I've been driving this car ('02 EX V6, automatic) for about three years, and it now has 73k total on it. In that time my worst mileage is about 19.5, and best is 29.8 (infuriatingly close to 30).
My normal commute is ten miles each way, split evenly between lightly traveled interstate (65-70 mph) and suburban boulevard (45 mph speed limit, maybe six lights). On this run I average 22-23 mpg.
I'm seriously considering switching to an '08 with the four cylinder and a stick. I drove one earlier this week and it feels every bit as quick in real-world conditions, and based on what others are posting here I would expect to be able to gain 15-20% in mpg.
I've always been able to beat the EPA figures when driving a manual transmission Honda. Automatics are another story.
I have a V6 from 2004 and what I have noticed it is that if you stay low at approx 2000-2200 RPM you get up to 29/30 mpg. Which is nice and you can be at 65-75 mph on the free way (keep you out of ticket) but if you try what I did like go from 0- 60 ASAP expect 23/24 mpg Drive safe Accord V6 it’s a great car! Oh I forgot, if you drive while raining can be obstruction in getting good mpg I live in AZ it is hot and that may be a difference, however I use high octane gas from Chevron gas station. TAKE CARE
Right now I'm sitting at "half" tank and so far I've gone about 233 miles. Not sure what kind of mileage this will return, but I'm thinking it could bring my average up.
What do you all think based on your experience. High 20s low 30s? I'll have to wait til friday when I fill up again.
I don’t know what are you driving but if it is a Accord V6 and you are @ 233 mil at half tank I can say your average it is approx. 27-29/mpg Good job! When you are below 200mil. at half tank you are at approx. 23-25/mpg.
I'm in a 4cyl. It was agonizing close the 30, 29.08 approximately. I keep trying to crack 30 again, but I just can't seem to squeeze that 0.4mpg out of it. I've tried going really slow, I've tried cruise, I just can't seem to make it. I'm annoyed, but not unhappy. This is better mileage than I've ever had in a car, and this is the second largest I've owned, behind a Buick LeSabre.
29 mpg doesn't upset me though, especially since before this the highest I'd ever managed was 26.xx. It's getting better, then again I've become a little more conscious of my driving and what I've been doing to waste gas.
The super milers run it higher. Articles have been in the paper and on the news - getting 100+ MPG out of their Insights - higher pressures, no AC, coasting whenever possible - stuff like that.
I run mine at 34 and I am sure you could go to 35 without any problem depending on how hot it gets where you are. Might just get you that extra .4! Just watch your tire wear.
We recently got 30 with our 2008 V6 Sedan over about 138 miles at 70-75 - right on the button 138/4.6 gallons = 30.
Recently completed an 1875 mile loop from Phoenix through New Mexico and back. First half of trip was at speeds of 70 to 80 mph and averaged 30.3 mpg. Second half included driving around Santa Fe, Albuquerque and northern AZ. Overall average was 29.3 mpg. Cruise control helps mpg on flat roads but can actually hurt on hills because it downshifts to slow the car on grades.
2005 6 speed MT had a nice lower final drive and I am not surprised at your mileage. We got 30 with our 2004 AT V6 coupe. That 3.0 L engine was a good one.
Again, topography plays such a critical role in mileage - and I think the VCM is especially netagively affected by it - with all the 6-4-3-4-6 cycling. Keep it level and you will approach the EPA numbers.
My grandfather routinely gets 30+ in his LeSabre on the highway, with a 3.8 V6. My 03 Accord I4 would get 34 on the highway, even with 78Mph interstate driving. My 08 EXL I4 will not go above 28, no matter how slow I accelerate or drive. If I drive exactly the same way I drove my 03, I get 4-5 MPG less in the same conditions. I didn't really care whether the new Accord was larger, so if I had known mileage would be so much less, I wouldn't have bought it. I enjoy the room, but it was not the reason I chose to get a new Accord. I chose it because I wanted the Side Curtain Airbags and wanted to upgrade to leather. I currently have 14000 miles, and the mileage has not gotten noticeably better. I can only get 350 miles per tank city driving, which is exactly the amount I would get in the 03, and this one has a larger tank.
