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:
congratulations - and what a great Honda to have - a collectible keeper in my opinion. Great lines, and a Honda Acccord Station Wagon??!! I had a friend in VA with about the same mileage on hers as yours - doctor's wife - could have driven anything she wanted - she LOVED her Honda - was having it checked out for her annual vist to family in Chicago. Obviously trusted it implicitly. I thiink Gen IV, along with the 1st Generation Legends were some of the most timeless and efficient designs Honda has ever come up with, and the Legend? The perfect car - low, roomy, great handling, last FOREVER, and surprisingly powerful - way more than advertised!
Great car - in AZ - should be rust free and a REAL survivor keeper. I am jealous!
With about 1000 miles on the clock, I'm getting 26-27 MPG (60% hwy/40% city). I can get over 31 MPG when doing trips that are 90%-100% hwy - cruising at 70-75.
The trip computer is very handy for looking at short and long term fuel economy. Over the last 6000 miles, my mileage has been 25.2 mpg in Phoenix city driving (not as stressful as the EPA city cycle). We are taking a 1600 mile road trip to New Mexico this month and should get a good read on highway mileage.
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?
Love the wagon .. so practical. I have no idea why people prefer an SUV. Wish there was still a honda wagon or even hatch. 40 mpg with all that room. I almost bought a vibe instead of the Accord for that reason.
Yea, wagons are pretty handy, and seem to be coming back into vogue. (Dodge Magnum, Ford Mondeo, and many others.) I think SUVs will continue their steady shrinkage to converge on the classic wagon form. As a single guy, the White Whale is more than I really need, but the price and condition were right and I'm more than happy I bought it.
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.
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.
I tried going agonizingly slow for about a week and the horns were blaring and you have the people who tailgate for the fun of it; if I had a car that wasn't worth anything I'd brake for tail-gaiters, but I don't. Anyway, I tried to ignore it, but road rage is rampant and I don't need to get hit by an angry driver to save a few bucks.
I filled up today, $39 and some change. I went about 341.5 miles and pumped 10.556 gallons for an average mpg of 32.339 or thereabouts. I can't take full credit, my mom had to go on a short road trip, 150 miles there and back, mostly highway. I'm trying to stay near 30.
I just returned from a round trip from Illinois to Florida in my 07 Accord EXL 4 cyl,. I averaged 35.7 MPG for the trip. I ran at 65MPH on cruse, with 32LBS air in all tires. We ran the air cond. & There was,my self and the wife and dog. The trunk was full of luggage and a large cooler with ice and pop I was verry happy with the MPG. I wish that I could get the same driving locally.
Greg, I read your response on tire pressure (my car is an 08 Accord V6 sedan) with interest. The tread is worn 2/32 very uniformly on all four tires after 10,500 miles. However if I go to the very narrow, outermost groove and measure my Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 V93s, the depth is down consistently 3/32 on the inner and outer treads. So I raised the pressure to 35 psi and will see what happens in the next 10K. Was your experience with this Accord model and/or these tires? Rob
A quick reminder when you increase your tire pressure. With the weather heating up extremely fast be careful on the increased air pressure, as you know your traveling speed will heat the tire and expand the tire pressure. Just check the pressure when you come back from a long drive in the heat and see what it registers.
I had my first oil change and tire rotation last month. I've been maintaining the tire pressure @ 32 psi as the door sticker suggests. I checked my tires after picking it up from the dealer and all four corners were @ 36 psi. I checked with another air pressure gauge the next day and it confirmed the 36 psi. Not finding much difference in how it rides and knowing this should help my mpg's I've decided to keep it there but will monitor the tires for uneven wear and with the intense summer heat I'll keep an eye on the actual reading as I wouldn't want it to go much higher then 36 psi. Not sure if this was a lack of attention on my dealers part or some inside knowledge they have regarding these tires and their preference for this pressure, or Honda advising their maintenance people that a few more psi's won't hurt the suspension components or how the car rides and might quiet a few customer complaints that the fuel economy is less than they expected.
It is fine to check tire pressure when hot if you are curious, but never set your tire pressure based on hot readings. Your tire pressure should always be based on cold (no driving, or minimal driving) readings.
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.
