Could you provide some data to support your idea that Cruise and AC are better for fuel economy.
1) You don't have to live in the Rockies to encounter hilly driving. Increasing throttle from say, 50% to 80% just to maintain an arbitrary speed going uphill (using Cruise) is NOT more fuel efficient than increasing throttle to say 60% and slowing down a few MPG uphill (without Cruise).
Also, Cruise is unable to anticipate hills. Therefore, it is late getting on the gas when approaching (and has to overcompensate once you hit the incline), and does't know to back off the gas as you reach the crest of the hill. This is one reason why Cruise uses MORE gas.
2) Here is a scientific test which PROVES that AC uses more gas than windows down. See slide 15 of the attached link.
I agree with mattgg1. I saw on Mythbusters where they showed that the car with the AC on consumed much more fuel than the car with all the windows rolled down.
These myths about cruise control and A/C have been around a long time. The GM SUV's are hardly a decent test bed for anything as they flow like bricks through the air...just look at their terrible gas mileage. The Honda SUV gets almost 60-80% better gas mileage and the Accord gets about 20-30% better gas mileage than the Impala. Of course the Toyota models do just as well...but a GM report...NOT for me!
However, peace brothers, I am not about to make this a cause celeb. Enjoy what you drive...but for god's sake don't travel 80MPH...maybe we should go back to the 85MPH speedometers and transmissions and engines tuned for maximum gas mileage at 55MPH. We used to turn in autos traveling more than the posted speeed limits with great rugularity (much to the delight of john law) on our old CB radios...cell phones can help us cut back on terrible drivers.
I am so old that I can still remember how to figure gas mileage in my head without searching for some "magic formula"...we definately have dumbed down as drivers and educated people. God forbid, we used to be able to do simple math in our heads! Sigh...but I digress.
However, I do a lot of HWY driving, and I don't think cruise helps these people very much. Example...Person is driving down the highway with cruise set at 75MPH driving in the right lane. They're eating & talking on cell phone and don't notice the semi in front driving 55MPH. Person must slam on brakes to deactivate cruise, wait for an opening to pass, then slam on gas to get back to 75MPH.
Obviously, this person would be a worse driver without cruise. I'm sure you've seen them on the road. You're cruising at a steady speed, and this driver will pass you. Then, while maintaining your speed, you eventually catch up to them and eventually go around them, only the have them pass you again. They're constantly speeding up and slowing down, wasting more gas than if they just used cruise control. From my observations, I believe this is the rule, not the exception. That's why I believe if more drivers used cruise control, more gas would be saved. Drivers just need to think just a little bit about what they're doing out there on the road. Using cruise control at 75-80 mph is not a smart thing to do when speed limits range from 60-70 mph. You will be in a constant state of engaging and disengaging the cruise control as you work your way through traffic. I find what works best for me is to set the cruise at slightly higher than the posted speed limit, typically at 70-72, maybe a few mph less if the limit is 65. I will still pass many cars and trucks on the road, and while I'll be passed by at least twice as many, I usually catch up to them anyway because they get held up at a bottle neck in traffic.
As a result, inattentive drivers generally will get lower MPG regardless of what they do. All things being equal, I would get better MPG without cruise than someone driving with cruise. Do you disagree?
That might be the case, but then all things would not be equal either. If I'm using cruise, I maintain my speed up hills and down the other side. I may use more gas going up, but I use a lot less going down the other side since the throttle will back off and let me coast down the hill. If not using cruise, you lose a bit of speed going up, but you won't back off the throttle as much as you build momentum going the down the other side.
I don't think you read my post too clearly. I said "I don't think cruise helps these people very much." Both of our scenarios are true, which led to my point..."As a result, inattentive drivers generally will get lower MPG regardless of what they do."
Your comment about using cruise on hills makes no sense...
You are correct, you will use more gas going uphill with Cruise, since I don't accelerate as aggresively to maintain speed uphill without Cruise.
However, you're wrong about using less gass on the backside of the hill with Cruise. Cruise will back off the trottle and let you "coast down the hill," but this isn't a good thing.
Explanation: You reach the downhill portion of the hill, and Cruise backs off the throttle to 30%. However, Cruise doesn't know that the road is flat up ahead. So it continues at 30% throttle to the flat portion, where it then has to jump on the gas (say 70% throttle) to maintain speed, losing any momentum you could have gained.
Since I don't use Cruise I can anticipate the end of the hill, ease into the throttle while still headed downhill(40%), and use the momentum to my advantage. THis allows me to more efficiently maintain a steady speed on the flat section and USE LESS GAS.
