Just my second post on this board - thought I'd revisit. I posted previously regarding the V6 VCM issue. Still no issues with the VCM - I really wonder if all the fuss is about transmission shifts - as they can be very noticeable - but you can see the tach changes as the shifts occur. I swear there's no feeling at all from the VCM. Last tank this AM got me 23.42 mpg - my best so far. Got 21 even last tank, and 22-23 the other tanks. My tank this morning cost me just under $60, which would have cost $106 for my former Chevy Tahoe, so I'm a happy camper. My goal was to double my gas mileage, and I'm looking like I'll be short of that, but I love the V6!
VCM - "I really wonder if all the fuss is about transmission shifts"
I can assure you it was not transmission shifts - I know I know the difference(as do the others who had issue too I am sure), and at 65-70 MPH there should be no transmission shifts with the cruise control on. No, there was a definite "surging" sensation when the ECO light went on and off. In my case, after about 2000 miles, it has disappeared - so I can speak of VCM from two perspectives. It WAS horribly unacceptable before - surging, jerky, "torque on/torque off" sensation as if I was pushing on and off the accelerator pedal - and I was not - it was set on cruise on a level road! NOW? I cannot notice a thing. Something happened - maybe the active engine mounts are now working and weren't before and had to gert broken in? I don't know - but I do know VCM from BOTH perspectives. You should consider yourself among the lucky who never had problems. Believe me - if you had, you too would have been thinking about getting rid of the car.
It is interesting to see honda find a different wind tunnel, the gen 7 used to get 0.30 Cd. And now it's 0.34
My Gen 7 V6 gets 29mpg on with 85% highway (mostly under 65mph) with 6k on the odo. I am expecting to see 32mpg+ after 20k. Since 6MT could get over 40mpg (full highway), i think 35mpg+ is obtainable on gen7 V6 auto.
....Since 6MT could get over 40mpg (full highway), i think 35mpg+ is obtainable on gen7 V6 auto.
...I have tried my dead level best to break 40 with my 6M. I have not (yet) been able to get past 39, Where is the dude that got 40 miles per gallon? I will buy the Crown Royal.
Seriously, 40 is hard to accomplish. I have really tried.
MPG: city with lite hwy and 80 to 85 F days (summer's not here yet) no real use of the A/C. 1st tank at 17 mpg (yes had to adjust my style of driving), 2nd tank at 24.6, then 24.6 again and last tank at 23.1 today.... I'm satisfied with the blend of economy, quality, fun and reliability this auto provides.
"No projections are needed in the wind tunnel, though, as the Accord has already bettered its performance due to a drop in the coefficient of drag from 0.34 to 0.31.
I'd like to know how they accomplished that as the frontal area does appear to be more substantial than the gen 7's. "
Keep in mind that the frontal area is seperate from the drag. To get total wind resistance you multiply the two together.
I also thought the gen 7 was .30.
EZ - you will get 40 eventually. That sixth gear is your secret weapon. Have you tried 0w-20 synthetic yet? Have you tried 40 psi (or the max sidewall - should be 44). Choose the warmest day you can stand without A/C. Check the weather channel to make sure there won't be wind (or you could cheat and look for a tailwind) and I think you can make it.
Malmousa - I am very suprised to see a hypermiler getting 25 mpg in the new Accord - what mileage were you getting in previous cars.
5 speed AT/6 speed MT - makes no difference in MPG "That sixth gear is your secret weapon"
The real issue is the final drive ratio. The final drive in the V6 6 speed coupe is 3.55, and the automatic V6, 4.31. Very strange actually - usually just the opposite because the AT has the advantage of the torque converter multiplier effect and usually has the lower final drive. http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=4102
The 6 speed coupe V6 versus the AT V6 VCM SHOULD give better MPG, unless the VCM really does what it is touted to do. I have my doubts.
They claimed the Cd numbers I quoted. I believe that I've seen .30 for the gen 7 Accord as well. One of the thoughts I have every day as I walk down my driveway after getting the mail and I look at my 08 is Wow! big car! Lots of frontal area, must displace a lot of air moving at hwy speeds. Mileage holding steady @ 21mpg over 6,000 miles and 90% city bal hwy(08 EXL-V6). I've got a trip to the White Mts of New Hampshire planned next week and I've already warned my wife that I'm interested in true hwy mileage so I'll be tanking up entering and exiting the interstate to see what I get, will post results.
