Hi, i have used k and n filter for yrs and i have seen changes with my cars but everybody have different view on k and n filter or other product out there... thanks for your advice
"i have used k and n filter for yrs and i have seen changes with my cars but everybody have different view on k and n filter or other product out there... thanks for your advice"
I probably came on too strong. I apologize for that. Just trying to help, and pass along lessons learned from bad decisions on my part.
In days of "YORE", before fuel injection, the carburetor was king.
Without getting too "involved", the carburetor was nothing more than a controlled gas leak into the engine. When the "butter fly" valve in the carb's venture was opened and air was sucked into the engine, fuel was siphoned through/from the carbs fuel jets by the rushing air.
To get better performance, it was not uncommon to increase the air flow by enlarging the air cleaner, getting a "performance" air cleaner, or even removing the air cleaner. The result was a more powerful sounding engine due to the louder "ROAR" when accelerating. Actually a bit more power was produced at top RPM with the "Pedal to the Metal". For that greater air flow to work, the carb jets had to be increased in size. Down side was more fuel was burned, and more damage to the engine from foreign particles. But when I started driving, gas was commonly $0.25 per gallon, so no big deal. (1958).
One day I sat down with a Car Magazine and found several/many adds for devices that claimed to increase performance and fuel mileage by 8-15%. So I could buy 10 of those items and expect 80-150% in mileage and performance. Didn't work that way. A few actually increased performance when used in conjunction with other things, but never when used by themselves. I don't recall any that helped mileage. And definitely none that improved mileage and performance.
Modern fuel injected engine's fuel flow are controlled by the ECU reading various sensors and firing the injectors to maintain the proper fuel/air ratio. The more air we allow, the more gas the injectors will feed. A slight increase in power MIGHT be realized at red line. However a decrease in low end performance and mileage may result. Modern engines are a marvel at producing HP and fuel mileage, compared to engines of days gone by. They achieve this with a very careful balance of components. When we mess with the components we mess with the balance.
The basic principle of the carbeurator is retained in the FI engine. Except that instead of the rushing air syphoning off gas from the bowl, the computer bases its descision on the readings from the mass air flow sensor and the prmiary O2 sensor.
The benefit is that computer can adjust the air fuel ratio on the fly, where the carb was limited to the jet setting. Jets can be replaced, but the adjustment would remain throughout the RPM range.
I think the best explanation for K&N and a like is that if the stock filter allows 1% dirt through. Increasing the ar flow by 10% will allow 10% more dirt, if the new filter has the same filtering capacity.
However, K&N and a like filters are not necessarily larger, but rather have larger opennings, which allow 10% more air, but probably 20% more contaminants.
What is interesting is that K&N warranty covers the filter for 1,000,000 miles, but says nothing about covering the engine.
i have brought k an n filter ..for $43.00 and i have noticed following changes:
1.i can see increase in my accelerator and hardness on accelerator feeling when going over highway has been gone
2.i noticed millage going up(need time for exact miles up) since i brought this filter after 3 months use of car now i can see good accelerator and airflow up
3.before k and n filter..city and highway trips...24 around and i did not have long trips yet...
thanks hp
If it is a 2005 and up CR-V, then there is no direct connection between the accelrator and the throttle. It is electronically controlled. So, any "easier movement of the accelerator" is just perceived.
If OP's vehicle is automatic, his major limitng factor is the torque converter, which saps abour 30% more power than a clutch would.
"The benefit is that computer can adjust the air fuel ratio on the fly, where the carb was limited to the jet setting. Jets can be replaced, but the adjustment would remain throughout the RPM range."
Of course we had a "Cure" for that, as much as could be done in those days.
THE 4 BBL CARBURETOR and multiple carbs, such as Pontiac's "Tri Power". As far as OEM stuff was concerned.
There were several varieties available, but the GM "Quadrajet" (4 BBL) was a real good balance. The primary ventures were small and siphoned from small jets. These were used for everyday driving and starting "Off the line". With factory hardware, the much larger and thirstier secondary venture butterflies would FLIP open under vacumn when the throttle was on the floor and enough vacumn from the engine was available. (The secondaries were either fully open or fully closed) Of course we generally over rode the vacumn controls with mechanical linkage. :shades: Had to be careful with the throttle though, because opening those secondaries too soon could result in too much fuel for conditions and "bogging" the engine.
The Tri Power (3-2 bbl carbs) worked pretty much the same way. The center carb had very small ventures for every day use. When the front and rear carb's very large venture butterflys "Flipped" open, a lot more fuel was available. Mechanical linkage was available for that set up also.
All said and done, a knowledgeable and skillful driver could get better performance from the mechanical set ups. But in reality the stock factory stuff worked just as well.
Secondary jetting was sometimes increased for more fuel, but generally didn't operate as well as the stock ones, UNLESS other things were done, such as a more free flowing exhaust, and more free flowing air intake, different cam, distributor modifications, etc..
Bottom line: Most anything that was done to increase performance required modification to other components. AND Generally, fuel mileage suffered! Modern auto mfg have this stuff down to a science.
Most of us don't have the skills or the equipment to make modifications that will actually work. We need to keep in mind that aftermarket companies are in business to "Sell Product" Period! And as you said: What is interesting is that K&N warranty covers the filter for 1,000,000 miles, but says nothing about covering the engine."
I've owned a 2010 CR-V LX 2wd now for two weeks now. I've taken 2 long trips in her , and, so far, at interstate speeds she's averaging about 24.5 MPG typically running with the cruise set on 70 - 74 MPH. I'm running 35 PSI in the tires as well. I'm surprised that she's not doing better than that. I've put about 800 miles on the CR-V so far, and, I'm hoping she'll get better. The Saturn Aura 3.5 that the CR-V replaced typically averaged over 30 MPG under the same conditions. Does it take the Honda 4 a good while to break in fully??
The 4 cylinder pushing the CR-V through the air at 70+mph is working much harder than a V-6 sliding a low profile sedan/coupe through the air at the same speed.
Your mileage will likely increase a bit as the engine brakes in, but probably not enough to give you the mileage the Aura was getting.
As the engine is "Breaking-In", rough parts are rubbing against one another and wearing smooth. As the parts become smoother there is less friction and gas mileage will generally increase.
During this process it is not a good idea to run the engine at a constant speed for long periods of time. RPM should be fluctuated often so this wear is "Even" throughout the engine and especially the rings and cylinder walls.
Taking back road trips with a light foot is a good way to accomplish this. The more stops and the more hills, the better opportunity for the engine to experience RPM changes.
You didn;t mention if it was flat or hilly terrain. most of all, anything over 70mpg will see the mileage drop pretty fast. The CR-V is fairly tall and wide, not very aerodynamically efficient as mentioned above. You Aura got 30mph on the HWY, but probably not much better than the CR-V in town since they weigh about the same.
Simply put, city mileage is mostly abotu weight. Highway mileage is mostly about aerodynamics. But both can be affected by engine size, perfomance, transmission gearing and programming among other things.
My opinion, Hondas 2.4L is above average to effciency, but in the CR-V it's pushed a little outside it's most efficient operating range. A slight bump in dispalcement to 2.5L would mage a significant improvement since the engine wouldn't be working as hard and would need fewer downshifts for hills, etc.
The Aura was about 400 pounds heavier than the CR-V, and, had the pushrod 3.5 V6 in it making about 229 HP - coupled to a 4 speed OD tranny. It took the Aura close to 5K miles to reach maximum fuel economy. So hopefully the CR-V will get somewhat better as I rack up the miles. My CR-V has 180 HP with the five speed, and, doesn't seem to downshift excessively on hills. The CR-V's stablemate is an 06 Jaguar S-Type with the 4.2 V8 - 300 HP coupled to a 6 speed automatic. Funny thing is - the Jag gets 30 MPG on trips as well.