Driving: 1. Average to spirited 2. 60/40 hwy/city, mostly commuting to work 3. Do not use cruise control 4. Use a/c & heater depending on weather conditions
Maintenance: 1. Change oil at dealer every 4K miles 2. Tire pressure maintained at 30psi, all 4
Observations: 1. Mileage has significantly improved after 10K miles 2. Best mileage if gear upshift at 2500 rpm & downshift at 1500 rpm 3. Max mileage at speeds 65-70
I hope I get a better mileage on the month end road trip since most of it is hwy cruising. Also, measure mileage with cruise control.
Thanks for the information. 29/30 MPG is very good, especially considering you only drive 60% HWY, and occasionally engage in spirited driving.
I just bought an 06 4cyl Auto, and I've averaged 31 MPG from my first 3 fill-ups with just over 1100 miles. However, I drive 75%/80% HWY at 70 MPH and have not driven aggresively, yet.
A few questions comments:
It may be a little premature to claim significant improvement after 10K miles, having driven only 850 miles over that. I'll be interested to see if the improvement continues over the next few thousand miles...I hope so, maybe I'll experience the same trend.
Why do you use 30 PSI all around in your tires? For the 06 model, they specify 32-front, 30-rear. Is it different for 2005? I keep 35 PSI in the front and 32 PSI in the rear.
I've heard that increasing PSI can lead to increased gas mileage. I'm not sure if this is true, but I've always maintained a slightly higher PSI in my cars.
My old Integra spec'd 29 PSI in all tires, although I kept a minimum of 32 PSI. On the highway, I averaged 34-35 MPG, even though the EPA rating was 29 MPG.
Regarding the mpg improvement, I just observed a sharp increase after 10K miles. I filled up the tank today & measured 34.04 mph. There are many reasons for that. One reason is, in warmer days the warm-up period after a cold start is less. Another reason may be driving at optimal speeds in warmer days which, is not possible during winters because of snow & ice. I lived in NJ last winter where it snows quite a bit. Anyway, I agree with you about monitoring the trend for the next couple of months.
The suggested air pressure for 2005 LX 205/R15 H rated tire is 30psi front & 29psi rear tires. Greater air pressure gives better fuel economy but, the ride is not very comfortable. I've tried 32-34psi but, have felt stiff, bumpy & noisy rides. Cornering ability improves though. I prefer to stick with the recommended air pressure. If slightly greater air pressure works for you, you should continue with that.
Mattg1, I'm not buying what you're saying. If my commentary on using cruise on hills don't make sense, then neither does yours.
If you maintain your throttle position when going up a hill, your mpg goes down, because for the same throttle position as on a flat road, you're going slower while still trying to shove the same amount of gas into the engine. As you crest the hill, you start speeding up but your mpg hasn't returned to it previous level until you're on flat road again because you're in a state of acceleration. So let's say you normally get 30 mpg on flat roads, and 24 mpg going up a hill, and 28 going down the other side while you're accelerating back up to speed then eventually 30 again.
Now, if you maintain your speed going up the hill, your mileage may drop to around 18-20, but as you back off the throttle at the crest and down the other side, you mileage can be as high as 50-70 mpg, depending on how much the cruise backs off the gas. Since you're already up to speed, you don't have to overcome inertia so the throttle goes back to it's previous flat road position. I have observed this happening in my Mercedes with the trip computer set on actual real-time mpg.
No matter how we try to save gas, at least we're trying to do what we can. It sometimes irks me that it frequently appears another driver is wasting the gas I'm saving through their inefficient driving style. :shades:
Great information. I look forward to seeing how much MPG in my car will fluctuate with the time of year.
I really have no idea whether higher tire PSI leads to increased fuel economy. I find it hard to beleive that a 2-3 PSI increase would have any noticable impact on MPG. But since I've gotten great mileage on my old car, I've continued the trend with my 06.
Higher tire pressures implies lesser area of contact between tire & road. As a result the rolling resistance is decreased. You may expect a mile more with slightly higher tire pressures. It's not a substantial increase but, makes one feel better in today's gas price trends. However, excessive air pressure leads to uneven tire wear, more suspension action weakening springs & shock absorbers, & slippage during winter.
This will be my last post on this topic, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
In your example, I maintain my throttle uphill and get 24 MPG. You (with Cruise) increase throttle when you hit the incline to maintain speed, and get 18 MPG going uphill. I agree.
Where you're wrong is on the downhill portion. In your example, you get 50 MPG because cruise "backs off the throttle" going down the other side.