My very first tank was really bad, but I suspect that the dealer did not fully fill the tank either. After the first tank, I have not noticed any improvement at all, and I have 14000 miles. I get 21 in the city, and the most I have ever gotten was 28, and that was almost entirely highway miles. I haven't been too impressed with the 08 Accord EXL 4 Cyl Auto, as my 03 model with the 4 Cyl consistently got around 4-5 MPG better with the same trips. I never had trouble meeting the previous EPA standards, so I don't know why this car is so much lower. It is heavier, but not THAT much heavier. I still believe that earlier builds (or at least some of them) get poor mileage. It wouldn't surprise me as I have had new struts and a wheel bearing replaced already as well. Mine was built in August.
I don't really fault the EPA either, as I do get 21 in the city. It is clear to me though, that the 08 4 Cylinder (or at least mine) is not near as fuel efficient as my 03 was. I never had to consciously change the way I drove to meet the old ratings in the 03. One just doesn't expect a company like Honda to redesign a car and have it not at least meet the fuel economy of the previous model. For years, if anything, fuel economy has been increasing (as have fuel prices).
I got 29 MPG with a Pontiac Trans Am, and Corvettes regularly get 28-30 on the highway. Why? GM gears its cars for a very tall overdrive in high gear - the Trans Am? 2000 RPM at 80! The engines are loafing along at barely more than an idle. Not Honda - Honda believes in higher RPM - Why? I have no idea. But our '08 V6? 2500 RPM at 75. The engine certainly has the torque necessary to run at lower RPMs and my reason for arguing for a 6 speed atuo with higher overdrive INSTEAD of VCM. :confuse:
Honda's previous V6 ran at close to 2,100 rpm at 75 mph. By gearing higher, the VCM can run more often, saving more fuel. If the RPMs were lower, the engine wouldn't have enough power to run on 3 or 4 cylinders, and would be forced to use all 6 cylinders, which would use more fuel.
The Honda Odyssey with optional VCM is a perfect example - the RPMs run about 300rpm higher at 75 mph in those with VCM than those that don't, for the reason I mentioned.
Your V6 runs at the exact same RPMs as my 2006 4-cylinder (75mph at 2,500 rpm); makes sense seeing that your car runs on 4 cylinders when doing light load driving.
The fact that the car runs at high RPMs isn't because it "only" has 5 forward speeds. Our old 2000 Odyssey ran around 1700-1800rpm at 60 mph. I'm sure the Accord could be tuned to run like that just fine, but you can be sure it would use more fuel than with VCM, or Honda would've just done that.
I'm not so sure I can agree with the assessment that the V6 would get less mileage without the VCM. I don't see where the VCM is helping at all.
If you check what has been written about the real world mileage of the V6 Hondas between 2003 and 2007, you'll generally see better mileage than what you see with the 2008s. If you look at a couple of competitors that don't use VCM {the new Camry and Sonata for instance}, you'll see roughly comparable cars getting at least the mileage you see here with the new Honda, and maybe better.
The closest comparison, most likely the fairest comparison, is what the real world mileage of the Acura TL gets. Looking at that thread, it seems either that folks are exagerating their mileage claims, or that the same engine as the VCM V6 without the VCM is getting better highway mileage, in a similar, but slightly heavier car.
Forgive me for not having the links this time, but the Real World MPG threads are in these other forums too........
So, the car gained horsepower, over thirty pounds of torque, and a substantial amount of weight. That alone would lower fuel economy by a large margin, yet gets economy that is as least as good as the older, lighter, less powerful one.
Vfm HAS to have helped it or economy would be closer to the 17/25 of the non VCM model.
I think you misunderstood me...... The 2008s seemingly get less mileage than the 2003 thru 2007s. Seemingly get approx the same as the Camry, that is similar in mass, also uses a 3.5L V6. But doesn't use VCM. Saying that it gets similar mileage to the new V6 Sonata is giving the 2008 Accord the benefit of the doubt. Since these "Real World MPG" threads are all heresay kinda things, I'd hate to say the Sonata has better mileage than the Accord........ but it looks like it......
On the other hand, one can make a case that the Acura TL is pretty similar to the Accord. Uses pretty much the same engine, in a slightly heavier car. And the mileage appears to be better in the Acura. The difference seems to be that the Acura still hasn't been saddled with VCM.
I agree with your assessment that adding approx 200lbs could cost roughly 2mpg. But, looking at the other makers, adding .5 liters to the engine, and more torque, also seems to add more mileage. In this case, it really didn't. It appears to me, that in this case, the cost of the VCM isn't worth it.........