I'm not sure where you got 400lbs. Looking at the Car & Driver tests of both the Aura and Cr-V. The Aura is only 50lbs heavier. EPA rating is 20/30 and C&D got 20mpg in overall testing. The CR-V got 21mpg in overall testing, but it's rated at 20/26. So at 70mph cruising, I'm not suprised you got 30mpg. The CR-V once it's broken in should get around 26-28 in the same conditions. Its' EPA estimates reflect that.
Peak power can't really be factored into mileage. A Corvette with 400HP also gets around 30mpg. In their case, its' a matter of having a really tall overdrive gear as I suspect your Jaguar does.
The CR-V gets similar mileage to other small crossovers. Its' all due to aerodynamics. You can't beat the laws of physics. IF a sedan needs 35HP to maintain a steady 70mph, and a small SUV needs 40HP, the SUV will require about 15% more energy. So you're asking the CR-V's engine at 2000RPM and and lets say 80% duty cycle at that RPM (load) to produce 15% more power using the same amount of fuel as the Jaguar at maybe 1600RPM, but only at maybe 50% duty cycle (laod) at that RPM. The Jaguar has the advantage of higher compression, but it's ot the inneficiency (drag) of 6 more cylinders a larger crank, probably stiffer valve springs and it's tuned more for peak midrange and high RPM performance which sacrifices low RPM efficiency.
From what I can remember - my Aura owner's manual listed the weight as about 3800 Lbs. I think the CR-V weighs about 3400. With the changes to the CR-V's engine in 2010, its highway EPA is 28 - same as my Jag. The CR-V's engine is now fairly high compression as well - I think they took it to 10.5 to 1. The Jag engine is not peaky - it makes 306 Ft-lbs of torque at low RPM, and, has a nice flat torque curve as well. Its a 24 valve OHC engine with VVT. It pulls hard from just off idle to redline. In town it usually manages 20 MPG. It actually does much better than the 3 liter 6 cylinder X Type I previously owned. In any event, if I can get the CR-V close to 28 highway, I'll be satisfied.
That's probably the weight for the 4 cylinder model. Suspect the XE 3.5 would be the heaviest of the lot - it had the old school Chevy pushrod 6 in it. - even heavier than the XR model. Anyway - now I got to concentrate on how to get some decent gas mileage out of the CR-V. I've got the tires pumped up to 35 psi - we'll see what that does for her.
We purchased a 2010 E-XL because it is rated at 21 MPG in the city. We exclusively drive our CR-V in the City with average stop and go driving. The vehicle has only 1350 miles. Window sticker indicates that CITY "expected range for most drivers 17 to 25 MPG". We do not drive with a lead foot and our driving habits are very conservative. We use the vehicle in a 3 mile radius. The topography is very flat with just an average number of stop lights. Tire pressure is normal. We have exaggeratingly driven the vehicle at consistently low speeds (to the point where we are honked at for driving too slow) to try and force the most optimum mpg but despite all these efforts the best we have been able to achieve is 13.5 mpg. Please weigh-in. Thank you.
My first stop is (Down hill) approximately 400 feet from where my car is parked over night. According to the "Scan Gauge II", the average mileage for that "trip" is in the neighborhood of 6 MPG. Continue on, the next stop is approximately 3/10 of a mile farther (flat road) and the Avg MPG will increase to the neighborhood of 8 mpg. The next stop is 2 miles farther and the avg MPG will then be approximately 14 MPG and will engage the first traffic light.
There are a total of 8 traffic lights before arriving at work, which is about 6 miles from my house. On a "Good" day I may have to stop at 1 or 2 of them and the average MPG for the trip will exceed 20 MPG. However, on a really bad day I may have to stop for 6 or more and the average drop into the mid to high teens.
Consider this: If work was 3 miles from the house, I would be lucky to average 13-15 mpg each day. With it 6 miles away, a weekly average is usually more in the 20-22 mpg range.
Short trips with a cold or cool engine really sucks the fuel, even if there are no stops involved. Moving away from a stop with a cold engine may result in 2-6 mpg until it shifts into 2nd gear, then a bit better. Stop and go is terrible on mileage. With a cold engine, it is double terrible.
Coming home from work, the first road is up a steep hill with a traffic light at the top. (about a mile) I have arrived at that light showing 8 MPG on the Gauge. If traffic is unusually heavy and I have to wait through the second green light with some creeping along involved, the gauge can drop nearly a MPG. By the time I move away from that light the "average" might be 4-5 mpg. If I stopped and shut it down right there I would be complaining about the 4-5 mpg my CR-V is getting. :sick:
FWIW: Highway mileage at 60 mph is close to or over 31 mpg.
What vehicle did you have before the CR-V and what mileage did it achieve? It sounds like your city driving is aggrevated by exceptionally short trips; shorter than the EPA cycle accounts for.
Your mileage sounds about "right". Given your driving. I have a 3 miles ommute with 8 stop signs or lights each way. In the warmeer months I average 15-18mpg. I nthewinter I average 11-14mpg.
My Nissan Versa managed 15-18mpg in the winter. Our '08 Nissan Altima with 2.5L CVT averages around 13-18 mpg in the winter depending on how much my wife lets it ldile in the morning and if she leaves it running when she drop off our daughter at day care.
Short trips with lots of stop...very predictibley, will use a LOT of fuel with a 3700lb car. In that type of drivng, the size of the engine makes less of a difference.
that being said, I'll be the first to admit, that Honda's 2.4L does not get the best mileage. It's not as bad as Chryslers' 2.4L, but it's a little behind the Hyundai, Toyota, GM's, Nissan, Subaru and Ford/Mazda's 2.4L or 2.5L. It also makes less power than all of those.
So in terms of economy, I'd place it as below average. Honda needs to make a leap forward, go ot 2.5L and a 6 or 7 speed automatic keep up with the competition.
But I still would't trade the great steering repsonse/feel, chassis, and overall utlity of any of the other vehcuels in the class, which is why I chose it.
If you chose it just for fuel economy, you WILL likely be disapointed.
For 2010, Honda pretty much caught up to the rest of the pack. The 2.4's compression ratio was raised, and, it now makes 180 HP. I like mine very much - comfort, handling, build quality, and utility are excellent. Just wish it got a little closer to its highway EPA rating on interstate trips.
The CR-V EX-L has the Honda climate control system in which the default mode (i.e., "AUTO") always has the air conditioning turned ON. If you don't really need the A/C, push the "A/C" button on the climate control panel and you should see an "A/C Off" message on the display. Given the very short distance you drive, turning off the A/C could increase your mpg by 2 mpg or more.
>"Your mileage sounds about "right". Given your driving. I have a 3 miles ommute with 8 stop signs or lights each way. In the warmeer months I average 15-18mpg. I nthewinter I average 11-14mpg."
Absolutely!
I included the various distances and the MPG associated with them as an example of MPG we achieve with different distances. I believe that if the full extent of our trips were within a 3 mile area, in traffic, the mileage would be very low. :sick:
Just can't expect a gasoline (only) powered car to achieve great mileage while sitting at traffic lights and creeping along in the lower gears, from light to light.