The reason Cruise had to back off so much...because it used more throttle/gas going uphill. It also didn't anticipate the crest of the hill and ease off the throttle, so it used even more gas.
You claim that I get "28 MPG going down the other side while you're accelerating back up to speed". No way. I'm barely on the throttle, as the downhill momentum is bringing me back up to my normal speed.
Therefore, you get marginally better MPG on the backside of a hill. But that savings is far outweighted by the gas wasted going uphill and reaching the crest.
Will advise when I return from it tomorrow as to what mileage I get. I'm following others, so i may not get optimum mileage . Last trip I managed 36.4 MPG, but only had 2k miles on the car. I'm at 6300 now, so maybe it'll be better!
Recently completed my first long trip in the car to LA and back, around 500 miles. A good mixture of open freeway (US 101), mountain pass (California 154), and urban freeway driving in dense traffic.
80 on the open road, driven with moderate aggression on the mountain pass, and shifting at 22-2300 in about 40-50 miles of heavy stop-and-go, the car returned 28.3 mpg.
I figure an all-highway loop would easily yield the 30 mpg on the window sticker, probably more if the engine rpm were left under 2500 (70 instead of 80).
.....I figure an all-highway loop would easily yield the 30 mpg on the window sticker, probably more if the engine rpm were left under 2500 (70 instead of 80).
..e-box - - - we've identical engines/transmissions (I've got two less doors)....
..and I think you figure right........actually if you've the discipline to hold 2200 rpm - - - you can amaze all your friends...
..in other words - - your car can do a LOT better than 30..
I am looking at the 2006 accord EX-L 4cy AT. What gas mileage are others who have not posted getting and what is the mix of driving? hwy vs city? I am trying to determine what i can reasonably expect in town. Thanks
With many hills and twists in the road (lots of speed up/slow down) I managed 31.4 MPG. I was glad about this b/c my average speed was probably only 40 or so, with lots of time accelerating up hills (and in contrast coasting down on my way home!).
In town my 2006 EX I-4 averages 29MPG, with my total average since March being 29.71 MPG (64.359 gals /1912.1 Miles).
This is with approx 40% City (many stop signs, red lights, idle time)/60% Hwy (70-75 MPH, occasional stint to 85). I don't accelerate quickly, I coast to many redlights when it doesn't hold up traffic, and merging, I manage to stay below 3,500 RPM most of the time.
Strictly in town, my dad (who has a heavier foot than I) gets about 25MPG in his 2005 EX I-4 AT.
Use this EPA link to view estimates from others. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm Select your car, then click on "Show All Estimates" to see the breakdown of City vs Hwy for individual users.
Witnessed TX road crews posting new 80mph speed limit signs over the holiday.
2005 4 cylinder LX auto with 11,000 miles
Set the cruise on 88; five hours later we had gone 440 miles on 15 gallons of gas, yielding 29.3 mpg. Air conditioning on, 800 lbs of people and luggage, 35 psig in tires, Castrol synthetic oil 1/2 quart low in crank case...
No speed traps, no one passing us. Only light traffic. What a joy.
My last tank I traveled 337 miles and used 12.57 gallons for 26.8 mpg. What's funny though is I though I would be getting worse mpg now since I'm using AC all the time, and where my new office is at, I don't have an exit or on-ramp on a 55 mph limit road. So I'm braking more to exit and really have to punch it to merge into traffic.
I'm a little jealous of the higher mpg of the I4, but I can't complain. My average mpg is 26 since new. I have nearly 7,000 miles now and almost ready for my first oil change with the MM at 10%. :shades:
Seems to have settled in at a consistant 26ish for around town driving. mostly short hop, never see a highway for more than 5 minutes type of stuff. Sometimes I don't even get out of third gear on my commute to work!
I'm satisfied with that, given the size and comfort (and performance) of the Accord. I really need to get another trip in, I expect an easy 35+ on a long haul.
Oh, I am almost to 5K on it, and just had the first oil change done, so still getting broken in!
I bought my car last year around July and so far I just hit 6095 miles on my car. But anyways on a full tank I just travel 224 miles (recent check) , yeah I step on the gas hard up to 4500-5000 rpm in the first gear but the gas mileage can't be that low...I've tried once with just a light feet and the highest I've got was 239 miles on a full tank. Anyone know what the heck is up with the gas...? BTW I drive:
Set the cruise on 88; five hours later we had gone 440 miles on 15 gallons of gas, yielding 29.3 mpg. Air conditioning on, 800 lbs of people and luggage, 35 psig in tires, Castrol synthetic oil 1/2 quart low in crank case...