**Vfm HAS to have helped it or economy would be closer to the 17/25 of the non VCM model**
Caught me for a bit on this...... The only "non VCM" option is the stick shift coupe. I don't think we can directly correlate the mileage performance of the stick vs the auto, particularly since the stick in the coupe is likely more for the "performance" crowd than the mileage crowd. Gearing could be a major factor here........Otherwise I can't see why the mileage is so poor for freeway driving. That's V8 fullsize freeway mileage....... Or performance coupe mileage.... and I think that's what is intended for the stick shift couple.
Think about the fact that Toyota's 2GR engine is a lot newer than the current V6 engine family Honda has (which debuted in the late 1990s). It may simply be a more efficient design, allowing better fuel economy for the same amount of power than Honda produces. VCM is Honda's way of compensating, for now anyway.
I find that interesting too, and it tends to confuse me. Thus, I prefer looking at another car that uses a similar platform, and the same engine without VCM.
That Acura TL.
And I prefer to look at the "Real World MPG" numbers rather than worry too much about the EPA estimates. Yes, you're going to be dealing with people, and how people interact with their cars, and then turn around and express themselves on the internet..... but....... look at enough samples and it raises some questions for me {more questions}. Why does a heavier car without VCM seem to get better mileage than a car with the latest mileage tech?
I'm not a Honda guy, really..... that's why I prefer to stay within the Honda family on this. I'm not a real believer in the Camry V6 "superiority", I suspect that the warmed over Honda really is close enough today in refinement that we should see similar numbers without VCM. Using the Acura to look at it this way, we do see similar if not better numbers than the Camry, and definitely as good if not better than the VCM Accord.
You don't see this with the I4's. Here, Honda is still an industry leader without question.......
You completely missed my point - one GM proves daily even with a Corvette for God's sake - check the latest Autobobile, C&D or Road and Track for cars to enjoy with expensive fuel - yup, Corvette was #1 WHY? Very tall overdrive.
I maintain that a non-VCM V6 Honda would get better highway mileage with a 6 speed overdrive transmission and very tall overdrive permitting 40MPH/1000 RPM than the current V6 VCM.
VCM is WAY too complicated a "solution" to better mileage.
"Lower RPMs at highway speed is harder on the engine"
Please explain. GM does it with all its engines. My Trans Am ran 2000 RPM/80 MPH and got 29 MPG. Frankly, it ran great. How is it "harder" on the engine? When the engine comes under load the tranny shifts out of OD and into the next lower gear until the power is no longer needed. I know you should not "lug" and engine, but that generally is when you go below 1000 RPMs in any gear and you certainly feel it with a manual tranny. It is impossible to "lug" and engine with an automatic transmission.
I don't think low rpm is too hard on the engine. I have (ok my wife has) a Sienna minivan with a 225 hp v-6 (less than Accord) weighing in at 4,200 lbs (quite a bit more than Accord) and with much worse aerodynamics and frontal area than Accord. With all those disadvantage it still runs 1,700 rpm at 60 mph which is less than the Accord V-6. It does not lug or struggle either.
The low rpm Sienna gets better mpg than the VCM Odyssey (Consumer Reports).
I long for taller gears in my Accord. I used to have a 74 hp Passat that only turned 2100 rpm at 60 mph. My Accord ('07 I4 MT) is at about 2380 rpm going 60.
....I long for taller gears in my Accord....My Accord ('07 I4 MT) is at about 2380 rpm going 60.
....while I spin at 2000 rpm going 60 ('05 V-6 6M), from time to time (especially with pain at fueling time on the increase) I fantasize about your power train and it's tremendous fuel economy potential.......
I guess that why I stayed in the Naval Reserve (so I could afford to taste to 6M's signal straight line acceleration up the on ramp enroute to the salt mines).
I could be wrong but Honda's engines are peaky. My O8 V6 Accord has 248ft-lbs of torque @ 5,000 RPM, the engine your referring to has 242ft-lbs @ 3,000 RPM. Wouldn't the Toyota have more available torque @ 1,700 RPM than my Accord? I believe the Accord would be lugging @ 1,700 RPM and would kick down a gear or two to bring the rev's up to attain the torque required. As long as Honda's engines are designed to achieve max torque at these high RPM's, 66% higher than the Sienna engine, they will rev higher to be in their power band.
