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
The gauges aren't perfect, or I'd have used more than 7 gallons when I fill my car when the gauge reads 1/2 tank, it'd take approx. 8.5 (my car holds 17.1).
I have never gotten the same distance out of the second half of a tank of gas as the first..
I'd hope not, as you'd run out of gas every time you used the 2nd half of the tank.
This whole thread is useless...
I don't think so. Several people have followed each other here for a long time. They know the route I just took since I've been making it for years now, and I've been reporting it for that long also.
"this whole board is meaningless other than for bragging rights, because there are SO many variables to fuel economy - altitude, topography, traffic (regardless of highway vs city), tire pressure, ...."
-I always run at 35-37psi
-The run is hilly Alabama terrain, from Birmingham (700ft) to the coast (0ft)
-Traffic, as usual, was a non-factor until I got off the interstate, in which it was very light, no need to adjust my speed for other cars as there was no congestion
-I used the cruise control on the highway, at 72mph
-I used the A/C 100% of the time, with fan speed around 4 out of 12
- My air filter is clean (7000 miles on it)
-My oil needs changing (getting done today)
-My tires stay rotated and are original Michelins, now with 36,200 miles.
-I didn't use the moonroof or roll down my windows
-I had one period of extended idling, at a car wash where they left it running while detailing the interior
-I was the only person, with a small amount of luggage - estimated payload 250lbs
The only thing that ever changes with these trips is the oil life, air filter wear, and A/C use, which I accounted for originally in my post. Traffic is never an issue.
Your car's condition, the elevation changes, etc. are all fine to note, but irrelevant to anyone of the rest of us. Congratulations on your mileage.
I know that somebody on here said that the net effect of using the slowest setting was that you will get slightly more gas into the tank that you would with it wide open.
All numbers are usefull, they just need to be taken in context. The more numbers the better, that is what this forum is about.
It doesn't matter whether you get every last drop possible into the tank by whatever method. What matters is that the method of fueling is consistent and ideally from the same pump. Using the same setting each time on the handle is a way to achieve that. Of course the best thing to do is average the consumption over several tanks of gas because there can be subtle variances.
Personally, I don't worry about the small stuff. A general idea (rounding the tenths down, for example), is good enough for me. But there are many who like to be very exact about it and that's fine if that's what you or they like to do.
Besides I'm back doing it manually because my 08 Accord LXP doesn't have the trip computer, a real bummer.
So that is what I do - and with consistency - the amount of gas in the tank should be pretty close to the same each time assuming the cut off occurs at about the same time with each fill up.
Perhaps people who hop on the "Accord Real-World MPG" forum want to know if people are getting what they are supposed to, or not. Posting an update now and then would be useful to those people in the market for your particular car who are interested in what people ACTUALLY get, not what the sticker says.
Just my 2 cents...
Where I'm going with this is just that, you being a prime example, most of us slip a little bit about the roads we travel in there so that people can get a good idea what we're doing.
For instance the main road that I use is I-35E, people who live outside of MN wouldn't have a clue, unless they travel here often, but others who live here would be able to get useful information about the car on that given road.
Also, the formulations are different around the country, I wouldn't guess that it's a dramatic difference, but people can definitely get different formulations. So I guess people would be more concerned with what I'm getting up in MN, than say what somebody gets in Texas, if they live in MN.
If anybody doesn't understand me I'm sorry. Sometimes I get rather longwinded and end up talking in circles.
For reference, I take Interstate 65 from Birmingham, through Montgomery, all the way to 35 miles outside of Mobile (taking an exit near the "e" in Mobile on the map above, to go due south towards the coast). From there, it is 45 miles of US Hwy with varying speeed limits from 30 to 65 MPH, the majority being 55 MPH. Probably 20 traffic lights from the interstate to the condo. Conditions are hilly, but not so much that my car ever downshifts at 72 MPH to maintain that speed. In fact, the torque converter never unlocks for the 200+ miles of interstate driving. Only when I leave I-65 do I encounter gears other than 5th!
And yet you are reading this forum, and participating in it.