Wow! 20-25% less gas mileage at 88MPH than driving at a more reasonable speed. Goes to show you about the AHs that run the state of Texas. Talk about wasting gasoline! Oh well, nobody said state highway laws were good for the country. Let's see, driving at 65-75MPH would have given you 35-36MPG..what a penalty for speeding so fast! Now at a national speed limit of 55MPH, your Accord would have given you 36-38MPG, or almost 10MPG more which means you could drive about 150-180 miles more between fillups. At 88MPH, your gasoline costs are 11cents a mile...phew. I guess Texas has cheap gas to waste.
I got around 37 MPG going 75-77 MPH on I-65 from Birmingham to Bay Minette, AL. 95% interstate driving on that tank.
On the tank coming home I drove notably quicker and with the air conditioner on "Max A/C" the whole time (drove without cruise, changing speeds often, 75-83MPH, garnered 33 MPG (I have exact numbers in my car, but i'm too lazy to fetch them at the moment .
I currently have 7,700 miles on the car, so I imagine it's about as broken in as it will get, right?
Hey, I love driving manuals too, I just am afraid I'd hate it driving in rush hour daily to my school in downtown Birmingham, where i frequently do stop-and-go driving. Otherwise, I'd be in the 5MT right now!
No offense taken, btw. My Auto is quite smooth, and considering I am coming from a 96 Accord LX 4AT with only 130 hp, I feel like I have MORE than enough power!
I've observed fuel efficiency in my 05 LX I4 MT is better after each fill-up! I'm not sure whether my driving style has changed or the summer fuel mixture or the engine.
You know, I've read quite a few comments from people here who don't want a manual in heavy traffic situations. My 95 and my 06 are both manuals and I drive in a lot of bumper to bumper traffic. I find that I have much more control with my stick. I can also keep it in neutral and coast if I'm going down even a slight grade.
I know everyone is different but traffic and manuals suit me just fine. And then there is all that time when traffic isn't an issue... quickness, durability, and the best mileage. Did I mention fun??
How delightful that you've achieved personal nirvana in your choice of your car's equipment and degree of personal involvement! And then there are those, like myself, who aren't at all interested in constant engagement with every aspect of their cars' operation. Isn't choice a wonderful concept in deciding how to personalize a new car's equipment to reflect its owner's preferences?
Wow... lighten up. Just sharing an opinion... more for my friend thegraduate than you.
I'd hate to think that anyone reading comments here would skip out on a manual just because they only heard one side of the traffic issue. Believe me... I'm well aware that I am in a very distinct minority. Did I sound like I was chastising automatic owners???? :confuse:
Part of the reason I like my auto, also, is that while I enjoy them, I've had relatively little experience in them, and get frustrated when I have to maneuver quickly on my campus in downtown Birmingham. With another year's experience under my belt (outside of town), I'd probably considered a manual more closely, but with only driving one vehicle so-equipped (A 1999 Nissan Frontier XE 4-cyliner), I'm not incredibly sure of myself in major traffic (but love it in y suburbs!).
All in all, after I graduate college (3 years away), I'm more likely to get a manual (because I'll be out of that campus and its traffic woes!).
I totally understand not feeling secure about a stick. My son is going through that right now as he learns how to drive my 95.
My first manual was a brand new 1980 Datsun 200SX. Great looking little car and a kick to drive. I bought the five speed because it was cheaper and got better mileage but I had very little experience. The dealer was in this old warehouse in downtown Tacoma, Washington. Everything was inside, including the "lot". When I took delivery, I was too scared to drive it up a floor to the exit so I had a woman who worked there do it for me. Very steep, tight turns, etc.
I got much better the more I drove but I avoided steep hills for a few months.
In the June 2006 edition of consumerreports.org, we get a much different picture of mileage than we get from the EPA. This, CR tells us, is because they do only real-world testing (no dynamometers, as with the EPA), and attempt to simulate the stop-and-go conditions of city driving that most people face on a daily basis (including long idle times.)
For what it's worth, the Accord 4 and the Camry 4 both got 16 mpg in city driving, while the Accord bested the Camry on the highway, 38 mpg to 36 mpg. (Overall mpg for the two is equal at 24, curiously enough.)
So far (220 miles total) with my 2006 Accord EX 4 AT, I'm getting about 21 mpg in what I call city driving (maybe 20% freeway). But then, I've managed to avoid the really jammed up rush-hour traffic. Obviously, there's "city driving," and then there's "city driving." Your mileage may vary (!)
these ARE honda's. They dont just, "break in" at ~8000 miles. The break in a bit at 5, 10, 18, and 25. and then You'll notice a dip after that untill about 50 and then your gas mileage goes up and you have a vague increase in horsepower too. Something about varying driving conditions basically bores out your cylinders a third of a liter over 50 thousand miles.