A lot of "In town" driving is where the hybrids really shine! :shades:
It's been almost two years since I got the '08 CR-V LX AWD. I now have 34k miles on it. Two trips to the dealer, one for minor rattles, another for rusty/fused brakes (parked at the airport for 2 weeks). Tires are about to be replaced, brakes are at 40%, handles well in the rain and snow. Average fuel economy (measured for the full tank) has been around 22, with the worst of 19 in the city driving and best of 27 on highway. Sometimes I average 30+mpg for a 40-50 mile trip. CR-V drives very car-like and has good handling, but sometimes I wish it has a manual transmission, as automatic can be hesitant sometimes.
Just returned from a 18 day, 5441 mile road trip. Most mileage on interstates during 6 days ' 4100 miles. Used 87 reg unleaded, CC except for crowded urban areas, kept rpms between 2150 - 2250 [unless accelerating or avoiding traffic] usually around 70-72 mph.
Total trip mpg - 29.234. Best - 34.42 [interstate / county highway]; worst mileage - 22.9 [all city driving]. "V" averaged just over 31 mph on I-77 through West Virginia.
Carried 3 adults & 3 weeks worth of luggage. 4 cyl engine worked like a champ. Kept up with all traffic conditions & hilly terrain.
'09 AWD, one a trip from Iowa to MI, and on to upstate NY. I think it was about 1800 miles total. I averaged 27.5mpg on the trip. Driving mostly at 65-75mph with a few stretches at 55-60mph. Mostly flat except in NE Ohio. 2 adults, 1 toddler and plenty of luggage. My higest tank was 29mpg. The lowest was around 24.5mpg.
07 CRV EX-L AWD, just took a trip to MA from NY - 700 miles in total over 4 days - average highway speeds 70-75 mph (when we were able to move ....freakin traffic on I 95 and I 93) and then plenty of local driving to the beach, etc...we averaged on the entire trip about 23.9 mpg... There are 29k miles on the clock. It's Ok - only OK. I not creazy about the CRV too cutzy for me, but my wfe likes it a lot and it does seem to serve its intended use well: a local CUV, not really for major trips, the seats are too uncomfortable for me, commuter car that can haul Home Depot items when needed, XMAS trees at that time of year, etc....
Replying to a very old post, but thought I would mention something important for those of you who do let the tank level get fairly low. The electric fuel pump inside the tank relies on the gas surrounding it to cool and lubricate it. Also, low tank levels might cause pump to cavitate over certain bumps or corner-taking. So if you can avoid those stresses on the pump it will have a notable difference on longevity if you common habit is to refuel later rather than sooner, or regularly only add 5 to 10 bucks in times of fewer funds.
And if you live in cold climates, as most of you know, keeping the tank filled reduces a build up of condensation in your fuel, which can stop you dead in your tracks at the worse possible time if it were to freeze and stop fuel flow.
Haha, I chuckled out loud when i saw you used 'picayune' a few posts back. Love it
Also, I keep very accurate fuel records for every gallon and mile I drive. I even go two decimal places so I really know what my car gets.
I have learned over the years that among all the usual fast starts and unnecessary starting and stopping in town from not gauging impending light changes, that the biggest waste of fuel (altho 'waste' not always applicable of course, i.e using A/C) is: - engine idling - ethanol content, the less the better, it has terribly low BTU efficiency in it - AWD - winter use, everything is colder stiffer and many things never do warm up depending on how short your trip is - underinflated tires, aside from it being a safety issue, even one tire makes a big difference, far more than most realize - A/C use - driving against strong head or cross winds - having a car load of people or weight all the time - driving (with an 05 CRV EX AWD 5 speed manual) much above its strong torque range/fuel used, which is around 65 mph.
Of course there are all the other usual variables, but those are the biggys.
In 6480km of 2 years of 4 season driving (yes I know i don't drive much anymore) = 4026.6 miles I used 678.8 litres= 149.3 Imp gallons = 179.58 US gal = 26.97 Imp MPG = 22.47 US MPG
I live rurally but do small towns with streetlights. Run 50 to 60 mph on local roads. 60 to 75 on freeways, use A/C almost every summer day, drive in snow when I have to, plug car in for cold morning starts (saves fuel and engine a lot, and gives a faster defrost, and only uses barely pennies per evening, since block heaters range from about 150 to 200 watts. I drive fairly gently most times, but occasionally boot it to burn the carbon out of it at times. I use 100% full synthetic 5W20 oil.
I wish the mileage was better to be honest, but it is AWD and that makes a dif on any vehicle, and I use the AWD in the winter (it is often engaged) and we seem to all be stuck with higher and higher ethanol content. I agree with an earlier poster back around page 6 or 7, in that he questioned how much environmental benefit to our air when old gas gave us 20 MPG and new gas gives us 16 MPG (as a very realistic example).
I maintain North America needs to embrace clean turbo diesel use more. We need to demand it from the manufacturers so they can ship the already proven technology overseas, to these shores. If gas was so efficient a fuel, the heavy trucks and rail road freight trains would use it as a fuel.
I've been known to go to 7 decimal places on my spreadsheet (Tidester always gives me grief about that LOL).
It's been a while but my experience with block heaters is that they work fine with just an hour or so of being on. I had switched outside outlets so I'd plug my cars in at night (no garage back then) and then flip the switch on as I was making coffee. An hour later, I'd be good to go. I wouldn't bother with it unless it was dropping below 20°F or so.
I finally got a cheap electric air pump to top off the tires and that helps. And when it is cold, I may sit in the car for 30 seconds but I don't idle any longer than that - just get in and gently go.
Seems to me that a remote starter would only be good for clogging up your catalytic converter early. I did have an accessory 110v. heater I could plug in and use to defrost the windows before I cranked the car if it was bad out and the windows were iced over.
I've been enjoying reading many of your posts, Kip.
I would like to add though something very significant that you didn't touch on at all and is one of the primary reasons some of us, (in-the-know at least) drive manuals for reasons beyond being able to control things themselves when they want, and that is tranny longevity. It doesn't seem to matter which brand and model, the most common failure before vehicles start acquiring higher miles is with that model's automatic tran.
After debating the various virtues of an auto vs a std as being easier in stop-and-go commuting (lack of ability has to be included somewhere also) and the supposed better fuel economy (altho this applies more to the newer 6 sp autos than those of yesterday, and assuming a good manual tran driver) it really often boils down to longer, more trouble free life with stds.
The surge you spoke of, might have been Fuzzy Logic trying to decide that...oh, dif driver behind the wheel, a bit more aggressive, say, and that it was learning your style. But tromping down and wringing it out in 2nd and 3rd a few times would help Fuzzy Logic get the drift sooner rather than later. lol (i don't know this for a fact, but suspect it).. Also, if you are not familiar with the term Fuzzy Logic, just ask and i will try to explain. You seem pretty knowledgeable tho, so I bet you're ok there?
btw, in an earlier post of yours about progressive rod stretching and discouraging stroke areas on the bore...right on! :thumb up:
Steve, I got a chuckle out of your 7 dec places comment. lol
I go 3 and round off to give me either one or two places. Depends on what I am calculating. When you work out your fuel bills on a heavy truck, were bills can be a few thousand a month, those extra dec places do come into play. I will admit I am a bit anal about record keeping of my fuel usage. It can help you know earlier rather than later if you have a sensor or some other ailment going on the car or bike etc. Believe it or not I can see my mileage change as the rear tire wears on my bike. (tire life is only about 3600 mi and odometer takes it's reading off rear final drive). I also keep track of what goes in all the assorted small motors around here, snowblower, chainsaw, lawnmower, generator etc. Gosh we are married to the almighty gasoline eh?