....However if I go to the very narrow, outermost groove and measure my Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 V93s, the depth is down consistently 3/32 on the inner and outer treads.
......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......
My 08 EX-L, I4, AT is starting to get better mileage for whatever reason (probably lots of reasons - more break-in, much warmer temps and summer-grade fuel). I have just over 10k on the odometer now. Whereas I could only manage 26-27 all winter in 90% interstate driving, I've taken two trips now with considerable city driving and maintained 26-27mpg. This last tank was 370 miles - about 260 of which were interstate and the remainder were in-town. I got 26.4mpg. I'm happy with that!
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.
Just be careful of what you see, some people use tire care sprays on the out side of the tire which will mask any cracks, again it's not necessarily how the thread looks its the side wall that holds up the car. One way to double check for dry rot if you spray your tires alot, is to look at the other side of the tire facing the inside of the car for cracking, especially if your tires are six to seven years older and up.
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.
The car being a 2006 model, I'm not really worried about dry-rot yet. I check tires and tire pressure reguarly, so I look for things like cracks and even nails in them pretty regularly. A good idea for all to do!
My granddad got 85k on one set that eventually dry-rotted at the valve stems.
Just curious does it matter how far your windows are open or how many are open with regards to fuel economy?
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.
I'm glad to see someone finally getting some mpg's from the 2008's. I've been monitoring with interest the 2008 mpg numbers because I'm always one breakdown away from a new car, and it seemed like until the vehicles had 10,000 miles on them no one could break 22mpg hwy. Others were as low as 14mpg average. Anyway keep us apprised. Thanks 4 the info.
2008 EX-L/V6 --- My average after 3,750 miles is 24.8. I would say 60% is highway driving. My highway driving speed is usually between 65 & 70. On the highway I easily get 27 mpg and one time I just touched an average of 29 mpg. These figures come from the Honda trip computer.
I'll throw out a few city numbers for my 07 SE I4 MT.
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.
Not going to say how much it cost because the monotony bug is rampant these days with cost to fill-up. Anyway, I filled up when it read that I'd used "half-tank" which is really more like one-third tank. My numbers have gone back up to 29.233 or thereabouts. This is virtually a mirror image of the week when I was going 55 in the morning. The difference is that I was going 65. The rest of my driving habits were virtually the same, which leads me to believe that difference between 65 and 55 are negligible, and it's safer to go 65 especially on the freeway. I know I could get better returns if I were going slower all the time, but going slower than 55 is just plain stupid, when on the freeway, trying to keep to about 50 in the city would be okay. I am inclined to believe that the best speed for mileage is under 55 since the mileage 55 and the mileage at 65 is more or less the same as far as I can tell. I know there are too many variables, but I'm learning more about my car in the process of trying to beat gas prices, as much as anyone can beat them anymore.
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. or should I go ?
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. or should I go ?
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.
I crack my back windows first 'cause they just drop about 1/2 way down. Windows down is better than a/c diminishing as you go faster. 55 is at least 7% better than 65. .02.
I do a mix of highway and city driving. Trying to determine if it's worth spending a few more dollars for the 6 cyl model instead of the 4. Any one here have a good sense of the real world differnce in mileage?
From most of the posts I've seen, when there is mix of both hwy & city there is little difference. Current climate in the North East I'm getting 22-23 MPG with a 90% city to 10 hwy bias. Pure hwy avg 29mpg and have seen 32, and that is with 3 passengers and weekend luggage. That's about all I can offer in terms of fuel economy, road characteristics will have to be offered by someone else as I've never driven either of the 4's. Wanted the 6 and didn't consider the 4.
Just completed a 1600 mile round trip to Tennessee from NJ in my V6 Exl. Almost all highway driving, at 70mph with cruise control on. 4 passengers with full trunk. A/C was cranking as it was 95 degrees. On two fill ups I got slightly more than 30mpg, One fill up was 27.6mpg. Car ran GREAT, very happy with mileage. Now have 8500 miles on the vehicle. Trip was a pleasure in the Honda!
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
What I find amazing is the fact that people are doing a million things (including myself) to reach or exceed the gas mileage posted on a cars sticker, instead of just getting into a car and seeing the results that Honda boast. Maybe Honda is the one who should be answering these questions or questioned, did they post the correct numbers to the public.