To all those getting terrible mileage- Have Hope! My uncle gets right at 29-30 in his '08 EX I4 auto. Mostly slow rural-ish roads, not really around town or highway. And he does not go out of his way to get good gas mileage. I haven't ever gotten the chance to take a long trip in the car, but I have no doubt that I could get over 35mpg on the highway if he gets almost 30 around town-ish. Of note, this is exactly the same mileage he got out of his 6th gen (2000) Accord EX I4 auto. Both Sedans. The car currently has just over 6k on it.
I've always been attentive to my cars fuel economy. Sometimes the feeling from the seat of your pants tells you all is well, but attention to the cars fuel consumption shows it's dropped 10-20% over the last couple of months and a look under the hood might reveal a lose hose, clogged air filter, etc. Attention to such things will keep the consumption in the range you expected when the vehicle was purchased.
"Even then , why even bother? It'll get whatever it gets! "
Thats what my friends with SUV's used to say. Now it is hysterical to watch them line up for 20 minutes to save less than 3% ($.10 per gallon) on their gas costs. Maybe if they were aware of their mileage and checked more often they would have bought more sensible vehicles.
MPG is also a good indicator of the cars overall health.
If my car did not get what I wanted I would sell it in a heartbeat.
Once in a great while, I'll check my mileage but doing so isn't something I really care about that much. If the car isn't running up to snuff, I'll know it without having to check my mileage.
I know people (mostly older people) who keep a detailed log in their glove boxes. They keep track of EVERYTHING.
That's not me but, hey, if that makes them happy...
....Like me. Sights like this replicate what you can easily do your self with Excel etc, but there evidently are enough dinosaurs like us left that someone would maintain such a site to keep us pre-historic relics satisfied.
I guess I'm old before my time. I'm obsessive about my mileage. I have been since I started driving. I'm trying to develop better driving habits, and having trouble. Especially with $4 a gallon just over the horizon.
I'm turning 20 in a little over a month. I'm "old" I guess.
My mom says I'm hyper-anal. She says it's not necessarily a bad thing, but it gets on her nerves. Once in a while I will forget to check otherwise I always at least check it with my calculator. I guess it's a tick. I first started when I had my van. That thing was a hog. 10 mpg in a good week. 7 in a bad week. It had issues.
I took no offense to anything you said. I agree that I'm sort of neurotic about small things once in a while. I hate space savers too as they are more of a waste of time. I'd rather have a full size spare so that I can put it on and forget it, just get the other fixed. Anyway, no offense taken.
I am just thankful I do not have to drive often - only put about 5-6000 miles a year on the car. I cannot imagine driving an SUV or 4x4 and commuting long distances with gas at these prices. And the '08 Accord also has the largest gas tank in its history too - 18.5 gallons. So let's say you get it down to 1.5 left - that's 17 gallons @ 3.40 gallon in NY = $57.80 to fill up. If I were having to fill up every week I think I'd be driving a Civic 4 cyl 5 speed. I once had a Pontiac with a 26.5 gallon tank and in even in 1981 cost me about $30 to fill up. That is when I got our first Accord 4 cyl 5 speed = 35 MPG all around and 42 on the highway - tripling my fuel economy!
...EZ - you will get 40 eventually. That sixth gear is your secret weapon. Have you tried 0w-20 synthetic yet? Have you tried 40 psi (or the max sidewall - should be 44). Choose the warmest day you can stand without A/C. Check the weather channel to make sure there won't be wind (or you could cheat and look for a tailwind) and I think you can make it.
...appreciate the feedback, Senor D.
..certainly agree the 6th gear OD and 3.28 final drive are big time aids to 40 MPG club membership.
I'll forego the lite-weight synthetic and the 40+ tire pressure for now, (but I am planning to use GM SynchroMesh FM for the 6M soon).