I agree with the block heater use, in fact I didn't elaborate but I too switch it from inside on weekends and use a timer thru the week. I do about 2.5 to 3 hours, but I am in a cold area and minus 35 or worse is not out of the question many nights.
Yeah, I've been keeping track of my mileage since '74 (wish I had kept copies of my log books all these years). And a blip in the mpg can indeed indicate something going haywire somewhere.
I'm down to two gas engines and wish it would stay that way. I have lousy luck with mowers and such. Maybe if I switched brands to Honda...
As you likely know, In days of "Yore", auto trannies seemed to crap out around 60K or so. They also got considerably less mpg due the the torque convertors not locking up. Therefore I consistantly drove "Shift for yourself" trannies when possible and practical. The manuals are just plain more fun to drive also. :shades:
A problem back then was clutch life, but that wasn't a biggie as clutch plate assemblies were relatively cheap and the rear drive cars were easy to separate the tranny from the bellhousing and change out the clutch in a couple of hours, even when laying on our backs.
Today's autos "seem" to last much longer than most of us keep a new car. I have friends that keep cars forever, and they service them according to the manufacturers recommendations. Not unusual for the autos to go near 200K or so. That may also have to do with better lubricants in modern days. Also some manuals that have clutches that go well over 100K.
Seems the modern "autos" turn a few less RPM at highway speeds than the manuals, and therefore get a bit better mileage there. Local and city driving a skilled driver can get much better MPG with a manual. I'm not crazy about Honda's "Grade Logic". Darn things decide to drop to a lower gear and stay there until level ground is reached whether going up or down hill. That is when the paddle shifters would be a handy device and it is simply not an Issue with manuals.
"Fuzzy Logic" is an interesting term. If we are on the same page I experienced that a few days ago. I was driving my wife's 09 RAV4. Had not driven it for a while, but it just seemed sluggish compared to the last time I drove it. I had to turn out of a side street on to a 4 lane with plenty of traffic traveling 60+mph. No ramp to build speed for me. When an opening appeared, I went for it and noticed smoke from the exhaust and the car simply didn't do what I remembered it capable of.
So...after several forced RED LINE exercises, the logic "Stuff" clear out, and it ran great again. No more smoke, and crisp acceleration. With my Ridgeline and the Pilot before that, I make it a Point to redline once in a while to keep the shifting cam and other "V-Tech" goodies operational and not allow a ridge to form above the top piston ring on the cylinder wall. Gotta "Stretch" those rods once in a while. Kip
I'm not sure switching to all Honda engines is the route to go...altho I know you said it tongue-in-cheek. I can relate on the mower front. I am down to two old Lawnboys, they have the aluminum deck, built in mosquito deflector, but have lousy coils and recoils. Best mower I ever had was...coincidently, the a new one a gave to my Mom and her new husband as a wedding gift after Dad died. It was the proverbial 3.5 hp 4 stroke Briggs. Needed a wrench to change wheel height.. Her new husband had a bit of an ego thing going on, and decided that he would buy themselves a new mower after only a couple years, I think maybe so he could adjust wheel height easier? I never did find out for sure. But Mom gave me back my mower when I bought a house, so was happy to get it. That mower taught me that gas in grass eats steel. I never knew. But since seeing how badly the deck rotted out and after I ran out of places to drill and bolt supporting angle iron to extend its (what became pathetic) longevity I finally had to retire it. (the deck, I actually transferred the engine to a newer dif deck i got from a scrap dealer whose engine never got an oil change or top-up). But it never quite cut as well after the re and re. Dif deck shape I think. After Mom and her new husband died I am back to cutting with the quirky Lawnboy he replaced mine with. I guess you'd call that a full circle plus. lol
Anyway, forgive me, I got way off CRV tank capacity and I didn't even break a sweat doing it. I will add though that once I added 51.243 litres (13.56 US gal) - so apparently I had 6.57 litres left. But interesting thing about specs I discovered. This is true on bikes, and I suspect it must be on cars also. When a mfgr states a spec tank capacity, it is 'before' they add the fuel pump and assorted pickup lines and filter assemblies inside the tank. So you subtract the cubic volume of those components and then you have true tank capacity. There! We pulled that one right back around, again full circle, lol.
Kip, you raise some good points about lubes being of higher quality nowadays. That is quite true. I guess that I suspect std trannys are more immune to neglectful maintenance than even today's autos. If you don't change out the auto fluid soon enough, the tranny will let you know, and usually not in a nice way, lol.
I did have a std tranny failure once tho. It was in an 86 Samurai. At around 170k km (about 106000 mi) They are quite cheap trannys and used roller bearings on output shafts. No place for a roller bearing.
As for clutch longevity, that really is a combo of vehicle quality and driver habit. As an example of how well a good combo can last, I had an 87 Pathfinder 4x4 E model, which was the 2.4 litre 4 cyl 8 valve, chain driven cam motor. A real plain jane, even power steering was an option, haha. Very rare SUV. Was a 5 sp std of course. I bought it from a good friend of mine when he started a family and wanted a minivan. Well before I got it he drove it many years and miles till he found himself having to commute from one extreme end of the GTA to the other. About 50 miles of stop and go in rush hour on the 401 parking lot. He did about 4 years of that and then was able to move closer to work again for a couple years before I bought it. I used it for another 6 years, and gave it to my nephew who (edit, was way harder on it than I was, I wasn't really) for 2 whole years before he sold it to a co-worker who sold it to some other guy who killed the engine. But it must have had well over 300000 miles at the point my nephew's friend sold it and at that point had still never had a clutch put in it.
Yet in the wrong hands, a new std driver can take a clutch out in only a few days.
I have to be honest, I wish I had kept the Pathfinder and finally gotten around to putting A/C in it. It was a good tight solid driver and was even resisting rust fairly well because it had been oil sprayed before winter most of its years.
My overall MPG on it over 6 years was 26.7 or 26.9 (Imp) I think. (edit- maybe was 24.3, that number is also coming to mind, some day I will come across my records for back then and if i remember where I posted this will update, lol) I would have to check my records to be certain. Interestingly it was almost identical to the CRV today. It was heavier too though, (2 live axles, a frame, throttle body FI). I think it was about 3600 lb.
I had high hopes for this, Kip. I tried it yesterday, step by step....the Idle Learn Procedure. Aside from hoping it would perfect the engine's ability for best fuel economy, I actually have a low idle condition I posted elsewhere that has no replies yet. It idles at 500 rpm. What does yours idles at? It seems to maintain the 500 when A/C kicks on, but i think that is too low.
The Idle Learn Procedure did not affect any change at all with my car. It took 20 min idling before fan first cycled. I even had my laser temp reader out (that I use for tire temps at the track and all sorts of handy times, like when a thermostat opens etc etc) Then 5 min for next fan cycle, and then during the 10 min additional, fan cycled 3 more times. After the 3rd time it was within 90 sec of that 10 min. I think i let it idle about 11 to 11.5 min. Shut it off. Waited about 5 or so seconds, restarted hoping to see a 900 or 1000 rpm idle, but no luck...still 500.
I had filled by jerri can here at home. Went to town, did a few miles of in town, refueled right up the neck again, and in 37.1 km (23 mi) I got 20.61 Imp mpg. (17.14 US mpg) And I drove gently into town on a two-lane about 55 mph, A/C on.
So that 30+ minutes of idling sure is significant. Mentioning it so that others will realize just how much fuel is wasted due to idling.
But now I am even more curious to solve my low idle situation. I wonder if blueiegod will see this post and weigh in?