I feel Honda has been very accurate in their fuel economy postings. I live in a very hilly area of New England and I'm averaging right at 22 MPG's with a mix and @ 29 or better strictly hwy. I know it has been posted here that the 4 cyl will beat the 6's across the board but when you factor my hilly terrain and this vehicles mass, I'd be winding out a 4 cyl to manage the hills where the 6 handles them without breaking a sweat, with equal to or no more then 5% loss in fuel economy in most situations. From what I've seen from some 4 cyl postings I'm getting better fuel economy than they are. I'm speaking strictly about the 08 sedan as this board deals with all Accords.
I was talking about the 08's, and it goes beyond just the Honda's if you read other car Forums. Your 22mpg mixed driving, try just driving straight heavy city you will probably see 16/17mpg which is still in or around the car sticker postings, how ever it 's now on par with the 6cyl. My old 04 Malibu V6 200hp got 15/16mpg in the city, however on a straight highway run it achieved 37mpg go figure. Also, I just got the 08 Accord 4cyl two months ago and so far with 1,600 miles on it with heavy city driving alone I've been getting 17mpg.
What I find amazing is the fact that people are doing a million things (including myself) to reach or exceed the gas mileage posted on a cars sticker, instead of just getting into a car and seeing the results that Honda boast. Maybe Honda is the one who should be answering these questions or questioned, did they post the correct numbers to the public.
That mix is easily 70 % true stop & go, 20 % 35-40 mph with an occasional stop light thrown in and 10% hwy. Many of my stop and go city trips are no more than a mile and a half round trip. My car currently has about 8,500 miles on it. During the winter months and the same mix as mentioned above and I was only seeing 18-20 with one 17 mpg thrown in due to a major snow storm and almost an hour to drive 1 mile. I had on 03 Taurus before this with 200 HP V6 and it consistently returned 21-22 warm city mileage, down to 18-19 in the winter, but it never exceeded 29 mpg's on the hwy. People seem to be expecting mid to high 30's when the sticker is pretty dead on with 29 mpg listed as it's hwy mileage. Get aggressive with the throttle in either scenario and you'll be below 20 in the city and 25-27 on the hwy. My lifetime mileage for that 8,500 miles is 22 mpg. I, like most people would like to see something better but I read the sticker and knew what I was buying and feel I got what I paid for.
That's not what I said, first the EPA only concurs what a car company can achieve in mpg with there car. The car companies should make a better effort in guaranteeing the gas mileage stated on the sticker to the consumer, if they did you wouldn't see all those gas mileage threads.
when taking note of the window sticker on virtually any new automobile, including Honda, you'll find a range of mpg estimates.... For example, a city rating of 21mpg on average- will have a posted range with anything from 14mpg to 26 mpg or so- and all estimates contain the words " Mileage will vary based on your driving conditions" or something to that affect...
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.
I hear what your saying about the mileage, however the numbers posted on the Honda below the main EPA estimates, the expected range for most drivers almost never seem to happen 17- 25 city - 25-37 highway, based on your driving habits. 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've never owned a car that didn't get beyond what the EPA estimates are. I've said it before... over 40k miles in my 06 Accord EX-L and I've never had a tank below the city EPA. And that's using the old (inflated) system.
I live in the rain and cool temps in western Washington. Lots of hills too.
Exceptionally well. I thought of replacing the all season tires with snow treads for the winter but decided to try them first. My driveway has a pretty good pitch to it and all cars I've owned for the 20+ years I've lived there would get stuck at some point during the winter. The Accord made it thru all types of slush & snow. The handling was pretty confidence inspiring, with frequent indications from the dash that VSA or traction control were intervening on my behalf. I have two options to take going home from work. One is a main drag that is always congested but fairly level. In a bad storm it's always slow going with many spinouts and minor fender benders. The other is known as Dead Horse Hill. It has a 9% grade in a few sections and is a series of the inclines that is just over a mile. The experienced New England drivers take this route with each car stopping at the bottom and letting the car ahead of them gather a head of steam and get going for about an 1/8 of a mile before the next car progresses. I made it easily all winter.That's how my first winter went, we'll see at what mileage these tires start coming up short but I suspect I'll get thru next winter without any problems.
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.