It's a great car (well, that clutch............) for the $23.4 I laid out brand new!
Wow - stumbled onto a hornet's nest of problems with 2007 6 speed 2-3 shift when I looked into the Series 7 6 speed fuel economy. Sorry to read that. My faith in Honda engineering continues to be eroded. That problem is unacceptable and inexcusable for a service manager to call "normal". Maybe when there was no such thing as syncromesh! The gall! Good luck to you guys. Honda had better start heeding their loyall customers or they won't have any any more. :mad:
My mpg average for the first 1000 miles has been 30MPG. Following is a break down: 374 miles on 12.90 gallons 424 miles on 13.61 gallons 200 miles on 6.70 gallons
I just returned from a 400 mile trip. Southeastern Oregon to Western Washington. Over a 5000 ft. mountain pass in 30-40 degree temps. Warming to the 50's the last few hours. I kept the speed to 65 and under for the most part. A couple of stops but very little city driving.
The results: 41.7 mpg, the best ever in my 06 Accord EX-L I4 manual.
The 08 I4 numbers continue to interest me. I wonder how well I'd do. In over 44,000 miles in my 06, I've only had 8 tanks below 30 mpg, all in the winter. 29.5, 29.9, 28.0, 29.8, 28.4, 29.7, 29.8, 29.9.
You are correct, it is supposed to hold 18.5, I stop fueling when it clicks the first time so it should have very close to that. Now for the MPG you come up with using the 460 miles, that is more than my 400 mile freeway trip and includes city mileage, hence lowering the overall MPG. My overall MPG on the car for the entire past 4 months is still at 24.2 MPG.
One should take the trip computer reading within the context that it is intended for. The rational for your example is that when you are in city streets burning more gas the computer estimates the "range" (remaining miles) based on the current gas usage. You would get a different range with the same amount of gas in the tank if you moved to a freeway quick and started cruising at about 65 mph. I have been checking the computer readout with my own calcs doing the old fashion way and it is really close, not withstanding the caveat I mentioned earlier.
Guess I just like the old fashioned way of calculating mileage.
This past week we put on 200 miles of urban/suburban stop and go driving and 245 miles of highway driving at 70-75 MPH with occasional bursts of speed to pass trucks where I really put my foot into it and called on all 268 horses. I had filled it, then stopped in PA and put $10.00 in it (3 gallons) to get enough gas to get us back to NJ where the gas is about $.30- .40 LESS per gallon than in PA or NY state. Once in NJ and the gas $3.05/gallon, I filled it and it took another 16 gallons, for a total of 19 gallons for 445 miles. About 23.4 MPG. Altogether not that bad considering the almost 50/50 mix, and how hard I got on it for bursts of acceleration on occasion. Seems your all around mileage and mine are supporting that achieved by Edmunds' drivers in their long term test - 24 MPG +/- .5-1 MPG.
I wonder about something - with older carbureted cars there were adjustements that could and had to be made for altitude - e.g a car in Denver would be set up differently than a car in Miami Beach. What happend now? Do the computer programs in the ECMs automatically calculate altitude and change the fuel mix as necessary? I am running our car primarily near sea level - up the Hudson Valley, with occasional running probably in the 1000-2000 ft above sea level territory. And in comparing our MPG here on this forum, perhaps we should also mention our driving conditions? Someone out in the Rockies is going to be calling on more power more often than someone in Iowa!
I run at 6000-9000 feet elevation in my Honda and I'm sure it does affect fuel economy. But, because of that elevation, I also get to use 85 grade fuel. From what I understand, there simply isn't enough O2 in the combustion air to take advantage of an 87+ octane level. Having said that, at 7500 on the odometer, my 08 Accord I4, AT, EX-L consistently gets 26-29 mpg with 90% interstate driving (75-85 mph.) (I drive fast, but tend not to accelerate or decelerate quickly - and I never let the engine race on hills).
With regard to the engine's adjustment to elevation, from my limited understanding, the engine does not adjust the "mix." Rather, it adjusts the timing. The mix stays the same, but the timing is advanced or retarded to account for the different speeds at which combustion takes place at different elevations (i.e. different O2 levels). Of course, on all modern engines, this all takes place automatically.