We no longer have the CRV, so I can't give a good answer concerning idle RPM. I do know that sometimes at traffic lights the engine would seem to idle a bit rough, whether the AC was on or not. And at other times it seemed smooth.
My Ridgeline idles at 600-700 RPM when warm. And that fluctuates some. Don't know how accurate the tachometers are in these cars. Most likely accurate enough for general purposes but not enough for precision tuning and so forth. A tach like Tune Up shops use, or "Scan Gauge ll" would be more accurate and likely help you more. I really like the "Scan Gauge ll".
"Seems" that you did the ILP correctly. But it won't help if it was already done properly by the dealer before you took delivery.
Filling the tank to the top of the neck is not a good idea as it can possibly cause problems with the fuel recirculation system.
The only way I've personally found to accurately measure MPG is by driving enough on a tank to nearly take the full capacity to refill it. Such as wait until the needle is down around the 1/4 mark before refilling.
Do the refills at the same pump, at the same temp conditions, with the car sitting in the same place, and the pump handle on the slowest setting, and STOP when the handle clicks off the first time.
FWIW my RL will get 17 to 20 mpg driving the 6-7 miles to work in the summer. That is with the "Trip" meter reset before leaving. There may be a bit longer stop at one light than another going or coming, but it just doesn't seem it would affect mileage as much as it does, but it does. Even with that fluctuation, tank to tank seems to be right at 18 mpg plus or minus 1.
My idle doesn't waiver thank goodness. And car has too few miles to have burned valves unless they have tighten up. I can't find my shop manual. Been hiding for over a week now
I'm going to have a look and see if there is a set screw return somewhere. It'll be inside the cruise box I suspect. That's where the drive-by-wire potentiometer is right?
I'm amazed those new CRV's get as good a fuel mileage as they do. The car seems a fair bit bigger than the prev gen. They obviously are geared very very tall.
Somewhere I jotted down my revs..ya, here.. Final drive is way lower than automatics. WAY lower. All in 5th. Wasn't able to go much more than 65 on my last trip. I think 75 is around 3500 to 3600 revs, if i recall. 2000 rpm = 43.4 mph (70 kph) 2250 = 50 (80) 2500 = 55 (90) 2750 = 60 (96.6) 2800 = 62.14 (100)
I didn't use GPS, but speedo is surprisingly accurate at all those speeds. I think with present tires is off by about ½+ mph and more as you climb above 65 or 70. 3000 = 65.2 (105kph)
" Somewhere I jotted down my revs..ya, here.. Final drive is way lower than automatics. WAY lower. All in 5th. Wasn't able to go much more than 65 on my last trip. I think 75 is around 3500 to 3600 revs, if i recall. 2000 rpm = 43.4 mph (70 kph) 2250 = 50 (80) 2500 = 55 (90) 2750 = 60 (96.6) 2800 = 62.14 (100)
I didn't use GPS, but speedo is surprisingly accurate at all those speeds. I think with present tires is off by about ½+ mph and more as you climb above 65 or 70. 3000 = 65.2 (105kph) "
On my 2003, I had 2950 at 78 MPH indicated. I no longer own the car, but I did a number of long freeway trips and clearly remember the RPM. I'm not sure what year you have, but the Gen 2 had only 4 speeds...
Fill up the tank. Set your trip meter to zero. When you have gone 150 miles fill it up again. You could go farther, but this will give you a safety cushion. I once had a used 1954 VW. It had no fuel gauge. Just a ruler to stick into the large opening on the fuel tank. You quickly learn to not go too far between fill ups.
I have a 2011 EX-L CRV (it has 9,000 miles). The fuel economy is very disappointing and I am considering trading it in for an Accord. How does the CR-V compare with the Accord on gas mileage? I know the EPA estimates...I want to know what people actually think...
I own a 2010 CRV LX 2wd - now with 46,000 miles. I drive it for business, and, I agree with you- its fuel economy is lousy. The V-6 powered Saturn Aura I had before the Honda got far better fuel economy, and, wasn't underpowered like the Honda. I don't know if the Accord is any better, but, I'm not willing to spend any money to find out. My next business driver will be another brand.
I just returned from a 5800 mile road trip from NC to WY and back, but over 7 days. Average highway speed was ~82mph indicated on CC most of the time. A/C running most of the time as well. Average trip mileage was 29.8 mpg with 32.1 mpg best single tank mileage (stiff tailwind) and 24.3 mpg worst single tank mileage (stiff headwind).
I drive mostly short trips daily with 3 mile one way to and from work and 6 mile one way to and from Church and dancing. With a light foot my typical mileage is 23-24mpg in town.
(All mileage measured in actual gallon consumption.)
The engine runs perfectly. The car tracks straight as an arrow and not hardly bothered by crosswinds at all. Only complaints are the low rpm torque output and the 5-speed transmission. Together they make for a busy shifting environment that disturbs the overall driving experience. Can't really speak about the noise level as it seems about normal. Most of the perceived noise is from the (OEM) tires as far as I can tell.
What a terrific read. Haven't finished it (except all comments on FE). This has got to be one of the best reads to really know what you're going to get for fuel mileage in a 2nd last generation AWD CRV. Lots of drivers. Lots of scenarios and very descriptive, easily interpreted writing.
Betcha the new Escape owners could benefit from a read like this if you guys do a similar write-up on one of those? What did you replace the CRV with? If they do do an Escape, make sure it's an AWD..
Comments
i have used k and n filter for yrs and i have seen changes with my cars but everybody have different view on k and n filter or other product out there... thanks for your advice
hp
I probably came on too strong. I apologize for that. Just trying to help, and pass along lessons learned from bad decisions on my part.
In days of "YORE", before fuel injection, the carburetor was king.
Without getting too "involved", the carburetor was nothing more than a controlled gas leak into the engine. When the "butter fly" valve in the carb's venture was opened and air was sucked into the engine, fuel was siphoned through/from the carbs fuel jets by the rushing air.
To get better performance, it was not uncommon to increase the air flow by enlarging the air cleaner, getting a "performance" air cleaner, or even removing the air cleaner. The result was a more powerful sounding engine due to the louder "ROAR" when accelerating. Actually a bit more power was produced at top RPM with the "Pedal to the Metal". For that greater air flow to work, the carb jets had to be increased in size. Down side was more fuel was burned, and more damage to the engine from foreign particles. But when I started driving, gas was commonly $0.25 per gallon, so no big deal. (1958).
One day I sat down with a Car Magazine and found several/many adds for devices that claimed to increase performance and fuel mileage by 8-15%. So I could buy 10 of those items and expect 80-150% in mileage and performance. Didn't work that way. A few actually increased performance when used in conjunction with other things, but never when used by themselves. I don't recall any that helped mileage. And definitely none that improved mileage and performance.
Modern fuel injected engine's fuel flow are controlled by the ECU reading various sensors and firing the injectors to maintain the proper fuel/air ratio. The more air we allow, the more gas the injectors will feed. A slight increase in power MIGHT be realized at red line. However a decrease in low end performance and mileage may result. Modern engines are a marvel at producing HP and fuel mileage, compared to engines of days gone by. They achieve this with a very careful balance of components. When we mess with the components we mess with the balance.
Kip
The benefit is that computer can adjust the air fuel ratio on the fly, where the carb was limited to the jet setting. Jets can be replaced, but the adjustment would remain throughout the RPM range.
I think the best explanation for K&N and a like is that if the stock filter allows 1% dirt through. Increasing the ar flow by 10% will allow 10% more dirt, if the new filter has the same filtering capacity.
