By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
(2.2L 4 cyl.)
39.1 MPG from Page, Az. to Tucson.
This is my second entry here; just an update on my quest to reach 40 MPG.
Mods: Increased tire pressure. (38 PSI cold.) Mild semi drafting on the interstate (close enough to feel a difference, not so close as to risk death!), speeds around 55~60 on two lane highways, 60~65 superslab, depending on who (if anyone) was towing me along. Coasting in neutral down hills when safe. Car was loaded with a few hundred pounds of photo and camping crap.
I'd really like to hit 40 in the White Whale. This trip was a good opportunity, and without a mild headwind between Page and Flagstaff, I think I just might have made it. :mad:
Great car - in AZ - should be rust free and a REAL survivor keeper. I am jealous!
Just an observation in response to people that inflate their tires to 40+ psi. Do you really want to prematurely wear down the center tread of your expensive tires?
FWIW, the Whale's near-40MPG run was pretty atypical. It's lifetime average is around 33, largely representing the daily grind to work and back. Crappy winter mileage (30~31) is offset by 34~37 road trips.
Putting down I-17 at 60 means checking your mirrors and accelerating when a multi-lane pack is closing in. People seem to have slowed slightly in the face of 4$/gallon, but there are still many who routinely bomb along at ~80. This forces the ~70 crowd into the slow lane, and I don't want to get punted by them. I did get flipped off, twice that I am aware of. I almost feel proud! :P
Rob, 40+ PSI may be pushing things, but Honda's suggested 32 PSI for the 92 Accord is simply insufficient. My last set of tires (came with the car) wore significantly unevenly at the specified pressure. This may be partially down to the extra weight of the wagon (AFAIK, wagon and sedan are both specified for 32; the wagon is ~300 lb heavier.), but I believe Honda overvalued ride quality when determining their suggested pressures. When I got new rubber, I ran 35 PSI for a while, but they still wore fractionally more near the edges. 37~38 seems about right. So far, so good - wear is even and slow. (I try to check tread depth monthly.) My experience mirrors that of many others, and I've come to see the factory suggested numbers as somewhat bogus. IMO, you won't hurt anything by running 3~4 psi over spec, and "giving it a go" for a few thousand miles. I don't think you'll see any sign of excessive center wear. If you gain a MPG en passant, all the better.
-Greg
As I posted last week I didn't hit 30, I got 29 instead and that was driving a little more conservatively. This week I'm trying something new. I'm going to try to keep my speed lower in the morning on the freeway, but once I hit the lights I'm going to try and accelerate a little more briskly and keep the speeds as close to 55 as possible as that seems to be the optimal speed. So far I have 122 miles on 1/4 tank using these techniques.
I'll report back. I know that I read somewhere than going slow and steady is just as bad for mileage as going like a raped ape, but having the revs stick around 3500 until you hit your target speed seems to work. I don't know, it's only two days into the experiment.
I guess I'm still in the faster is better mindset, and old habits die hard, but if this works I'll just be tickled.
Anyway, sorry to ramble. I'll shut up now.
Sorry to ramble again.
Just thought I'd share.
Keep reporting the positives of heads up driving. Believe it, it's good for us all!
best, ez,,,,
Rob
The number on the sidewall and the door jamb etc are all based on cold readings. If you do hot readings you may dangerously underinflate your tires - remember the Explorer/Firestone debacle.
Few more tanks for me. My wife went on a long trip with the car and only got about 29 mpg ( she drives fast and inconsistantly and there was a strong headwind that day) going there, and about 36 mpg coming back (she slowed down and did not have a headwind). I finally had my 10 tank average over 36 mpg, now it will drop again. Lifetime is right at 33 mpg. She takes the car again today - see what she does.
FWIW I got 32.0 with the Sienna minivan while I had it. Long trip mostly back roads going 60 mph. Wanted to see if I could maintain 30 + with that vehicle.
......my 6M coupe has these in 17s. FWIW, they wear and wear and wear. At just over 50k, i have 5/32 remaining all around. I can't really join the anti-Michelin movement at this time and have been saving my Naval Reserve pay for Exalto A/S replacements......
best, ez....
while happiness is certainly preferable to misery..................if I had the 4 cylinder showing those numbers (well, you get the picture Senor Bug)
Keeping in mind that my 6M requires more involvement (work) and will require a belt to keep the valves and pistons separated some time down the road, the fuel efficiency ain't exactly a deal breaker....
Fuel numbers for period 4/25 - 5/25/08: 50.478 gallons; 1389.1 miles gives 27.52 for a mean, the median falls between 27.45 and 27.06 and we have a bimodal distribution of 27.XX.....all around our state capital (60hwy/40city).........
I'm sort of teasing you, Bug (no offense intended). I think your four (at least the GenVII 4 cyl) is much, much more capable.
best, ez....