Interesting - I can understand the timing adjustment and thanks for that explanation. I was under the impression too that the carburetor had to have different jets in it for different altitudes - either leaning out fuel/air mixture because of less oxygen at higher altitudes. Does the ECM do that automatically these days for the fuel injection?
In trying to calculate MPG for my new EX-L, i tested the accuracy of the odometer. In a 100 mile test, I discovered it was reading 3% low (showed 97 miles). Have any of you determined the error rate of your odometers? What is the range of error rate?
Just curious, how did you determine that your odometer was inaccurate? It's sort of a point that was glossed over, I thought. I know tire size has an affect, how large of an affect I don't know, but anyway how you determined the 3% inaccuracy would be interesting to find out. I guess I've never put much thought into it.
I know that when people start changing tire sizes they say that you need to have the car 'reset' to make up for the larger tires. I don't think that was what you did, but I tend to get side-tracked. Sorry about that.
I knew a guy who determined his speedometer was off by using the mile marker signs along the highway.
Then I learned that they use the county pick up trucks to place those signs!
So, whose speedometer is off?
And who really cares? I sure don't! a 3% error if this is for real is nothing. I don't think a speedometer/odometer was ever meant to be a precision measuring devise.
....if you have the extra cash, get the V6. The gas mileage between the 4 and the 6 is negligible. At least that is what i think i will be doing after reading a lot of these posts.
I just used my GPS system to determine mine; also helped determine how accurate my speedo is - my old (1996 model) Accord reads 75 MPH at an actual 72 (1 MPH extra per actual 24 MPH), but my newer one (2006 model) is pretty much dead on.
Helpful to know too because if the odometer is off, so too is the speedometer. Nice to know you are doing 75 and really 72 - helsp with speeding tickets! According to those highway radar readings my 2008 EXL V6 speedometer is right on the money.
I understand the connection, of course, but since we have a place for the odometer/speedometer issues already, let's take that conversation to the discussion that tallman1 helpfully linked for us and leave this one for specific MPG reporting.
As you have seen here with real life numbers, I think it safe to say the '08 Accords, with more frontal exposure, and heavier weight than the 7th Generation cars (I do not know final drive ratios for comparision) are noticeably thirstier. Had an '05 V6 AT Coupe that consistently got 29-30 on the highway at 70-75 MPH. Almost HAD to happen - I mean the '08 V6 EXL is over 300 pounds heavier than the '07. You can compensate for loss of performance with more HP and torque, but that costs you at the pump any way you cut it. The car needs to go on a diet - it all adds up - sunroof, the various air bags, dual climate control, 5 inches longer, etc.
Yes I was really suprised at the size of the new Accord. The Civic is 91 ft3 and the Accord is 106 ft3. That is a huge difference between the two. There really is a gap for a 98 ft3 honda that gets better mpg thant the Accord and has more room than the Civic.
For goodness sakes a Crown Vic is 107 ft3 and a Lincoln Town Car is 109. A 98 ft3 Accord would slot right between an E class Mercedes (97) and a BMW 5 Series (99). The TSX is close, but still (91 ft3 - with sunroof so more like 94 or 95 without) expensive, heavy and thirsty.
For the sake of recapturing mpg, yet still offering some room, Honda need to fill the gap. I would move down to a Civic if it was just me, but it is a tad small with my 3 boys and does not work if my wife joins the mix.
Comments
Happy driving.
I can assure you it was not transmission shifts - I know I know the difference(as do the others who had issue too I am sure), and at 65-70 MPH there should be no transmission shifts with the cruise control on. No, there was a definite "surging" sensation when the ECO light went on and off. In my case, after about 2000 miles, it has disappeared - so I can speak of VCM from two perspectives. It WAS horribly unacceptable before - surging, jerky, "torque on/torque off" sensation as if I was pushing on and off the accelerator pedal - and I was not - it was set on cruise on a level road! NOW? I cannot notice a thing. Something happened - maybe the active engine mounts are now working and weren't before and had to gert broken in? I don't know - but I do know VCM from BOTH perspectives. You should consider yourself among the lucky who never had problems. Believe me - if you had, you too would have been thinking about getting rid of the car.