Overall mileage since March:
5488 miles on 208.824 gallons for an average of 26.281
Not having all of those months in between my mileage for last month:
1315 miles on 45.371 gallons for an average of 28.983
Just taking this month so far:
924 miles on 33.776 gallons for an average of 27.357
This takes into account weather differences as in March we were still subfreezing in MN and now we are maintaining well above 80 with lots of humidity, both requiring A/C either to cool the car or to defrost. It also takes into account variations in driving because I've been trying to follow peoples tips and advice to get the best mileage possible. There are occasional slip-ups when I decide to have a little fun, but for the most part my habits are changing for the better.
For anybody who forgot the link that was posted months ago it is www.mpgtune.com. Membership is free and there are a bunch of different tools on the site, none of which I use because I don't need to, otherwise I've been tracking on there.
I've always tracked my mileage, but this is an easy way for me write it down and learn from it.
....while it is true that 37 is getting close to the tale of the bell-shaped curve, I have (admittedly with significant effort) logged 39 on two separate occaisions.
The players were the deep 6th gear OD, no air, RON 87, about 2200 rpm and the Interstate system (I-5/8).
best, ez....
While the '08 may have more horsepower and torque to "handle" the added weight, it does so at the expense of fuel. The Accord needs to go on a major diet. I was shocked when I saw our '08 V6 weighed 3600 lbs!!!! My father's '65 Pontiac Catalina weighed 3600 pounds and was a MUCH larger car on the outside.
I don't think there is anything "wrong" with your car other than its obesity.
I couldn't agree more. Some of the New England roads I drive on a regular basis lack the engineering that newer roads were designed with and are brutal on portly vehicles with mediocre power. I’ll sacrifice the 1 to 3 MPG loss knowing that as I climb these roads with AC running I’m not overtaxing an engine I hope will serve me well over the next 5-6 years.
1) This is obvious to most; assuming it's an auto5, make sure you're not in D3 vs. D5. It's easy to slip past D5 to D3.
2) Again assuming an auto5, drive with one foot, not two. Your left foot even just resting on the brake pedal can engage the brake just enough to effect your mileage with you noticing any drag.
3) Smooth starts and more coasting will yield great results. I see most people on the road driving as if gas was still $1.50/gal, but yet they complain the most.
4) Again an obvious point; correct tire pressure can yield 1-3% better mileage. Some run their tires 3 - 10 lbs over for slightly better results.
5) Drive-thru's for fast food, banking, coffee, etc will kill you mileage. Again, I see people run into the cleaners leaving their cars running for up to 10 min. to keep the a/c on.
There are plenty of people who drive similar routes and get different mpg results. It's just a matter of driving style. I believe with the exact specifications auto manufacturers need build their cars to in order to meet emissions and safety requirements, having a "lemon" or something else "wrong" that can't be found or detected is very rare, not entirely impossible, but very rare. Okay, so now blast me for stating the obvious and that none of the above applies to your situation.
I will repeat my info for clarity. 2007 I4 SE MT 40 psi, 0w-20 mobil one. 398.6 mile round trip. 1 adult occupant and a brief case.
45 mpg going there - slight tail wind, speed 62 mph no A/C temp in the 70's and cloudy. 2,000 ft elevation gain
51 mpg returning - slight head wind so I slowed down to 55 mph to compensate (mostly rural 2 lane roads so I was not too much of a road block - even passed 1 or 2 people) temp had warmed up to 80-82. No A/C!!!! it was toasty but it was mostly cloudy so it was bearable. 2000 ft elevation drop, coasting down hills.
The above numbers are off of the scangauge. Total tank was 46.9 scangauge and 46.1 calculated. There were about 9 miles of city driving before my trip as well.
My 10 tank calculated rolling average is now at 36.9 mpg and my lifetime (36,500 miles) is now at 33.35 mpg.
I can't stress enough how much a role temp plays. The warmer the temp the better the mpg all things being equel. Now of course A/C use cuts into that, but at some point the temp makes up for the A/C use. As an example. If you get 40 mpg at 65 degrees with the A/C on. Turning on the A/C may drop that to 37 mpg.
Now maybe you get 44 mpg at 90 degrees with no A/C (not reccomended). Turning on the A/C may drop the mileage down to 40, but that is about where you were anyway with no A/C for the cooler temps. I just threw these numbers out there to illustrate, but based on my experience they are in the ballpark.
At the other end of the spectrum. I struggle to get mid 30's when it is below 10 degrees even on relaxed highway trips.
