I only mentioned the mileage at the gauge points for reference. Recently, dudleyr posted his as well when he got over 40 mpg in his manual transmission Accord in good conditions at 55mph speeds.
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.
I'm not a physics expert, however I do know this if you have a half a tank of gas left and you drive by yourself your gas mileage will be better. If you have an 18 gallon tank and you fill it ( this is an estimate using 7 pounds per gallon) your adding about 126 pounds to your car and of course a half a tank would decrease your weight to 63 pounds. The opposite should happen you should be gaining a 25% increase in mileage for the second half of your tank.
I always get better mileage the second half of the tank. I also notice that whenever I fill up the tank early (less than half a tank), the mileage is always lower than when I fill it up near empty. I figured it was the weight of the gas too.
"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've just been down that road so many times I hated to repeat it for the few people who post here, but here goes:
-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.
Sorry graduate - did not mean to come across as feisty! But I never said the forum was useless - I said meaningless, because there are SO many variables to anyone's mileage. "But a 200 mile trip across flat highways is not going to give the same mileage even in the same car as 200 miles across the Rockies!"
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.
The only true way to calculate your mileage is if you had a trip computer, The best you would get with the V6 is around 37mpg that's the best I got with my 04 Malibu straight highway run with the trip computer and manualy checking it once in a while. City was 16 mpg tops, if I mixed the above driving I would get about 28 mpg over all. Car had 23,000 miles on it when I turned it in. If I had driven heavy highway mileage I would have never turned it in.
Sorry but I totally disagree. Using a trip computer is not the only true way. You go to the service station and fill up - let it cut off while the nozzle is wide open. Do not put any more in. Travel your distance. Repeat the first step, divide the miles by the gallons used, and you have your mileage. Period. Done it for years and still do. Do not need a computer.
I know host is going to chime in soon, but you said leaving the nozzle wide open is the best to let it cut off at, does that mean that the slowest setting is a no-no or do you mean that if you fill once on the slowest setting you need to keep filling with the slowest setting to avoid skewing the results?
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.
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.
If you re-read my blog you will notice that I checked the mileage both ways electronic and manually, I was born when IKE was in in office so I have been driving for awhile. By checking it either way the results come out the same, however with the computer you can also check on how many miles you can go before you need to fill it up with just a flick of a button, no calculator needed. Besides I'm back doing it manually because my 08 Accord LXP doesn't have the trip computer, a real bummer.
I too disagree that a trip computer is the only true way to calculate mpg's. What did we do before trip computers were available? I've recorded 117 fill-ups, I think I recorded just about every single tank, if not every tank of gas and the mileage since I bought my Accord. My 25.3 mpg is spot on for this car and I'm looking to my next one, most likely a 4 cyl EX-L.
Took the words rright out of my mouth Pat - what matters is coinsistency. I only said that about the gas nozzle because in NJ where I get my gas - $3.89/gallon for regular yesterday BTW - it is full service - you CANNOT pump your own gas - the attendants always put the nozzle on full open and then it cuts off - they round to the nearest $.05 and you are done. So you can't "top it off" even if you wanted to - they will not do it - takes too much time.
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.
I guess I do not understand the importance of what my fellow owner is getting for mileage. Unbelievable MPG with tips on how to get it? Yeah. Horribly bad MPG? Yeah. But what does it really matter to anyone that I got 30 MPG last week with my '08 V6 - I am supposed to!
Our hosts have told us before that Edmunds forums readers are in the majority here, not the people who actually post.
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.
To elaborate on what you said the readers are also interested in what they can get in certain areas of the country. I know that one poster has said that terrain is rather important I agree.
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.
I follow what you're saying just fine. I guess I assumed that I'd been posting about my routine trips to the coast for so long that people knew the route I was taking.
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!
To respond to your comment about the fuel gauge; you are correct, they are not completely correct. But they are not at the same time completely off. I drive 270 miles on half thank on my 2008 accord I4, and the light come on at 500 miles, and I know there is 2.5 gallons left in the tank. Two and half gallons can run the car for 82 more miles. That is a total of 582.5 miles on one tank.. The fuel warning light comes on after only 2.5 gallons are left in the tank, the total 2008 accord tank is 18.5 gallons. As you can see from these figures, I drive more miles on my second tank, and that is due to the weight of the car with only a fewer gallons left in the tank.
I agree completely that you need to have multiple tanks thrown in to sort of offset any minor variations. As such I've been tracking my mileage on a website, which somebody posted in March, since March. My numbers are as follows:
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).