Awww... ezshift5, c'mon, if you keep your foot out of it I bet you do pretty darn well with that 6 speed coupe on the road anyway. Our 2004 V6 coupe with AT got 28-30 on the road. I figure if I can get 30 on the highway and 23-24 around town I will be happy. Then again, we got our car in December and have 4000 miles on it. That is even high as we put 1000 miles on it with extraordinary trips to a house we were selling in upstate NY. Which, by the way - this economy is going into the toilet. The only thing that might lower fuel prices? Less demand - people driving less, uinable to afford it - houses worth less than mortgages, etc. Thank GOD I dodno thave to drive every day but take the subway or bus. I could not STAND filling up to the tune of $65 every 400 some odd miles. And it is going to be $5.00/gallon soon - make that $80 every 400 miles. To think when I was in college I drove from Syracuse, NY to Buffalo and back for $5.00 worth of $.239/gallon gas in my Corvair and used 15 gallons of gas to do it. :sick:
I can't see the V-6 lugging at 1,700 rpm while cruising. Maybe going up a steep hill. I know the Sienna has more torque, but it weighs nearly 1,000 lbs more and pushes a whole lot more air.
My corvair was a '63 convertable with a 3 speed stick. Had the back end try to pass the front end twice in spirited (but not crazy) driving. Luckily I caught it both times. That thing was a handfull.
That's strange. In mine, 03 LX I4 auto, it runs about 2200 at 65 and 1800 at 55. I know this because I've been watching it, especially when setting the cruise.
Are manuals really geared that much different than autos? I wouldn't know I've only driven one with any real success once, and that was only for 3 miles, no highway speeds. Trying to learn to drive a 5 speed.
Forgive me, wasn't the Corvair a death-trap anyway because the handling was so... shall we say "interesting," with the rear mounted engine?
I know it's off-topic, but I was curious. I saw it on Modern Marvels. Didn't Chevy finally axe it because they got involved in a bad class-action lawsuit or something. Just curious. I wasn't around when the Corvair was in production, or if I was it wasn't long.
You would have to check the specs on the cars but yes, generally, there are significant differences in the final drive ratio for lots of reasons - the AT has a torque converter that assists with a gear multiplication effect during acceleration that MT does not have. With 6 speeds 5 and 6 are both overdrives, redducing the final drive more than the AT 5 speed. Theoretically the MT should get better mileage.
Early Corvairs had a "swing axle" rear suspension that would cause the rear end to "jack up" when going into a corner too fast, causing the back end to swing around and the car to be uncontrollable. That was cured with an anti sway bar preventing the "jacking up" effect. '65 and later cars had a multi link fully independent suspension like the Corvette except rather than using a transverse multi leaf spring it used coil springs at eacah wheel. Much better at maintaining vertical contact of the tire with the surface and the cars were outstanding handlers. Too late however - Nader's book had come out, the Mustang, and the death knell for the Corvair had been sounded. The cars handled similar to Porsches - also notorious oversteering cars but not driven by Mr. and Mrs. Average American like the Corvair. The general Ameerican public could never adapt to the vagaries of the diffferent handling of a rear engined family car, like Porsche drivers did with theirs.
Are manuals really geared that much different than autos?
Yes... for example the AT Civic actually gets better highway mileage than the MT. Some say Honda keeps the revs higher in the MT so that those who use cruise control don't make the engine lug when going up a hill. I've never had that problem in my 06 EX-L I-4 5 spd manual. I'd get 40 mpg all the time if I had the auto's gear ratios.
I got 21.5 towing my bass boat at 50-60 in my '02 V6. Should have been 23.5. Changed the plugs and the engine runs more smoothly. Noticed that I'm going farther on my fill up,but haven't completed the tank yet. Consider changing your plugs to get better mpg. .02.
2006 4CYL Accord got 37 mpg for 322 miles from Ms to Nashville. Avg. 26 in town and 37.3 o return trip all highway miles staying with flow of traffic between 70-80 miles per hour.
Over the last 4 tanks, my V6 has averaged 26.2 MPG in city driving.
Needless to say, I'm very light on the throttle. The transmission usually upshifts somewhere in the 2000-2600 rpm range and I hardly ever let the engine rev past 3000. I coast as much as I can and I always manipulate the throttle slowly and smoothly when accelerating. In fact, I'm so careful with the throttle that my right ankle often aches during driving from modulating the throttle so precisely. I sometimes wonder why I try so hard when the results aren't really that spectacular. If I were to drive how I wanted to drive (quick acceleration and higher speeds), my mileage would only drop 3 or 4 MPG, I'm sure.
I've noticed that my mileage has improved quite a bit in the last few months (warmer weather?). During the winter, it would never rise above 24 MPG no matter how carefully I drove. Most of the time it was between 22 and 23.