..these ARE honda's. They dont just, "break in" at ~8000 miles. The break in a bit at 5, 10, 18, and 25. ........bores out your cylinders a third of a liter over 50 thousand miles.
...very enervating post......ah'm already crazy about my 6M coupe: this gives me something (fuel efficiency-wise) even more to await............
yah well, horsepower too a third of a liter bored off your sleeves in your cylinder is actually quite a big improvement in horsepower, you just wont notice it cause its gradual. but if you get one dyno tested now, and then at 50k miles you'll be like, wow..
hah well some guy at nissan told me He said that when you take a car that wants premium and you put regular gas in it and if said car doesn't have a knock sensor then the varying angles of the piston which cause the knocking will scrape the sleeves. It sounded extreme to me too but if no one aroudn you knows any better you can always sound cool by using made up science.
I am driving my husband's beautiful Accord across the country, and surprisingly enough, he has no idea what MPG he gets. He thought it was 20 mpg, but surely it is higher than that! Can anyone enlighten me? 2000 Honda Accord V6 automatic transmission. Thanks!
fill the car. reset the trip odometer. drive it till next fillup. fill the car again. note the miles driven on the odometer. divide miles driven by gallons pumped.
reset the trip odometer. and do it again. average 3 tanks. that's a good estimate of highway fuel economy at the speed you travel.
Comments
Could you provide some data to support your idea that Cruise and AC are better for fuel economy.
1) You don't have to live in the Rockies to encounter hilly driving. Increasing throttle from say, 50% to 80% just to maintain an arbitrary speed going uphill (using Cruise) is NOT more fuel efficient than increasing throttle to say 60% and slowing down a few MPG uphill (without Cruise).
Also, Cruise is unable to anticipate hills. Therefore, it is late getting on the gas when approaching (and has to overcompensate once you hit the incline), and does't know to back off the gas as you reach the crest of the hill. This is one reason why Cruise uses MORE gas.
2) Here is a scientific test which PROVES that AC uses more gas than windows down. See slide 15 of the attached link.
http://www.sae.org/events/aars/presentations/2004-hill.pdf
Sorry buddy, you're wrong on both points.
....speaking of the friendly Feds......thanks to whomever indicated that those gummint folks:
.....have - on their web site: fueleconomy.gov/mpg....
a rather nifty calculador for keeping track of MPG, etc.
...someone said it first: yo tax dollars in action.....
..ez..
However, peace brothers, I am not about to make this a cause celeb. Enjoy what you drive...but for god's sake don't travel 80MPH...maybe we should go back to the 85MPH speedometers and transmissions and engines tuned for maximum gas mileage at 55MPH. We used to turn in autos traveling more than the posted speeed limits with great rugularity (much to the delight of john law) on our old CB radios...cell phones can help us cut back on terrible drivers.
I am so old that I can still remember how to figure gas mileage in my head without searching for some "magic formula"...we definately have dumbed down as drivers and educated people. God forbid, we used to be able to do simple math in our heads! Sigh...but I digress.
Obviously, this person would be a worse driver without cruise. I'm sure you've seen them on the road. You're cruising at a steady speed, and this driver will pass you. Then, while maintaining your speed, you eventually catch up to them and eventually go around them, only the have them pass you again. They're constantly speeding up and slowing down, wasting more gas than if they just used cruise control. From my observations, I believe this is the rule, not the exception. That's why I believe if more drivers used cruise control, more gas would be saved. Drivers just need to think just a little bit about what they're doing out there on the road. Using cruise control at 75-80 mph is not a smart thing to do when speed limits range from 60-70 mph. You will be in a constant state of engaging and disengaging the cruise control as you work your way through traffic. I find what works best for me is to set the cruise at slightly higher than the posted speed limit, typically at 70-72, maybe a few mph less if the limit is 65. I will still pass many cars and trucks on the road, and while I'll be passed by at least twice as many, I usually catch up to them anyway because they get held up at a bottle neck in traffic.
As a result, inattentive drivers generally will get lower MPG regardless of what they do. All things being equal, I would get better MPG without cruise than someone driving with cruise. Do you disagree?
That might be the case, but then all things would not be equal either. If I'm using cruise, I maintain my speed up hills and down the other side. I may use more gas going up, but I use a lot less going down the other side since the throttle will back off and let me coast down the hill. If not using cruise, you lose a bit of speed going up, but you won't back off the throttle as much as you build momentum going the down the other side.