However, K&N and a like filters are not necessarily larger, but rather have larger opennings, which allow 10% more air, but probably 20% more contaminants.
What is interesting is that K&N warranty covers the filter for 1,000,000 miles, but says nothing about covering the engine.
i have brought k an n filter ..for $43.00 and i have noticed following changes:
1.i can see increase in my accelerator and hardness on accelerator feeling when going over highway has been gone
2.i noticed millage going up(need time for exact miles up) since i brought this filter after 3 months use of car now i can see good accelerator and airflow up
3.before k and n filter..city and highway trips...24 around and i did not have long trips yet...
thanks
hp
If it is a 2005 and up CR-V, then there is no direct connection between the accelrator and the throttle. It is electronically controlled. So, any "easier movement of the accelerator" is just perceived.
If OP's vehicle is automatic, his major limitng factor is the torque converter, which saps abour 30% more power than a clutch would.
Of course we had a "Cure" for that, as much as could be done in those days.
THE 4 BBL CARBURETOR and multiple carbs, such as Pontiac's "Tri Power". As far as OEM stuff was concerned.
There were several varieties available, but the GM "Quadrajet" (4 BBL) was a real good balance. The primary ventures were small and siphoned from small jets. These were used for everyday driving and starting "Off the line". With factory hardware, the much larger and thirstier secondary venture butterflies would FLIP open under vacumn when the throttle was on the floor and enough vacumn from the engine was available. (The secondaries were either fully open or fully closed) Of course we generally over rode the vacumn controls with mechanical linkage. :shades: Had to be careful with the throttle though, because opening those secondaries too soon could result in too much fuel for conditions and "bogging" the engine.
The Tri Power (3-2 bbl carbs) worked pretty much the same way. The center carb had very small ventures for every day use. When the front and rear carb's very large venture butterflys "Flipped" open, a lot more fuel was available. Mechanical linkage was available for that set up also.
All said and done, a knowledgeable and skillful driver could get better performance from the mechanical set ups. But in reality the stock factory stuff worked just as well.
Secondary jetting was sometimes increased for more fuel, but generally didn't operate as well as the stock ones, UNLESS other things were done, such as a more free flowing exhaust, and more free flowing air intake, different cam, distributor modifications, etc..
Bottom line: Most anything that was done to increase performance required modification to other components. AND Generally, fuel mileage suffered!
Most of us don't have the skills or the equipment to make modifications that will actually work. We need to keep in mind that aftermarket companies are in business to "Sell Product" Period! And as you said: What is interesting is that K&N warranty covers the filter for 1,000,000 miles, but says nothing about covering the engine."
Kip
Regards:
Oldengineer
The 4 cylinder pushing the CR-V through the air at 70+mph is working much harder than a V-6 sliding a low profile sedan/coupe through the air at the same speed.
Your mileage will likely increase a bit as the engine brakes in, but probably not enough to give you the mileage the Aura was getting.
Kip
During this process it is not a good idea to run the engine at a constant speed for long periods of time. RPM should be fluctuated often so this wear is "Even" throughout the engine and especially the rings and cylinder walls.
Taking back road trips with a light foot is a good way to accomplish this. The more stops and the more hills, the better opportunity for the engine to experience RPM changes.
Kip
Simply put, city mileage is mostly abotu weight. Highway mileage is mostly about aerodynamics. But both can be affected by engine size, perfomance, transmission gearing and programming among other things.
My opinion, Hondas 2.4L is above average to effciency, but in the CR-V it's pushed a little outside it's most efficient operating range. A slight bump in dispalcement to 2.5L would mage a significant improvement since the engine wouldn't be working as hard and would need fewer downshifts for hills, etc.
Regards:
OldCEM
Peak power can't really be factored into mileage. A Corvette with 400HP also gets around 30mpg. In their case, its' a matter of having a really tall overdrive gear as I suspect your Jaguar does.
The CR-V gets similar mileage to other small crossovers. Its' all due to aerodynamics. You can't beat the laws of physics. IF a sedan needs 35HP to maintain a steady 70mph, and a small SUV needs 40HP, the SUV will require about 15% more energy. So you're asking the CR-V's engine at 2000RPM and and lets say 80% duty cycle at that RPM (load) to produce 15% more power using the same amount of fuel as the Jaguar at maybe 1600RPM, but only at maybe 50% duty cycle (laod) at that RPM. The Jaguar has the advantage of higher compression, but it's ot the inneficiency (drag) of 6 more cylinders a larger crank, probably stiffer valve springs and it's tuned more for peak midrange and high RPM performance which sacrifices low RPM efficiency.
Regards:
OldCEM
Source: Edmund's Spec page
Is the 3.5L really that much lighter?
Oh well, don't answer that here, this is the CR-V page!
Regards:
OldCEM
There are a total of 8 traffic lights before arriving at work, which is about 6 miles from my house. On a "Good" day I may have to stop at 1 or 2 of them and the average MPG for the trip will exceed 20 MPG. However, on a really bad day I may have to stop for 6 or more and the average drop into the mid to high teens.
Consider this: If work was 3 miles from the house, I would be lucky to average 13-15 mpg each day. With it 6 miles away, a weekly average is usually more in the 20-22 mpg range.
Short trips with a cold or cool engine really sucks the fuel, even if there are no stops involved. Moving away from a stop with a cold engine may result in 2-6 mpg until it shifts into 2nd gear, then a bit better. Stop and go is terrible on mileage. With a cold engine, it is double terrible.
Coming home from work, the first road is up a steep hill with a traffic light at the top. (about a mile) I have arrived at that light showing 8 MPG on the Gauge. If traffic is unusually heavy and I have to wait through the second green light with some creeping along involved, the gauge can drop nearly a MPG. By the time I move away from that light the "average" might be 4-5 mpg. If I stopped and shut it down right there I would be complaining about the 4-5 mpg my CR-V is getting. :sick:
FWIW: Highway mileage at 60 mph is close to or over 31 mpg.
Kip
My Nissan Versa managed 15-18mpg in the winter. Our '08 Nissan Altima with 2.5L CVT averages around 13-18 mpg in the winter depending on how much my wife lets it ldile in the morning and if she leaves it running when she drop off our daughter at day care.
Short trips with lots of stop...very predictibley, will use a LOT of fuel with a 3700lb car. In that type of drivng, the size of the engine makes less of a difference.
that being said, I'll be the first to admit, that Honda's 2.4L does not get the best mileage. It's not as bad as Chryslers' 2.4L, but it's a little behind the Hyundai, Toyota, GM's, Nissan, Subaru and Ford/Mazda's 2.4L or 2.5L. It also makes less power than all of those.
So in terms of economy, I'd place it as below average. Honda needs to make a leap forward, go ot 2.5L and a 6 or 7 speed automatic keep up with the competition.
But I still would't trade the great steering repsonse/feel, chassis, and overall utlity of any of the other vehcuels in the class, which is why I chose it.
If you chose it just for fuel economy, you WILL likely be disapointed.
Regards:
Oldengineer
Absolutely!
I included the various distances and the MPG associated with them as an example of MPG we achieve with different distances. I believe that if the full extent of our trips were within a 3 mile area, in traffic, the mileage would be very low. :sick:
Just can't expect a gasoline (only) powered car to achieve great mileage while sitting at traffic lights and creeping along in the lower gears, from light to light.
A lot of "In town" driving is where the hybrids really shine! :shades:
Kip
Total trip mpg - 29.234. Best - 34.42 [interstate / county highway]; worst mileage - 22.9 [all city driving]. "V" averaged just over 31 mph on I-77 through West Virginia.