I should note that I fill up exclusively with Shell V-Power 93. The J30A5 runs much smoother and stronger on this gas than on regular 87. I quit filling up with 87 within the first 1000 miles because I noticed severe pinging/knocking during acceleration, especially uphill. I could even hear it with the radio at a moderate volume. That's how severe it was. Once I switched to 93, the pinging stopped, and within a few tanks I noticed a considerable increase in torque (especially in the low-end) and better fuel economy (up at least 2 MPG, on average, couldn't do better than 21.X MPG city on 87). At first, I thought the increase in power and efficiency was attributable to the engine breaking in, but after trying a few tanks of 87 every so often, I've found that there is quite a difference between the two. After running 93 for several tanks and then suddenly filling up with 87, I notice a slight drop in power and the mileage for that tank is usually about 2 MPG lower than the previous tank of 93. I've yet to try mid-grade, but I really don't see a reason to. It may not ping like 87, but it likely won't perform like 93.
For all you 2003+ V6 guys out there, I highly recommend using premium gas. Sure, it costs more up front, but in my experience the greater power and efficiency more than makes up for the couple of dollars per tank premium. In fact, since my mileage is around 2 MPG higher on average with 93 versus 87, I'm actually SAVING money in the long run using the more expensive 93 octane.
If you do decide to give 93 a try, have patience. You're not going to notice an increase in performance and mileage right away. It takes a few tank-fulls for the engine's computer to optimize the ignition timing advance for the higher-octane fuel. The difference between regular and premium is far easier to feel when downgrading from 93 to 87, since the engine has to immediately pull the timing advance back to avoid detonation. It takes much longer for the engine to "see what it can get away with", so to speak. It takes time, usually 300-500 miles or up to two tanks of gas.
If you have a 2002 or older V6, stick with 87 octane. Anything higher will actually hurt your performance and gas mileage as their engines can't optimize the ignition timing for higher octane fuel like the newer engines can. On the Accord, that nifty "feature" was added in 2003 with the introduction of the J30A4 (when the 7th gen Accord debuted, a Honda engineer even stated that using 91+ octane in the V6 added 10 HP and 10 FT-LBS for a total of 250 HP and 222 TQ). As far as I know, this applies to the 2008 Accords as well, probably even more so since the J35Z2 has a higher compression ratio than the J30A4/5 (10.5 vs. 10.0).
On a side note, isn't it amazing how far engine management has come in recent years? 10+ years ago, you couldn't have imagined an engine with a 10+:1 compression ratio running safely on regular gas while making decent power. Now, they can...and then some. The new direct-injection 3.6L V6 in the CTS comes to mind. 304 HP on 87 octane. Wow. Heck, even the 06-07 Accord V6's 244 HP on 87 is impressive (though, from my experience the engine doesn't like 87 much at all).
Well, I've gone on long enough, so I'll shut up now :P
Interesting analysis. Whether you are saving money or not is debatable depending on the price differential between 87 and 93 octane, and the difference in mileage. Right now your theory holds true - if you get 24 with regular and 26 with premium, regular costs $3.99 here in NJ, and premium $4.27, and you travel 260 miles, you are better off with the premium - 10x$4.27 - $42.70 versus 10.83 regular x$3.99 = $43.22. If the price differential is $.33/gallon or more you are worse off.
I never had any pinging problems with our '04 V6 AT Coupe. Have to wonder about the quality of the gas you are buying, regardless of its being Shell or not. I once got a tank of water from a Sunoco station.
Coming from a 2003 6spd coupe to my current ride, a 2008 6spd, I can also vouch for your statements about using premium gas in the Accord V6. The performance was noticeably better in my 2003 with the higher octane, and MPG slightly better (but not substantially, perhaps due to my heavy right foot... ) I had also read the analysis from the Honda engineer that hp increased from 240 to 250 using premium in the previous 3.0 motor. So far, there is nothing on vtec.net or other sites to suggest more than 268hp by using 93 octane in the 3.5 V6. Someone should be testing that soon, hopefully.
I have only used 87 so far in my 2008 6spd, pretty much following the recommendations from Honda. However, based on your suggestion, I will start using 93 octane in my 6spd to see how much better it performs. This new 3.5 feels significantly more stout than the 3.0, so I'm curious to see how it responds to premium gas.
