body and Advance Auto said that the codes were P0122 and P0113. Can anyone please help me with what could be wrong? I have 125,000 miles on my '03 accord.

Thank you for your help.

thegraduate

I've made another run to Gulf Shores from Birmingham. I haven't refilled yet, but the gauge reads above half full after 247 miles (I've learned my gauge reads half at around 7 gallons). I'll definitely let everyone know how things turn out. I hit major construction traffic in Montgomery, so I'm not sure if I'll top 37MPG this time.

thegraduate

Alrighty, I filled up before coming home (where I am now). After 277.2 miles I used 7.39 gallons. That makes just over 37.5 MPG. That includes bumming around in Shrimp Festival traffic in Gulf Shores, along with the Montgomery traffic snafu. Coming home, I had to drive much more aggressively, so I'm guessing 34-35ish for that tank (I haven't filled up yet).

robertsmx

That is impressive. What is your typical speed/driving style?

thegraduate

My avg. speed for the trip was 61MPH according to the Garmin Trip Computer, but for most of the miles (mile marker 228 to 37) I was on the interstate running from 73-77 MPH for the most part. My max speed was actually 92MPH, but that was an isolated incident to leave behind an annoying driver who kept passing me and then slowing down, while I had my cruise control on. Talk about annoying! Also, there was nearly 2 minutes time I was at a dead stop. I'm convinced if I had not hit the traffic in Montgomery, and filled up right off the interstate, I'd have an extra MPG, but 37/38 or so is dang good for a car with that kind of weight and power.

There was no A/C use, but I did use the moonroof once I got off the interstate and into the towns (where the speed limit drops to anywhere from 35-65 and there are several traffic lights). The temps were around 70 when I left, 60 when I arrived.

robertsmx

That makes it all very impressive. It doesn't take much for the average speed to drop quickly even after long drives.

I have been trying to find out a sweet spot in my TL that maximizes average speed AND mileage. So far, 72 mph/32 mpg is it. I almost beat it a few days ago during another 200+ mile freeway driving but then got stuck in a traffic jam as one of the lanes was completely closed. Until that point, the trip computer was indicating 74 mph/32 mpg (I usually stay around 75 mph, with occasional instances when stuck behind overtaking semis, which I will try to compensate for by going around 80 mph).

By the time I got home, my average speed had dropped to 67 mph, and calculated mileage was 31.8 mpg.

thegraduate

If the trip wasn't a full 250+/- miles, I'd go slower, but by the last hour of the trip, I need to BE THERE so going 65-70MPH or so isn't going to work for me. I think if I did that I may be in the 40s. I've gotten 39.96, and 40.92MPG both around 72MPH, but that was really trying hard to eek every mile out of the gallon. This trip south, I had the cruise set, even through the hills. So, 38MPG with no effort. I'll take the 38MPG and the other guys can fight for bragging rights, while I stay less stressed just cruise controlling it and listening to some of my old favorites on the stereo.

robertsmx

Since both of my cars have auto transmission, I can’t really do much beyond ensuring being reasonably gentle with the throttle and anticipating lights. I do drive faster than most of the traffic though. Based on my observations, the TL will get 35 mpg at about 60-65 mph (drops to 32 mpg or so between 40-50 mph and 70-75 mph). And seeing that, I have often thought about trying to keep the speed 60-65 mph over extended drive, but it is a difficult thing for me to do. I’m more comfortable and attentive with the car rolling above 70 mph in cars that handle well at higher speeds and against cross winds, something both of my cars will qualify for. May be someday!

Right now, I’m hoping to get 27 mpg on current tank in my TL (mixed driving). The trip computer is indicating that (and I’ve found it to be fairly accurate). 25-26 mpg has been the norm.

I’m also driving a 2008 RAV4 (FWD) extensively, so I’m curious to see how it stacks up. I’m averaging about 24 mpg right now, but the vehicle has less than a 1000 miles.

thegraduate

It's a little off-topic, but I'm curious...where'd the RAV come from? Is it a V6 or a I4?

robertsmx

I-4. It is my GF's.

BTW, I got only 23.8 mpg (90-95% freeway, 70-75 mph) from a rental 2007 RAV4/AWD-Limited/I-4 on a road trip couple of weekends ago. It had 15K miles on the odometer. On the same stretch (and higher speeds), my cars get me 32 mpg. So it was not only disappointing, but scary since my GF had finalized a deal on a new RAV4 (the one I've been driving). And she drives 2000-2500 miles/month.

I simply could not sway her to buy a vehicle with better mileage. For her, even if the RAV4 got same mileage as her Jetta did, it would be a gain since the VW ran on premium (she was thinking 8-10% savings going from premium to regular, not 20-25% as I tend to).

thegraduate

Maybe the fact that the one you had was a rental means it may not have been broken in properly so it drank fuel, instead it just sipping it. Hopefully the gf's Toyota will do better.

Anyway, back to the Hondas at hand!

mattgg1

robertsmx -

I hate to stray off-topic, but I was interested in your RAV experience as well.

My girlfriend also recently purchased a RAV4 (coming from a 2000 Honda Civic), against my advice for a more fuel efficient vehicle.

It is a 2007 RAV4 Sport 4WD V6 with less than 1000 miles. We have only had two fill-ups, but both have yielded just over 25 MPG in mostly suburban/highway driving. I'm hoping to see 30 MPG on the highway when it is fully broken-in.

I'm surprised that you're getting the same MPG with your girlfriend's FWD I-4.

On another note...
How do you figure a 20%-25% savings when switching to regular fuel? Premium is generally 20 cents higher than regular. So at $2.00/gallon for regular, the savings would only be 9%-10%. As gas prices increase, the % savings only gets smaller (since the gap between regular & premium stays at 20 cents).

robertsmx

I used to go by $0.20/gallon more for premium over regular formula, but gas stations have managed to keep up with the times. Most now charge $0.25-$0.30/gallon more. In fact, I filled up my car earlier this afternoon and regular was $2.70/gallon (premium was $3.00/gallon).

20-25% improvement was based on savings on cost of premium as well as improved fuel economy. My GF's Jetta wasn't doing any better than 21-22 mpg and taking premium (could use regular but the 1.8T showed even worse lag/performance with regular than it did with premium). So, assuming 2100 miles/month, at $3/gallon, she was spending $300/month on gas.

If she were driving a vehicle that averaged 24-25 mpg on regular, the cost would be about $230, resulting in 20-25% savings at the gas pump.