Carried 3 adults & 3 weeks worth of luggage. 4 cyl engine worked like a champ. Kept up with all traffic conditions & hilly terrain.
And if you live in cold climates, as most of you know, keeping the tank filled reduces a build up of condensation in your fuel, which can stop you dead in your tracks at the worse possible time if it were to freeze and stop fuel flow.
Haha, I chuckled out loud when i saw you used 'picayune' a few posts back. Love it
Also, I keep very accurate fuel records for every gallon and mile I drive. I even go two decimal places so I really know what my car gets.
I have learned over the years that among all the usual fast starts and unnecessary starting and stopping in town from not gauging impending light changes, that the biggest waste of fuel (altho 'waste' not always applicable of course, i.e using A/C) is: - engine idling
- ethanol content, the less the better, it has terribly low BTU efficiency in it
- AWD
- winter use, everything is colder stiffer and many things never do warm up depending on how short your trip is
- underinflated tires, aside from it being a safety issue, even one tire makes a big difference, far more than most realize
- A/C use
- driving against strong head or cross winds
- having a car load of people or weight all the time
- driving (with an 05 CRV EX AWD 5 speed manual) much above its strong torque range/fuel used, which is around 65 mph.
Of course there are all the other usual variables, but those are the biggys.
In 6480km of 2 years of 4 season driving (yes I know i don't drive much anymore) = 4026.6 miles I used 678.8 litres= 149.3 Imp gallons = 179.58 US gal = 26.97 Imp MPG = 22.47 US MPG
I live rurally but do small towns with streetlights. Run 50 to 60 mph on local roads. 60 to 75 on freeways, use A/C almost every summer day, drive in snow when I have to, plug car in for cold morning starts (saves fuel and engine a lot, and gives a faster defrost, and only uses barely pennies per evening, since block heaters range from about 150 to 200 watts. I drive fairly gently most times, but occasionally boot it to burn the carbon out of it at times. I use 100% full synthetic 5W20 oil.
I wish the mileage was better to be honest, but it is AWD and that makes a dif on any vehicle, and I use the AWD in the winter (it is often engaged) and we seem to all be stuck with higher and higher ethanol content. I agree with an earlier poster back around page 6 or 7, in that he questioned how much environmental benefit to our air when old gas gave us 20 MPG and new gas gives us 16 MPG (as a very realistic example).
I maintain North America needs to embrace clean turbo diesel use more. We need to demand it from the manufacturers so they can ship the already proven technology overseas, to these shores. If gas was so efficient a fuel, the heavy trucks and rail road freight trains would use it as a fuel.
And I do not believe in remote car starters.
It's been a while but my experience with block heaters is that they work fine with just an hour or so of being on. I had switched outside outlets so I'd plug my cars in at night (no garage back then) and then flip the switch on as I was making coffee. An hour later, I'd be good to go. I wouldn't bother with it unless it was dropping below 20°F or so.
I finally got a cheap electric air pump to top off the tires and that helps. And when it is cold, I may sit in the car for 30 seconds but I don't idle any longer than that - just get in and gently go.
Seems to me that a remote starter would only be good for clogging up your catalytic converter early. I did have an accessory 110v. heater I could plug in and use to defrost the windows before I cranked the car if it was bad out and the windows were iced over.
Hey, I am just always amazed at how you can measure a tankful of gas to the nearest drop and miles driven to the nearest inch! :P
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I would like to add though something very significant that you didn't touch on at all and is one of the primary reasons some of us, (in-the-know at least) drive manuals for reasons beyond being able to control things themselves when they want, and that is tranny longevity. It doesn't seem to matter which brand and model, the most common failure before vehicles start acquiring higher miles is with that model's automatic tran.
After debating the various virtues of an auto vs a std as being easier in stop-and-go commuting (lack of ability has to be included somewhere also) and the supposed better fuel economy (altho this applies more to the newer 6 sp autos than those of yesterday, and assuming a good manual tran driver) it really often boils down to longer, more trouble free life with stds.
The surge you spoke of, might have been Fuzzy Logic trying to decide that...oh, dif driver behind the wheel, a bit more aggressive, say, and that it was learning your style. But tromping down and wringing it out in 2nd and 3rd a few times would help Fuzzy Logic get the drift sooner rather than later. lol (i don't know this for a fact, but suspect it)..
Also, if you are not familiar with the term Fuzzy Logic, just ask and i will try to explain. You seem pretty knowledgeable tho, so I bet you're ok there?
btw, in an earlier post of yours about progressive rod stretching and discouraging stroke areas on the bore...right on! :thumb up:
I go 3 and round off to give me either one or two places. Depends on what I am calculating. When you work out your fuel bills on a heavy truck, were bills can be a few thousand a month, those extra dec places do come into play.
I will admit I am a bit anal about record keeping of my fuel usage. It can help you know earlier rather than later if you have a sensor or some other ailment going on the car or bike etc. Believe it or not I can see my mileage change as the rear tire wears on my bike. (tire life is only about 3600 mi and odometer takes it's reading off rear final drive).
I also keep track of what goes in all the assorted small motors around here, snowblower, chainsaw, lawnmower, generator etc. Gosh we are married to the almighty gasoline eh?
I agree with the block heater use, in fact I didn't elaborate but I too switch it from inside on weekends and use a timer thru the week. I do about 2.5 to 3 hours, but I am in a cold area and minus 35 or worse is not out of the question many nights.
I'm down to two gas engines and wish it would stay that way. I have lousy luck with mowers and such. Maybe if I switched brands to Honda...
It was a pleasure reading your post.
As you likely know, In days of "Yore", auto trannies seemed to crap out around 60K or so. They also got considerably less mpg due the the torque convertors not locking up. Therefore I consistantly drove "Shift for yourself" trannies when possible and practical. The manuals are just plain more fun to drive also. :shades:
A problem back then was clutch life, but that wasn't a biggie as clutch plate assemblies were relatively cheap and the rear drive cars were easy to separate the tranny from the bellhousing and change out the clutch in a couple of hours, even when laying on our backs.
Today's autos "seem" to last much longer than most of us keep a new car. I have friends that keep cars forever, and they service them according to the manufacturers recommendations. Not unusual for the autos to go near 200K or so. That may also have to do with better lubricants in modern days. Also some manuals that have clutches that go well over 100K.
Seems the modern "autos" turn a few less RPM at highway speeds than the manuals, and therefore get a bit better mileage there. Local and city driving a skilled driver can get much better MPG with a manual. I'm not crazy about Honda's "Grade Logic". Darn things decide to drop to a lower gear and stay there until level ground is reached whether going up or down hill. That is when the paddle shifters would be a handy device and it is simply not an Issue with manuals.
"Fuzzy Logic" is an interesting term. If we are on the same page I experienced that a few days ago. I was driving my wife's 09 RAV4. Had not driven it for a while, but it just seemed sluggish compared to the last time I drove it. I had to turn out of a side street on to a 4 lane with plenty of traffic traveling 60+mph. No ramp to build speed for me. When an opening appeared, I went for it and noticed smoke from the exhaust and the car simply didn't do what I remembered it capable of.
So...after several forced RED LINE exercises, the logic "Stuff" clear out, and it ran great again. No more smoke, and crisp acceleration. With my Ridgeline and the Pilot before that, I make it a Point to redline once in a while to keep the shifting cam and other "V-Tech" goodies operational and not allow a ridge to form above the top piston ring on the cylinder wall. Gotta "Stretch" those rods once in a while.