The one downside to pushing higher octane is whether it will increase the torque steer, which can be noticeable if I floor it without a good grip on the steering wheel. I do run summer tires in the warmer weather, which improves handling and lessens the spinning of the front wheels. Given the greater performance of the 3.5 6spd, I've been pleasantly surprised that torque steer is really not that bad....so far.
The performance was noticeably better in my 2003 with the higher octane, and MPG slightly better (but not substantially, perhaps due to my heavy left foot... )
So...you...ride the clutch?
I think you mean your "other left." I had to say SOMETHING.
Comments
My normal commute is ten miles each way, split evenly between lightly traveled interstate (65-70 mph) and suburban boulevard (45 mph speed limit, maybe six lights). On this run I average 22-23 mpg.
I'm seriously considering switching to an '08 with the four cylinder and a stick. I drove one earlier this week and it feels every bit as quick in real-world conditions, and based on what others are posting here I would expect to be able to gain 15-20% in mpg.
I've always been able to beat the EPA figures when driving a manual transmission Honda. Automatics are another story.
Oh I forgot, if you drive while raining can be obstruction in getting good mpg
I live in AZ it is hot and that may be a difference, however I use high octane gas from Chevron gas station. TAKE CARE
Right now I'm sitting at "half" tank and so far I've gone about 233 miles. Not sure what kind of mileage this will return, but I'm thinking it could bring my average up.
What do you all think based on your experience. High 20s low 30s? I'll have to wait til friday when I fill up again.
Super.
29 mpg doesn't upset me though, especially since before this the highest I'd ever managed was 26.xx. It's getting better, then again I've become a little more conscious of my driving and what I've been doing to waste gas.
I run mine at 34 and I am sure you could go to 35 without any problem depending on how hot it gets where you are. Might just get you that extra .4! Just watch your tire wear.
We recently got 30 with our 2008 V6 Sedan over about 138 miles at 70-75 - right on the button 138/4.6 gallons = 30.
Filled up this am. No one is really happy........looking around the Valero that I use.
Numbers: 1925.9 miles on 67.796 gallons (5/27/08 to 6/27/08).......
Mean=28.4
Median=27.65
Mode=26.65 more or less
Range 20.24 to 32.18
2005 HAV6 6M (coupe)
all the best, ez....
Consistently get 25 mpg driving around Phoenix.
Not Honda - Honda believes in higher RPM - Why? I have no idea. But our '08 V6? 2500 RPM at 75. The engine certainly has the torque necessary to run at lower RPMs and my reason for arguing for a 6 speed atuo with higher overdrive INSTEAD of VCM. :confuse:
Honda's previous V6 ran at close to 2,100 rpm at 75 mph. By gearing higher, the VCM can run more often, saving more fuel. If the RPMs were lower, the engine wouldn't have enough power to run on 3 or 4 cylinders, and would be forced to use all 6 cylinders, which would use more fuel.
The Honda Odyssey with optional VCM is a perfect example - the RPMs run about 300rpm higher at 75 mph in those with VCM than those that don't, for the reason I mentioned.
Your V6 runs at the exact same RPMs as my 2006 4-cylinder (75mph at 2,500 rpm); makes sense seeing that your car runs on 4 cylinders when doing light load driving.
The fact that the car runs at high RPMs isn't because it "only" has 5 forward speeds. Our old 2000 Odyssey ran around 1700-1800rpm at 60 mph. I'm sure the Accord could be tuned to run like that just fine, but you can be sure it would use more fuel than with VCM, or Honda would've just done that.
If you check what has been written about the real world mileage of the V6 Hondas between 2003 and 2007, you'll generally see better mileage than what you see with the 2008s. If you look at a couple of competitors that don't use VCM {the new Camry and Sonata for instance}, you'll see roughly comparable cars getting at least the mileage you see here with the new Honda, and maybe better.
The closest comparison, most likely the fairest comparison, is what the real world mileage of the Acura TL gets. Looking at that thread, it seems either that folks are exagerating their mileage claims, or that the same engine as the VCM V6 without the VCM is getting better highway mileage, in a similar, but slightly heavier car.
Forgive me for not having the links this time, but the Real World MPG threads are in these other forums too........
Vfm HAS to have helped it or economy would be closer to the 17/25 of the non VCM model.
Sorry for any misspelling; I'm on my iPod!
On the other hand, one can make a case that the Acura TL is pretty similar to the Accord. Uses pretty much the same engine, in a slightly heavier car. And the mileage appears to be better in the Acura. The difference seems to be that the Acura still hasn't been saddled with VCM.