I don't think you read my post too clearly. I said "I don't think cruise helps these people very much." Both of our scenarios are true, which led to my point..."As a result, inattentive drivers generally will get lower MPG regardless of what they do."
Your comment about using cruise on hills makes no sense...
You are correct, you will use more gas going uphill with Cruise, since I don't accelerate as aggresively to maintain speed uphill without Cruise.
However, you're wrong about using less gass on the backside of the hill with Cruise. Cruise will back off the trottle and let you "coast down the hill," but this isn't a good thing.
Explanation: You reach the downhill portion of the hill, and Cruise backs off the throttle to 30%. However, Cruise doesn't know that the road is flat up ahead. So it continues at 30% throttle to the flat portion, where it then has to jump on the gas (say 70% throttle) to maintain speed, losing any momentum you could have gained.
Since I don't use Cruise I can anticipate the end of the hill, ease into the throttle while still headed downhill(40%), and use the momentum to my advantage. THis allows me to more efficiently maintain a steady speed on the flat section and USE LESS GAS.
Gee, let him clutch his dreams....?
Mileage:
1. 26+ - 1st fill-up (summer)
2. 29-30 - 2nd fill-up onward (summer thru' spring)
3. 33+ - previous fill-up
Driving:
1. Average to spirited
2. 60/40 hwy/city, mostly commuting to work
3. Do not use cruise control
4. Use a/c & heater depending on weather conditions
Maintenance:
1. Change oil at dealer every 4K miles
2. Tire pressure maintained at 30psi, all 4
Observations:
1. Mileage has significantly improved after 10K miles
2. Best mileage if gear upshift at 2500 rpm & downshift at 1500 rpm
3. Max mileage at speeds 65-70
I hope I get a better mileage on the month end road trip since most of it is hwy cruising. Also, measure mileage with cruise control.
Thanks for the information. 29/30 MPG is very good, especially considering you only drive 60% HWY, and occasionally engage in spirited driving.
I just bought an 06 4cyl Auto, and I've averaged 31 MPG from my first 3 fill-ups with just over 1100 miles. However, I drive 75%/80% HWY at 70 MPH and have not driven aggresively, yet.
A few questions comments:
It may be a little premature to claim significant improvement after 10K miles, having driven only 850 miles over that. I'll be interested to see if the improvement continues over the next few thousand miles...I hope so, maybe I'll experience the same trend.
Why do you use 30 PSI all around in your tires? For the 06 model, they specify 32-front, 30-rear. Is it different for 2005? I keep 35 PSI in the front and 32 PSI in the rear.
I've heard that increasing PSI can lead to increased gas mileage. I'm not sure if this is true, but I've always maintained a slightly higher PSI in my cars.
My old Integra spec'd 29 PSI in all tires, although I kept a minimum of 32 PSI. On the highway, I averaged 34-35 MPG, even though the EPA rating was 29 MPG.
Regarding the mpg improvement, I just observed a sharp increase after 10K miles. I filled up the tank today & measured 34.04 mph. There are many reasons for that. One reason is, in warmer days the warm-up period after a cold start is less. Another reason may be driving at optimal speeds in warmer days which, is not possible during winters because of snow & ice. I lived in NJ last winter where it snows quite a bit. Anyway, I agree with you about monitoring the trend for the next couple of months.
The suggested air pressure for 2005 LX 205/R15 H rated tire is 30psi front & 29psi rear tires. Greater air pressure gives better fuel economy but, the ride is not very comfortable. I've tried 32-34psi but, have felt stiff, bumpy & noisy rides. Cornering ability improves though. I prefer to stick with the recommended air pressure. If slightly greater air pressure works for you, you should continue with that.
Good luck with your new car. Drive safe!
If you maintain your throttle position when going up a hill, your mpg goes down, because for the same throttle position as on a flat road, you're going slower while still trying to shove the same amount of gas into the engine. As you crest the hill, you start speeding up but your mpg hasn't returned to it previous level until you're on flat road again because you're in a state of acceleration. So let's say you normally get 30 mpg on flat roads, and 24 mpg going up a hill, and 28 going down the other side while you're accelerating back up to speed then eventually 30 again.
Now, if you maintain your speed going up the hill, your mileage may drop to around 18-20, but as you back off the throttle at the crest and down the other side, you mileage can be as high as 50-70 mpg, depending on how much the cruise backs off the gas. Since you're already up to speed, you don't have to overcome inertia so the throttle goes back to it's previous flat road position. I have observed this happening in my Mercedes with the trip computer set on actual real-time mpg.