Thought I'd post my most recent mileage. It's a disappointing 24.6 down from 28 last week. I know not a big difference, but I was doing so well. I must admit that I was being stupid and trying the fast acceleration this week, as I read somewhere taking forever to speed up is just as detrimental to mileage as going hyper fast, I was trying to keep my revs at around 3k, didn't work.
This week I'm back to the moderate acceleration, and am going to try to keep at 65 mph as this is a decent compromise between 55 and 70. Trying to keep other drivers at least not irritated at me for hindering their movements.
I keep working on my driving style. Just curious does it matter how far your windows are open or how many are open with regards to fuel economy?
I ask because I generally keep them crack maybe 4 inches on both sides, or drivers window is shut with the passenger side all the way open. Just wondering. I never really thought about a potential difference until today. Gas hit $4.09 today. I expect it to be around $4.40 when I have to fill out on Friday. I think I'm going to be sick.
I know we have some of the cheapest gasoline in the world, save venezeula and some of the oil 'producing' countries. Sorry I can't spell right now. However, we also have one of the worst mass transit systems in the world. I don't have specific data, but we are just too spread out for a good mass transit system to work. I'm done with my tangent.
My granddad got 85k on one set that eventually dry-rotted at the valve stems.
Tires are Goodrich Touring T/As. (Costco special!)
It makes a slight difference but not as much as using the AC. I got over 40 mpg with the sunroof open in my 06 EX-L I4 manual.
Since I've never had a tank below 28 mpg in over 40k of driving, I'm not impressed with the 08 numbers I've read here. :sick: I have only 4 tanks a year that are below 30 mpg.
These figures come from the Honda trip computer.
When I have an all city tank (city is 13,000 max speed limit 35 lots of stop lights and stop signs - typical average speed on scangauge is 18 mph - very hilly) I range from 23-24 mpg in the dead of winter to 27-28 mpg in the spring/summer. The diff would probably be greater, but we use summer blend all year round as this is not an urban area with special winter requirements.
A few weeks ago I spent some time in a different city. This was totally flat with no hills, and there was more distance between lights and stop signs. The temp was warm, but I rolled the windows down instead of A/C as it was only mid 70's - 80. Over 3 days my mpg was 38.2 the first, 40.3 the second and 39.5 the third. (daily numbers from scangauge typically 50 miles each day ) Total tank for drivin 10 miles in my town, driving 165 each way to another town, driving about 150 miles in that town and then driving back was 40.0 mpg.
The high mpg city driving was exclusively non rush hour and was coasting to lights as much as possible. Also SD has 4 way intersections with no signage (nobody has a stop or yield), so you rarely have to stop when going thrugh residential neighborhoods, which I did more of than usual.
As far as mpg goes, the hotter the better. The only problem is that A/C cuts into that gain. Around town where rolling down windows does not really hurt mpg, you can have substantial gains by opening them instead of using the A/C.
It's amazing how two days of just off the wall driving can affect these things. I will be sticking with 65 in the morning and 70 in the afternoon and all else will remain more or less the same.
One more thing, I've started coasting more to stop-lights. I know which ones I always hit and I've started coasting even if they are green. I also pay attention for the DO NOT WALK lights as these are a good way to know when the light will change. I've also been perfecting my technique of relying almost exclusively on cruise to do my acceleration after the minimum speed. I do this only because it keeps the revs low enough to get the most use out of the gas being given to the engine. I only do this when it is safe to do so.
On a different note I read that article with Wayne Gerdes and I would never practice his driving techniques. He's nuts in my opinion and a menace. Just my $.02 or my 0.63 ounces.
Within some circles it would appear that our friend Wayne is an extremist. Absorbing too many Roentgens perhaps. In my experience, I've found it better to avoid extremes. Time will tell.
OTOH, rational fuel saving techniques: timing the lights, avoid frequent braking, smooth accel; these be good.
best. ez....
Maybe towing a boat up a mountain the 6 will match the 4.
I'm certainly penalized for my fast driving when I am on the highway. I likely average 75-80mph with lots of time spent at 85. On the other hand, while I'm not a hyper-miler, I am very conservative in town -- I never accelerate with more than 1/3 throttle, I always coast between lights and I hit my brake as little as possible.
"I think your four (at least the GenVII 4 cyl) is much, much more capable." --- I don't know if my GenVIII is more capable - -but I'm absolutely convinced the Gen. VII would be more capable. This is just my opinion -- but I'm convinced the GenVII car was simply a better car -- not as big and, IMHO, not as good looking, but better engineered all the way around!
Enjoy all that shifting ez ----- I'm still struggling with my AT
That would be the EPA's problem, not Honda's.
That'd be like me rear-ending you, then saying you are supposed to pay to fix my car.
so as long as you're getting something within said range - the mpg statement on the window is quite accurate and Honda has ZERO liability b/c you aren't getting what you feel you should be.
You know we alway hope for a little more than less of course.
How was your car in the snowy winter months up by you, did the car handle well.
I live in the rain and cool temps in western Washington. Lots of hills too.
So much depends on how you drive.