I agree with your assessment that adding approx 200lbs could cost roughly 2mpg. But, looking at the other makers, adding .5 liters to the engine, and more torque, also seems to add more mileage. In this case, it really didn't. It appears to me, that in this case, the cost of the VCM isn't worth it.........
Just my opinion.......
Caught me for a bit on this...... The only "non VCM" option is the stick shift coupe. I don't think we can directly correlate the mileage performance of the stick vs the auto, particularly since the stick in the coupe is likely more for the "performance" crowd than the mileage crowd. Gearing could be a major factor here........Otherwise I can't see why the mileage is so poor for freeway driving. That's V8 fullsize freeway mileage....... Or performance coupe mileage.... and I think that's what is intended for the stick shift couple.
You may be right, but I suspect VCM has a bigger effect on the mileage than you think.
That Acura TL.
And I prefer to look at the "Real World MPG" numbers rather than worry too much about the EPA estimates. Yes, you're going to be dealing with people, and how people interact with their cars, and then turn around and express themselves on the internet..... but....... look at enough samples and it raises some questions for me {more questions}. Why does a heavier car without VCM seem to get better mileage than a car with the latest mileage tech?
I'm not a Honda guy, really..... that's why I prefer to stay within the Honda family on this. I'm not a real believer in the Camry V6 "superiority", I suspect that the warmed over Honda really is close enough today in refinement that we should see similar numbers without VCM. Using the Acura to look at it this way, we do see similar if not better numbers than the Camry, and definitely as good if not better than the VCM Accord.
You don't see this with the I4's. Here, Honda is still an industry leader without question.......
I maintain that a non-VCM V6 Honda would get better highway mileage with a 6 speed overdrive transmission and very tall overdrive permitting 40MPH/1000 RPM than the current V6 VCM.
VCM is WAY too complicated a "solution" to better mileage.
Please explain. GM does it with all its engines. My Trans Am ran 2000 RPM/80 MPH and got 29 MPG. Frankly, it ran great. How is it "harder" on the engine? When the engine comes under load the tranny shifts out of OD and into the next lower gear until the power is no longer needed. I know you should not "lug" and engine, but that generally is when you go below 1000 RPMs in any gear and you certainly feel it with a manual tranny. It is impossible to "lug" and engine with an automatic transmission.
The low rpm Sienna gets better mpg than the VCM Odyssey (Consumer Reports).
I long for taller gears in my Accord. I used to have a 74 hp Passat that only turned 2100 rpm at 60 mph. My Accord ('07 I4 MT) is at about 2380 rpm going 60.
....while I spin at 2000 rpm going 60 ('05 V-6 6M), from time to time (especially with pain at fueling time on the increase) I fantasize about your power train and it's tremendous fuel economy potential.......
I guess that why I stayed in the Naval Reserve (so I could afford to taste to 6M's signal straight line acceleration up the on ramp enroute to the salt mines).
best, ez....
My corvair was a '63 convertable with a 3 speed stick. Had the back end try to pass the front end twice in spirited (but not crazy) driving. Luckily I caught it both times. That thing was a handfull.
Problems from earlier models completely corrected.
Are manuals really geared that much different than autos? I wouldn't know I've only driven one with any real success once, and that was only for 3 miles, no highway speeds. Trying to learn to drive a 5 speed.
I know it's off-topic, but I was curious. I saw it on Modern Marvels. Didn't Chevy finally axe it because they got involved in a bad class-action lawsuit or something. Just curious. I wasn't around when the Corvair was in production, or if I was it wasn't long.
Thanks for humoring me.
Yes... for example the AT Civic actually gets better highway mileage than the MT. Some say Honda keeps the revs higher in the MT so that those who use cruise control don't make the engine lug when going up a hill. I've never had that problem in my 06 EX-L I-4 5 spd manual. I'd get 40 mpg all the time if I had the auto's gear ratios.
......last 3 tank-ups: 756.6 miles on 24.364 gallons of 87.........
....gives circa 31.1 60HWY/40CITY. 6M coupe.
...happy hour is here.
best, ez....
Needless to say, I'm very light on the throttle. The transmission usually upshifts somewhere in the 2000-2600 rpm range and I hardly ever let the engine rev past 3000. I coast as much as I can and I always manipulate the throttle slowly and smoothly when accelerating. In fact, I'm so careful with the throttle that my right ankle often aches during driving from modulating the throttle so precisely. I sometimes wonder why I try so hard when the results aren't really that spectacular. If I were to drive how I wanted to drive (quick acceleration and higher speeds), my mileage would only drop 3 or 4 MPG, I'm sure.