Kip
Anyway, forgive me, I got way off CRV tank capacity and I didn't even break a sweat doing it. I will add though that once I added 51.243 litres (13.56 US gal) - so apparently I had 6.57 litres left. But interesting thing about specs I discovered. This is true on bikes, and I suspect it must be on cars also. When a mfgr states a spec tank capacity, it is 'before' they add the fuel pump and assorted pickup lines and filter assemblies inside the tank. So you subtract the cubic volume of those components and then you have true tank capacity. There! We pulled that one right back around, again full circle, lol.
I did have a std tranny failure once tho. It was in an 86 Samurai. At around 170k km (about 106000 mi) They are quite cheap trannys and used roller bearings on output shafts. No place for a roller bearing.
As for clutch longevity, that really is a combo of vehicle quality and driver habit.
As an example of how well a good combo can last, I had an 87 Pathfinder 4x4 E model, which was the 2.4 litre 4 cyl 8 valve, chain driven cam motor. A real plain jane, even power steering was an option, haha. Very rare SUV. Was a 5 sp std of course. I bought it from a good friend of mine when he started a family and wanted a minivan. Well before I got it he drove it many years and miles till he found himself having to commute from one extreme end of the GTA to the other. About 50 miles of stop and go in rush hour on the 401 parking lot. He did about 4 years of that and then was able to move closer to work again for a couple years before I bought it. I used it for another 6 years, and gave it to my nephew who (edit, was way harder on it than I was, I wasn't really) for 2 whole years before he sold it to a co-worker who sold it to some other guy who killed the engine. But it must have had well over 300000 miles at the point my nephew's friend sold it and at that point had still never had a clutch put in it.
Yet in the wrong hands, a new std driver can take a clutch out in only a few days.
I have to be honest, I wish I had kept the Pathfinder and finally gotten around to putting A/C in it. It was a good tight solid driver and was even resisting rust fairly well because it had been oil sprayed before winter most of its years.
My overall MPG on it over 6 years was 26.7 or 26.9 (Imp) I think. (edit- maybe was 24.3, that number is also coming to mind, some day I will come across my records for back then and if i remember where I posted this will update, lol) I would have to check my records to be certain. Interestingly it was almost identical to the CRV today. It was heavier too though, (2 live axles, a frame, throttle body FI). I think it was about 3600 lb.
Aside from hoping it would perfect the engine's ability for best fuel economy, I actually have a low idle condition I posted elsewhere that has no replies yet. It idles at 500 rpm. What does yours idles at? It seems to maintain the 500 when A/C kicks on, but i think that is too low.
The Idle Learn Procedure did not affect any change at all with my car. It took 20 min idling before fan first cycled. I even had my laser temp reader out (that I use for tire temps at the track and all sorts of handy times, like when a thermostat opens etc etc) Then 5 min for next fan cycle, and then during the 10 min additional, fan cycled 3 more times. After the 3rd time it was within 90 sec of that 10 min. I think i let it idle about 11 to 11.5 min. Shut it off. Waited about 5 or so seconds, restarted hoping to see a 900 or 1000 rpm idle, but no luck...still 500.
I had filled by jerri can here at home. Went to town, did a few miles of in town, refueled right up the neck again, and in 37.1 km (23 mi) I got 20.61 Imp mpg. (17.14 US mpg) And I drove gently into town on a two-lane about 55 mph, A/C on.
So that 30+ minutes of idling sure is significant. Mentioning it so that others will realize just how much fuel is wasted due to idling.
But now I am even more curious to solve my low idle situation. I wonder if blueiegod will see this post and weigh in?
I do know that sometimes at traffic lights the engine would seem to idle a bit rough, whether the AC was on or not. And at other times it seemed smooth.
My Ridgeline idles at 600-700 RPM when warm. And that fluctuates some. Don't know how accurate the tachometers are in these cars. Most likely accurate enough for general purposes but not enough for precision tuning and so forth. A tach like Tune Up shops use, or "Scan Gauge ll" would be more accurate and likely help you more. I really like the "Scan Gauge ll".
"Seems" that you did the ILP correctly. But it won't help if it was already done properly by the dealer before you took delivery.
Filling the tank to the top of the neck is not a good idea as it can possibly cause problems with the fuel recirculation system.
The only way I've personally found to accurately measure MPG is by driving enough on a tank to nearly take the full capacity to refill it. Such as wait until the needle is down around the 1/4 mark before refilling.
Do the refills at the same pump, at the same temp conditions, with the car sitting in the same place, and the pump handle on the slowest setting, and STOP when the handle clicks off the first time.
FWIW my RL will get 17 to 20 mpg driving the 6-7 miles to work in the summer. That is with the "Trip" meter reset before leaving. There may be a bit longer stop at one light than another going or coming, but it just doesn't seem it would affect mileage as much as it does, but it does. Even with that fluctuation, tank to tank seems to be right at 18 mpg plus or minus 1.
Kip
My idle doesn't waiver thank goodness. And car has too few miles to have burned valves unless they have tighten up. I can't find my shop manual. Been hiding for over a week now
I'm going to have a look and see if there is a set screw return somewhere. It'll be inside the cruise box I suspect. That's where the drive-by-wire potentiometer is right?
I'm amazed those new CRV's get as good a fuel mileage as they do. The car seems a fair bit bigger than the prev gen. They obviously are geared very very tall.
Somewhere I jotted down my revs..ya, here.. Final drive is way lower than automatics. WAY lower. All in 5th. Wasn't able to go much more than 65 on my last trip. I think 75 is around 3500 to 3600 revs, if i recall.
2000 rpm = 43.4 mph (70 kph)
2250 = 50 (80)
2500 = 55 (90)
2750 = 60 (96.6)
2800 = 62.14 (100)
I didn't use GPS, but speedo is surprisingly accurate at all those speeds. I think with present tires is off by about ½+ mph and more as you climb above 65 or 70.
3000 = 65.2 (105kph)
2000 rpm = 43.4 mph (70 kph)
2250 = 50 (80)
2500 = 55 (90)
2750 = 60 (96.6)
2800 = 62.14 (100)
I didn't use GPS, but speedo is surprisingly accurate at all those speeds. I think with present tires is off by about ½+ mph and more as you climb above 65 or 70.
3000 = 65.2 (105kph) "
On my 2003, I had 2950 at 78 MPH indicated. I no longer own the car, but I did a number of long freeway trips and clearly remember the RPM. I'm not sure what year you have, but the Gen 2 had only 4 speeds...
Regards:
Oldbearcat
I just returned from a 5800 mile road trip from NC to WY and back, but over 7 days. Average highway speed was ~82mph indicated on CC most of the time. A/C running most of the time as well.
Average trip mileage was 29.8 mpg with 32.1 mpg best single tank mileage (stiff tailwind) and 24.3 mpg worst single tank mileage (stiff headwind).
I drive mostly short trips daily with 3 mile one way to and from work and 6 mile one way to and from Church and dancing. With a light foot my typical mileage is 23-24mpg in town.
(All mileage measured in actual gallon consumption.)
The engine runs perfectly. The car tracks straight as an arrow and not hardly bothered by crosswinds at all. Only complaints are the low rpm torque output and the 5-speed transmission. Together they make for a busy shifting environment that disturbs the overall driving experience. Can't really speak about the noise level as it seems about normal. Most of the perceived noise is from the (OEM) tires as far as I can tell.
2012 Honda CR-V Long-Term Road Test
Betcha the new Escape owners could benefit from a read like this if you guys do a similar write-up on one of those? What did you replace the CRV with? If they do do an Escape, make sure it's an AWD..