No matter how we try to save gas, at least we're trying to do what we can. It sometimes irks me that it frequently appears another driver is wasting the gas I'm saving through their inefficient driving style. :shades:
Great information. I look forward to seeing how much MPG in my car will fluctuate with the time of year.
I really have no idea whether higher tire PSI leads to increased fuel economy. I find it hard to beleive that a 2-3 PSI increase would have any noticable impact on MPG. But since I've gotten great mileage on my old car, I've continued the trend with my 06.
This will be my last post on this topic, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
In your example, I maintain my throttle uphill and get 24 MPG. You (with Cruise) increase throttle when you hit the incline to maintain speed, and get 18 MPG going uphill. I agree.
Where you're wrong is on the downhill portion. In your example, you get 50 MPG because cruise "backs off the throttle" going down the other side.
The reason Cruise had to back off so much...because it used more throttle/gas going uphill. It also didn't anticipate the crest of the hill and ease off the throttle, so it used even more gas.
You claim that I get "28 MPG going down the other side while you're accelerating back up to speed". No way. I'm barely on the throttle, as the downhill momentum is bringing me back up to my normal speed.
Therefore, you get marginally better MPG on the backside of a hill. But that savings is far outweighted by the gas wasted going uphill and reaching the crest.
80 on the open road, driven with moderate aggression on the mountain pass, and shifting at 22-2300 in about 40-50 miles of heavy stop-and-go, the car returned 28.3 mpg.
I figure an all-highway loop would easily yield the 30 mpg on the window sticker, probably more if the engine rpm were left under 2500 (70 instead of 80).
.....I figure an all-highway loop would easily yield the 30 mpg on the window sticker, probably more if the engine rpm were left under 2500 (70 instead of 80).
..e-box - - - we've identical engines/transmissions (I've got two less doors)....
..and I think you figure right........actually if you've the discipline to hold 2200 rpm - - - you can amaze all your friends...
..in other words - - your car can do a LOT better than 30..
..ez..
In town my 2006 EX I-4 averages 29MPG, with my total average since March being 29.71 MPG (64.359 gals /1912.1 Miles).
This is with approx 40% City (many stop signs, red lights, idle time)/60% Hwy (70-75 MPH, occasional stint to 85). I don't accelerate quickly, I coast to many redlights when it doesn't hold up traffic, and merging, I manage to stay below 3,500 RPM most of the time.
Strictly in town, my dad (who has a heavier foot than I) gets about 25MPG in his 2005 EX I-4 AT.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Select your car, then click on "Show All Estimates" to see the breakdown of City vs Hwy for individual users.
2005 4 cylinder LX auto with 11,000 miles
Set the cruise on 88; five hours later we had gone 440 miles on 15 gallons of gas, yielding 29.3 mpg. Air conditioning on, 800 lbs of people and luggage, 35 psig in tires, Castrol synthetic oil 1/2 quart low in crank case...
No speed traps, no one passing us. Only light traffic. What a joy.
Car: 2005 LX 5MT I4 12K miles
Total Miles: 487.2
Gallons of gas: 13.192
No. of passengers: 1
Drive Hwy/City: 80/20
Tire pressure: 30/29
MPG: 36.93
Used CC between 65 & 70 going & maintained speed at 75 (no CC) on the way back. No AC used, just the blower set to coldest temperature.
I'm a little jealous of the higher mpg of the I4, but I can't complain. My average mpg is 26 since new. I have nearly 7,000 miles now and almost ready for my first oil change with the MM at 10%. :shades:
.....I hear you, bro: tanked up 5 June.....313.4 miles/10.591 gal,$33.03....(CA-type prices....)
..This 29.6 figure beats the 25-27 I've been seeing since last summer. Likely factors: odo 15k, couple of out of town excursions.......
..we be talking the 240-horse six thru the 6MT here...not a weak (by comparison) 4-banger automatic................
:P
..ez..
I'm satisfied with that, given the size and comfort (and performance) of the Accord. I really need to get another trip in, I expect an easy 35+ on a long haul.
Oh, I am almost to 5K on it, and just had the first oil change done, so still getting broken in!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
90% city
10% hwy
I brake lightly too.
Wow! 20-25% less gas mileage at 88MPH than driving at a more reasonable speed. Goes to show you about the AHs that run the state of Texas. Talk about wasting gasoline! Oh well, nobody said state highway laws were good for the country. Let's see, driving at 65-75MPH would have given you 35-36MPG..what a penalty for speeding so fast! Now at a national speed limit of 55MPH, your Accord would have given you 36-38MPG, or almost 10MPG more which means you could drive about 150-180 miles more between fillups. At 88MPH, your gasoline costs are 11cents a mile...phew. I guess Texas has cheap gas to waste.