I've noticed that my mileage has improved quite a bit in the last few months (warmer weather?). During the winter, it would never rise above 24 MPG no matter how carefully I drove. Most of the time it was between 22 and 23.
I should note that I fill up exclusively with Shell V-Power 93. The J30A5 runs much smoother and stronger on this gas than on regular 87. I quit filling up with 87 within the first 1000 miles because I noticed severe pinging/knocking during acceleration, especially uphill. I could even hear it with the radio at a moderate volume. That's how severe it was. Once I switched to 93, the pinging stopped, and within a few tanks I noticed a considerable increase in torque (especially in the low-end) and better fuel economy (up at least 2 MPG, on average, couldn't do better than 21.X MPG city on 87). At first, I thought the increase in power and efficiency was attributable to the engine breaking in, but after trying a few tanks of 87 every so often, I've found that there is quite a difference between the two. After running 93 for several tanks and then suddenly filling up with 87, I notice a slight drop in power and the mileage for that tank is usually about 2 MPG lower than the previous tank of 93. I've yet to try mid-grade, but I really don't see a reason to. It may not ping like 87, but it likely won't perform like 93.
For all you 2003+ V6 guys out there, I highly recommend using premium gas. Sure, it costs more up front, but in my experience the greater power and efficiency more than makes up for the couple of dollars per tank premium. In fact, since my mileage is around 2 MPG higher on average with 93 versus 87, I'm actually SAVING money in the long run using the more expensive 93 octane.
If you do decide to give 93 a try, have patience. You're not going to notice an increase in performance and mileage right away. It takes a few tank-fulls for the engine's computer to optimize the ignition timing advance for the higher-octane fuel. The difference between regular and premium is far easier to feel when downgrading from 93 to 87, since the engine has to immediately pull the timing advance back to avoid detonation. It takes much longer for the engine to "see what it can get away with", so to speak. It takes time, usually 300-500 miles or up to two tanks of gas.
If you have a 2002 or older V6, stick with 87 octane. Anything higher will actually hurt your performance and gas mileage as their engines can't optimize the ignition timing for higher octane fuel like the newer engines can. On the Accord, that nifty "feature" was added in 2003 with the introduction of the J30A4 (when the 7th gen Accord debuted, a Honda engineer even stated that using 91+ octane in the V6 added 10 HP and 10 FT-LBS for a total of 250 HP and 222 TQ). As far as I know, this applies to the 2008 Accords as well, probably even more so since the J35Z2 has a higher compression ratio than the J30A4/5 (10.5 vs. 10.0).
On a side note, isn't it amazing how far engine management has come in recent years? 10+ years ago, you couldn't have imagined an engine with a 10+:1 compression ratio running safely on regular gas while making decent power. Now, they can...and then some. The new direct-injection 3.6L V6 in the CTS comes to mind. 304 HP on 87 octane. Wow. Heck, even the 06-07 Accord V6's 244 HP on 87 is impressive (though, from my experience the engine doesn't like 87 much at all).
Well, I've gone on long enough, so I'll shut up now :P
Right now your theory holds true - if you get 24 with regular and 26 with premium, regular costs $3.99 here in NJ, and premium $4.27, and you travel 260 miles, you are better off with the premium - 10x$4.27 - $42.70 versus 10.83 regular x$3.99 = $43.22. If the price differential is $.33/gallon or more you are worse off.
I never had any pinging problems with our '04 V6 AT Coupe. Have to wonder about the quality of the gas you are buying, regardless of its being Shell or not. I once got a tank of water from a Sunoco station.
I have only used 87 so far in my 2008 6spd, pretty much following the recommendations from Honda. However, based on your suggestion, I will start using 93 octane in my 6spd to see how much better it performs. This new 3.5 feels significantly more stout than the 3.0, so I'm curious to see how it responds to premium gas.
The one downside to pushing higher octane is whether it will increase the torque steer, which can be noticeable if I floor it without a good grip on the steering wheel. I do run summer tires in the warmer weather, which improves handling and lessens the spinning of the front wheels. Given the greater performance of the 3.5 6spd, I've been pleasantly surprised that torque steer is really not that bad....so far.
Thanks for the tip!
So...you...ride the clutch?
I think you mean your "other left." I had to say SOMETHING.