Say what you want about the antiquated technology of big pushrod V6 or V8 engines with gobs of torque, but they can comfortably cruise the highway at speeds of 80 MPH running as few as 2000 RPMs, delivering astonishing fuel economy. Heck, Corvettes are getting better highway mileage than many posters here!
In that I really take exception to Honda's high revving philosophy, probably traceable to its motorcycle roots, the S2000 for example having been likened to a "crotch rocket" with four wheels.
Dudley and I are liking the 35+ mpg with no real effort in attaining it.
It's a shame (to me) the Accord is now a ginormous car; it lost the appeal it once had to this young man.
I am also dumbfounded by the increase in size with the Accord. I find mine to be quite large and roomy even in the back seat.
There is a huge gap between the 106? ft3 Accord and 91 ft3 Civic.
I may try to pump up the tires slightly more, but with the lower profile tires, the ride is already rough enough. I have eliminated trips through drive thru's as well. I always go inside now.
I really wonder if early builds may exhibit this issue more. I have already had to have both front struts replaced, and drivers front wheel bearing, so it is clear there were production issues.
My main basis is the fact that I've owned two other Honda's (01 Civic, 03 Accord), and never had any trouble meeting the old EPA ratings, but with this model, I can't even meet the highway ratings even under the more conservative EPA ratings. My last full highway trip yielded a little less than 28 MPG, and my 03 at 80 MPH no less would yield 34MPG. I no doubt agree that if this is just the way it is, Honda flubbed in making this car so large. The only reason I got the 08 was for the safety upgrades, and didn't want to buy an old model (07), but in hindsight, I would have rather bought an 07 all things considered.
There was a TSB for the 08's regarding the knock sensor. The Honda Warranty Claims says it has been done by my dealer at PDI, but does anyone here know if that necessarily means it was done, or could it have been submitted but not done? My car had just come off of the truck a few hours before, so it is possible it was not done.
Actually, for the 08 4 cyl auto, it does match the same EPA mileage estimates as the 07, after re-rating the 07 to the 08 EPA mpg methodology. Both are 21/31. The 07 V6 auto re-rated to 08 EPA spec's is 18/26, while the 08 V6 auto is at 19/29. Technically, they're as good or better than the previous model. Real world mileage might be different though.
Here is an article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
I don’t know where did you get this numbers. Most of people I know who drive the 08 accord 4 cylinders are getting around 29-30 MPG. Automatic transmission or manual transmission is almost the same they both required the driver to learn how to drive them. I will suggest to anybody who’s getting bad gas mileage, to buy the SCANGUAGE2; since Honda did not want to add MPG meter. This small gadget will show you when you are wasting the gas so you can pull back on the throttle, and will also show you when you are driving efficiently, use it for a month or two until you learn how to drive your car efficiently, and you’ll be amazed with the result. This tool can give you more information about your vehicle if you’re interested. In my 08 accord MT, I manage 520 miles on 16 gallons when I refuel. This is just a suggestion for people that are having problems to meat the EPA numbers. By the way they are other gadget that accomplish the same thing as the SCANGUAGE2, do your search on the net, they are all good. Honda did not want to add the MPG meter to their vehicles for a reason that people my start bugging the dealers about the numbers they would get on their computer.
I got them right here, from posts such as # 2050, and # 2115. Getting 30 MPG in my mixed highway/suburban commute requires zero effort - I drive normally - in my 2006 model. Nowadays people are working hard to hit those numbers in the new heavier-but-no-torquier 4-cyl 2008 Accords.
I know that my car isn't fast, or at least as fast as some people's are, but I like to see who is paying more attention to the lights.
Question, today somebody told me that if you are driving at night, with no other cars around, you can trick the light into going green by flashing your high-beams. Is this true?
Anybodies answers are great. I'll have to try it. I go to work at 4 in the morning anyway. The lights are mostly green, but sometimes they sit red forever.
Had another tank over the weekend. This one not so good. Had the whole family (5 of us) in the Accord instead of the minivan for a 390 mile round trip. Drove 68 mph on the way there with a/c on most of the time and a moderate headwind. Only got about 35-36 mpg - not great for that speed, but there was about 1,000 lbs in the vehicle.
Drove 65 on the way back and was up at 39 mpg (even more weight in the car because there was a sale) hardly any wind this trip. The tank is only 34.5 overall with about 50 miles of pure city with a/c and some ideling/drivethroughs - things I avoid when alone.