You can report VCM engine fuel economy here or there - or both - but let's not get sidetracked on the VCM itself in this topic.
Thanks!
My Gen 7 V6 gets 29mpg on with 85% highway (mostly under 65mph) with 6k on the odo. I am expecting to see 32mpg+ after 20k. Since 6MT could get over 40mpg (full highway), i think 35mpg+ is obtainable on gen7 V6 auto.
....Since 6MT could get over 40mpg (full highway), i think 35mpg+ is obtainable on gen7 V6 auto.
...I have tried my dead level best to break 40 with my 6M. I have not (yet) been able to get past 39, Where is the dude that got 40 miles per gallon? I will buy the Crown Royal.
Seriously, 40 is hard to accomplish. I have really tried.
best, ez....
55mph yields over 40mpg
I'd like to know how they accomplished that as the frontal area does appear to be more substantial than the gen 7's. "
Keep in mind that the frontal area is seperate from the drag. To get total wind resistance you multiply the two together.
I also thought the gen 7 was .30.
EZ - you will get 40 eventually. That sixth gear is your secret weapon. Have you tried 0w-20 synthetic yet? Have you tried 40 psi (or the max sidewall - should be 44). Choose the warmest day you can stand without A/C. Check the weather channel to make sure there won't be wind (or you could cheat and look for a tailwind) and I think you can make it.
Malmousa - I am very suprised to see a hypermiler getting 25 mpg in the new Accord - what mileage were you getting in previous cars.
"That sixth gear is your secret weapon"
The real issue is the final drive ratio. The final drive in the V6 6 speed coupe is 3.55, and the automatic V6, 4.31. Very strange actually - usually just the opposite because the AT has the advantage of the torque converter multiplier effect and usually has the lower final drive.
http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=4102
The 6 speed coupe V6 versus the AT V6 VCM SHOULD give better MPG, unless the VCM really does what it is touted to do. I have my doubts.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0802_midsize_sedan_comparison/
They claimed the Cd numbers I quoted. I believe that I've seen .30 for the gen 7 Accord as well. One of the thoughts I have every day as I walk down my driveway after getting the mail and I look at my 08 is Wow! big car! Lots of frontal area, must displace a lot of air moving at hwy speeds. Mileage holding steady @ 21mpg over 6,000 miles and 90% city bal hwy(08 EXL-V6). I've got a trip to the White Mts of New Hampshire planned next week and I've already warned my wife that I'm interested in true hwy mileage so I'll be tanking up entering and exiting the interstate to see what I get, will post results.
Don't even bother checking it until you have 4-5000 miles on it. It will get better milege as it breaks in.
Even then , why even bother? It'll get whatever it gets!
Thats what my friends with SUV's used to say. Now it is hysterical to watch them line up for 20 minutes to save less than 3% ($.10 per gallon) on their gas costs. Maybe if they were aware of their mileage and checked more often they would have bought more sensible vehicles.
MPG is also a good indicator of the cars overall health.
If my car did not get what I wanted I would sell it in a heartbeat.
Once in a great while, I'll check my mileage but doing so isn't something I really care about that much. If the car isn't running up to snuff, I'll know it without having to check my mileage.
I know people (mostly older people) who keep a detailed log in their glove boxes. They keep track of EVERYTHING.
That's not me but, hey, if that makes them happy...
http://www.trackyourgasmileage.com
I'm turning 20 in a little over a month. I'm "old" I guess.
Nothing is "wrong" with checking gas mileage constantly or keeping a detailed log book or an excel spreadsheet.
If that is important to you, go for it.
Me, I don't care. It's going to get whatever it gets and I have better things to do than agonize over it.
"Older" drivers also hate space saver spares!
...appreciate the feedback, Senor D.
..certainly agree the 6th gear OD and 3.28 final drive are big time aids to 40 MPG club membership.
I'll forego the lite-weight synthetic and the 40+ tire pressure for now, (but I am planning to use GM SynchroMesh FM for the 6M soon).