Currently, I have 14500 miles on the Odometer. My 08 EX-L Sedan continues to disappoint. My last tank included a 90 mile round trip. This consisted of 30 miles 60 MPH highway, and 60 miles at 75 MPH on the way, 70 MPH on the way back. The rest of the tank is city. I travel the same roads very often, to visit back home, so I know what kind of mileage this would have yielded before. With half a tank conservative highway miles, and the other half city, I have 400 miles on the tank, and 16.8 Gallons to fill, with a MPG of almost 24. Either something is wrong with my car, or the 08 guzzles significantly more than the 03 I4 Auto did. 24 MPG is what I would get with a full tank of city miles on the 03, and a tank with trips like this would have yielded 28 MPG or better with the 03. I hope there is something wrong and Honda issues a TSB about this, but I doubt it.
I really have to wonder about the efficiency of a 4 cylinder in a 3300 pound car. If you look back at your old '03, I suspect you'll see a substantial difference in weight. 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 really have to wonder about the efficiency of a 4 cylinder in a 3300 pound car"
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.
One point I'd like to make is we don't know your driving style, other than the speeds you drive at. Not doubting your driving skills, just a few points for everyone to consider as a reminder of what's been discussed in this forum many times. 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.
If nothing else my car is consistent... 23 MPG on the second tank. About 60-70% highway. Better than my old G35 coupe but sure not as much fun to drive! Oh ya, but it makes for a better family car (much better mpg) than my wife's SUV so it's all good.
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.
I just have to think that a larger engine loafing or being called on for 30% of its maximum power has to return better economy than a smaller engine working at full power or near to it to accomplish the same task.
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.
I agree - at the time I had the option of buying a new '07 EXL V6 for $24,000 or the '08 for $26,000. The '07 is much more representative of what an Accord was - nimble, sporty, not numb like so many other cars are. The '08 has taken things in an entirely different direction - more like an Avalon than a car true to the Accord's heritage. I wish I had gotten the '07 - liked the shade of gray better than the polished metal, and my son's just handles so much better than the '08, IMHO, forgetting the VCM issues that I had..
As far as driving style, I would ordinarily tend to agree. However, I have consciously tried to make an effort to drive more like a Granny instead of an 18 year old. I do not rest my foot on the brake, nor do I left foot brake.
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.
I am with you on this; Honda keep stretching this accord every 5 years. They have to stop. We American are fat and big and that’s why we need a big vehicles. But that mentality has changed since the gas prices reached $4 a gallon. Honda need to think about other more interesting area to improve on the previous model; this include fuel efficient engine with electric motor, diesel engines, computer monitor that shows efficiency while you’re driving so people start learning how to drive efficiently. Add HID headlight to improve visibility, improve aerodynamic to improve MPG,,, etc. But please Honda stop that old mentality that American need bigger cars, and european need midsize car because they are slimer. Tks
One of the other things Honda did to perhaps affect the car's CD and mileage was to make them more "pedestrian friendly", if you recall, in vehicle-pedestrian collisions. If I recall correctly, the redesign was done to avoid the "cow catcher" effect of the previous models' low hoodline and bumper which tended to throw a pedestrian up and over the hood and into the windshield. The new car would be less likely to do so with its higher and more vertical(and mileage nullifying) grill and hood line. Better that they fall down and get run over I guess! :confuse: :P
Honda could have successfully implemented these aspects without gas mileage suffering. I suspect this is a victim of the fact that the Accord design began 5 years ago when gas was much cheaper. Still, Honda should not redesign a car and not at least meet the same mileage as the previous model. Mileage has been important to buyers for many years.
.....Still, Honda should not redesign a car and not at least meet the same mileage as the previous model.....
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.
Indeed EPA mileage is at least as good as the old Gen 7 models, but real-world results are showing that while the V6 is about AS good as the Gen 7, the I4 models are struggling to match what the old ones did, with averages here showing in the mid 20s.
The Corvair was axed after Ralph Nader wrote a book in the 1965 entitled "Unsafe at any speed" detailing the Corvair's failings. For that, GM hired private detectives trying to discredit Mr. Nader, for which GM subsequently apologized at a congressional hearing. Later, Nader sued GM. Here is an article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
..the I4 models are struggling to match what the old ones did, with averages here showing in the mid 20s. 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 have to wonder if it just seems like it takes no effort for you because you are so used to driving efficiently that it comes as second nature? I must say that it takes a bit of effort for me to hit 29 mixed, but I'm used to putting my foot in it and periodically I like to be the first off the line.
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.
At 4 am make a point of always coasting (or at least foot off of the gas with an AT) into red lights. No need to hurry up and wait by driving normal speed to a red light.
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.
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.