I got around 37 MPG going 75-77 MPH on I-65 from Birmingham to Bay Minette, AL. 95% interstate driving on that tank.
On the tank coming home I drove notably quicker and with the air conditioner on "Max A/C" the whole time (drove without cruise, changing speeds often, 75-83MPH, garnered 33 MPG (I have exact numbers in my car, but i'm too lazy to fetch them at the moment
I currently have 7,700 miles on the car, so I imagine it's about as broken in as it will get, right?
Happy motoring!
thegrad
...if your four is anything like my six (at 15k); your mpg has a good chance for even better fuel efficiency beyond 7.7k or so......
...you already do pretty well on mpg (the hyper guy is statistically insignificant)...hang in there!
..great cars; can't just yet chuck it all for an automatic four (no offense). Even with the vague clutch..........
..ez..
No offense taken, btw.
Latest figures:
Miles: 461.1
Gallons: 13.099
MPG: 35.20
Driving: 60/40 Hwy/City
The car has run 12400 with 2 oil changes & a tire rotation.
I know everyone is different but traffic and manuals suit me just fine. And then there is all that time when traffic isn't an issue... quickness, durability, and the best mileage. Did I mention fun??
I'd hate to think that anyone reading comments here would skip out on a manual just because they only heard one side of the traffic issue. Believe me... I'm well aware that I am in a very distinct minority. Did I sound like I was chastising automatic owners???? :confuse:
All in all, after I graduate college (3 years away), I'm more likely to get a manual (because I'll be out of that campus and its traffic woes!).
My first manual was a brand new 1980 Datsun 200SX. Great looking little car and a kick to drive. I bought the five speed because it was cheaper and got better mileage but I had very little experience. The dealer was in this old warehouse in downtown Tacoma, Washington. Everything was inside, including the "lot". When I took delivery, I was too scared to drive it up a floor to the exit so I had a woman who worked there do it for me. Very steep, tight turns, etc.
I got much better the more I drove but I avoided steep hills for a few months.
But we should probably get back to mileage reports about Accords ...
..for what it's worth department:
...www.fueleconomy.com
..MPG estimates from users.
It's a government site. Interesting (if not record-breaking) data....
..ez..
Sorry, partly my fault.
I'll make up for it with posting that I got 30 MPG on a 75% hwy tank in my 1996 Accord LX I-4 (EPA 23/31). Not bad for 162,000 miles.
For what it's worth, the Accord 4 and the Camry 4 both got 16 mpg in city driving, while the Accord bested the Camry on the highway, 38 mpg to 36 mpg. (Overall mpg for the two is equal at 24, curiously enough.)
So far (220 miles total) with my 2006 Accord EX 4 AT, I'm getting about 21 mpg in what I call city driving (maybe 20% freeway). But then, I've managed to avoid the really jammed up rush-hour traffic. Obviously, there's "city driving," and then there's "city driving." Your mileage may vary (!)
Robgrave
EDIT: To read the full report at
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/fuel-economy-1005/fuelefficient- -vehicles/index.htm
you must be a subscriber. A month's subscription is only 5 bucks, so you might find it worthwhile to get on board.
They dont just, "break in" at ~8000 miles.
The break in a bit at 5, 10, 18, and 25. and then You'll notice a dip after that untill about 50 and then your gas mileage goes up and you have a vague increase in horsepower too.
Something about varying driving conditions basically bores out your cylinders a third of a liter over 50 thousand miles.
They dont just, "break in" at ~8000 miles.
The break in a bit at 5, 10, 18, and 25. ........bores out your cylinders a third of a liter over 50 thousand miles.
...very enervating post......ah'm already crazy about my 6M coupe: this gives me something (fuel efficiency-wise) even more to await............
thanks,
..ez..
well, horsepower too
a third of a liter bored off your sleeves in your cylinder is actually quite a big improvement in horsepower, you just wont notice it cause its gradual. but if you get one dyno tested now, and then at 50k miles you'll be like, wow..
well some guy at nissan told me
He said that when you take a car that wants premium and you put regular gas in it
and if said car doesn't have a knock sensor
then the varying angles of the piston which cause the knocking will scrape the sleeves.
It sounded extreme to me too but if no one aroudn you knows any better
you can always sound cool by using made up science.
reset the trip odometer. and do it again. average 3 tanks. that's a good estimate of highway fuel economy at the speed you travel.