It's a great car (well, that clutch............) for the $23.4 I laid out brand new!
thanks again, ez....
374 miles on 12.90 gallons
424 miles on 13.61 gallons
200 miles on 6.70 gallons
The results: 41.7 mpg, the best ever in my 06 Accord EX-L I4 manual.
The 08 I4 numbers continue to interest me. I wonder how well I'd do. In over 44,000 miles in my 06, I've only had 8 tanks below 30 mpg, all in the winter. 29.5, 29.9, 28.0, 29.8, 28.4, 29.7, 29.8, 29.9.
This past week we put on 200 miles of urban/suburban stop and go driving and 245 miles of highway driving at 70-75 MPH with occasional bursts of speed to pass trucks where I really put my foot into it and called on all 268 horses. I had filled it, then stopped in PA and put $10.00 in it (3 gallons) to get enough gas to get us back to NJ where the gas is about $.30- .40 LESS per gallon than in PA or NY state. Once in NJ and the gas $3.05/gallon, I filled it and it took another 16 gallons, for a total of 19 gallons for 445 miles. About 23.4 MPG. Altogether not that bad considering the almost 50/50 mix, and how hard I got on it for bursts of acceleration on occasion. Seems your all around mileage and mine are supporting that achieved by Edmunds' drivers in their long term test - 24 MPG +/- .5-1 MPG.
I wonder about something - with older carbureted cars there were adjustements that could and had to be made for altitude - e.g a car in Denver would be set up differently than a car in Miami Beach. What happend now? Do the computer programs in the ECMs automatically calculate altitude and change the fuel mix as necessary? I am running our car primarily near sea level - up the Hudson Valley, with occasional running probably in the 1000-2000 ft above sea level territory. And in comparing our MPG here on this forum, perhaps we should also mention our driving conditions? Someone out in the Rockies is going to be calling on more power more often than someone in Iowa!
With regard to the engine's adjustment to elevation, from my limited understanding, the engine does not adjust the "mix." Rather, it adjusts the timing. The mix stays the same, but the timing is advanced or retarded to account for the different speeds at which combustion takes place at different elevations (i.e. different O2 levels). Of course, on all modern engines, this all takes place automatically.
I was under the impression too that the carburetor had to have different jets in it for different altitudes - either leaning out fuel/air mixture because of less oxygen at higher altitudes. Does the ECM do that automatically these days for the fuel injection?
Thanks
As for MPG - the difference is totally insignificant. 100/6 gallons = 16.66,, 97/6 = 16.66, 300/12 = 25, 291/12= 24.25
I know that when people start changing tire sizes they say that you need to have the car 'reset' to make up for the larger tires. I don't think that was what you did, but I tend to get side-tracked. Sorry about that.
You can read all about it here:
Accord Class Action Suit
Then I learned that they use the county pick up trucks to place those signs!
So, whose speedometer is off?
And who really cares? I sure don't! a 3% error if this is for real is nothing. I don't think a speedometer/odometer was ever meant to be a precision measuring devise.
On a 100,000 mile car, nobody would care anyway.
Thanks.
With about 70% hwy and 30% local/city I got 421.8 miles from 13.49 gallons for the last tank which equates to ~31.27 mpg.
Car is 06 LX 4 Cyl Auto.
The results: 41.7 mpg, the best ever in my 06 Accord EX-L I4 manual
:surprise: Question for you tallman: Did you use cruise control for the entire/majority of your trip?? That is amazing!!!
Your points are well taken by this beached sailorl
I've an '05 6M Coupe whose freeway MPG borders on fantasy. With fuel prices more and more at the forefront, I decided to pass on an '08 6M.
best, ez....
For goodness sakes a Crown Vic is 107 ft3 and a Lincoln Town Car is 109. A 98 ft3 Accord would slot right between an E class Mercedes (97) and a BMW 5 Series (99). The TSX is close, but still (91 ft3 - with sunroof so more like 94 or 95 without) expensive, heavy and thirsty.
For the sake of recapturing mpg, yet still offering some room, Honda need to fill the gap. I would move down to a Civic if it was just me, but it is a tad small with my 3 boys and does not work if my wife joins the mix.