Honda Pilot Real World MPG

aspesisteve

what do you gain by placing "heat reflecting tape" on the airfilter box?

I mean the heat really doesn't have anywhere to go but back under the hood...right?

cyclone6

2007 2WD EX with 1,500 miles, all city driving, full AC all the time. I have checked 3 tanks so far and the MPG's are listed below.
19.24, 18.75, 18.93

jimmmmmy

I will continue to post my MPG records for my new 2WD PILOT. My first record (Summer 2007) is at the top of this post and the latest record will be on the bottom of this post. These represent tank-to-tank figures.

- 22 MPG, 90% highway 65 mph and moderate rolling terrain, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MI, WI, MN - July 6, 2007

- 17.6 MPG, 100% city, 0-50 mph, flat terrain, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN

- 18.5 MPG, 100% highway 80 mph, moderate terrain, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN, IA

- 20.5 MPG, 100% highway, 85 mph, flat terrain, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, NE

- 20.6 MPG, 90% flat highway 80 MPH,fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, CO

- 22.2 MPG, 90% flat highway 70 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, CO

- 21.4 MPG, 100% flat highway 84 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, CO, NE

- 21.0 MPG, 100% highway medium terrain 82 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, NE, IA

- 22.2 MPG, 100 % highway medium terrain 78 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, IA, MN

- 19.7 MPG, 100 % city driving with a LIGHT-LIGHT foot, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - July 30, 2007

- 16.8 MPG, 100% city driving, 0-50 mph, flat terrain and more stop and go, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - Aug 10, 2007

- 22.2 MPG, 100% highway medium terrain, 65 mph, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN, WI - Aug 13, 2007

- 19.0 MPG, 50% highway medium terrain at 65 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, wet conditions, MN - Aug 19, 2007

- 17.0 MPG, 100% city flat, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - Sept. 2, 2007

I'll keep you posted......... Jimmmmmy September 8, 2007

kipk

WOW!

14 fillups in 2 months. You are putting some serious miles on that puppy!

When you say Fully Loaded, what does that mean?

Thanks,
Kip

trmend1

That is some serious miles... he's not just driving through a city... but states! I've had my 4WD pilot for 2 months with only 1 major roadtrip of 700 miles roundtrip and I am just coming up to 2000 miles and I am working through my 7th tank of gas.

I talked with my bro who is Honda Specialist and he does mention that there is some "tuning" factors that can improve mileage on the engines but only after they've been broken in after 3 - 5K miles. He did however completely debunk the heat reflective tape around the airfilter box theory. There are always variables around each individual engine some will outperform, some will underperform... just as sometimes, heaven forbid, some engines get pesky gremlins. The complexity of vehicle engines have grown exponentially compared to what it was 20-30 years ago and "tuning" is not as cut and dry. His advice to good mileage is to drive smooth. Meaning that you should accelerate at a speed where you do not feel the gears shift. If you do feel it, you are taching too high. Also take as much advantage with coasting in the city. It has been a change for me to adjust since I drive two vehicles with basically the same engine but one is half the weight of the Pilot. In the Acura RL how I drive with the same foot, has a completely different driving experience. It is all an learning experience and for me it will take a couple tanks of gas to work it out.

Cheers

rich1945

I see I'm not the only 1 not satisfied with gas mileage (07 pilot awd ) I think we should find some way for all that are unhappy to get together and communicate this to Honda maybe with alot of people complaining to them they can try to do something yet I don't know what

kipk

...just bought a new Ridgeline. Even though it has somewhat of a frame under it, the weight is the same as a Pilot. Even the gearing appears to be the same.

He uses a spread sheet to keep track of individual fill ups and overall mileage. His first 961 miles of driving has averaged 19.03 mpg. EPA on the window sticker is 15/20.

Part of that 963 miles was a trip of mostly Xway. The trip portion figured to 20.49 MPG and He was alone! He is pleased, as that is slightly better than the EPA figures. Locally he is beating the EPA by 2-3 MPG. He could have gotten better mileage on that trip, but... He had the cruise set at 75 and AC was running full time! Terrain was rolling hills.

I think it is "averageJoe" that refers to the aerodynamics of the Pilot, to be about the same as a brick. Pilots are within a couple inches of being as wide and about as tall as a Tahoe. They are a few inches wider than an Explorer, a 4 runner, and a Pathfinder. They are a fairly large vehicle pushing a lot of air.

The forums for those SUVs are showing much less MPG than is being reported on the Pilot. Add AWD or 4WD to the above and they really drop mpg, and go up in price as well.

Plain and simple: A SUV (brick) moving through the air creates a lot of wind resistance. The faster, the more resistance, the more fuel burned. Of course this is true of any vehicle, but the sedans are more like an arrow compared to our bricks.

Wife and I just took a trip of about 350 miles. AC on full time, cruise on 90%, speed between 65 and 75 average, with occasional 60 and occasional 80 MPH. 250 miles of that was Xway and the rest was back roads, with some traffic and traffic lights. That trip tank yielded a little over 24 mpg.

We have gotten a high as 27+mpg on similar trips, but the speed was 60-65, AC and cruise were used very little and the terrain was flatter. How we drive these Pilots has more to do with mileage than anything else.

There are Pilots on the road that just refuse to get mileage as good as most. There are Pilots that get better than most. Overall I think we made a good choice.

Thanks,
Kip

jimmmmmy

Yes Kip,

I have put on over 6000 miles in less than three months. I know I will not be driving that many miles a month now.

When I have my family of four in the vehicle and all our luggage and gear for a road trip in back, stacked very high, I call this a FULL LOAD. My HALF LOAD designation has mostly been four-six passengers with the back stacked up to the window line. I will say LIGHT LOAD when it has been just passengers (1-8), groceries, sports equipment, etc

I love every mile in our PILOT. It is our first SUV. It is a great ride, storage is great, and I have been surprised at what I can fit in the vehicle with four-five passengers too. I think it is by far the best value per dollar in this vehicle class. So many people are spending $10K, $20K, $30K, and $40K more for SUVs that do not have the capabilities of the PILOT. The PILOT...an EIGHT passenger mid-sized SUV for under $30,000. THIS IS GREAT!

I will continue to post my MPG records for my new 2WD PILOT. My first record (Summer 2007) is at the top of this post and the latest record will be on the bottom of this post. These represent tank-to-tank figures.

- 22 MPG, 90% highway 65 mph and moderate rolling terrain, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MI, WI, MN - July 6, 2007

- 17.6 MPG, 100% city, 0-50 mph, flat terrain, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN

- 18.5 MPG, 100% highway 80 mph, moderate terrain, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN, IA

- 20.5 MPG, 100% highway, 85 mph, flat terrain, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, NE

- 20.6 MPG, 90% flat highway 80 MPH,fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, CO

- 22.2 MPG, 90% flat highway 70 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, CO

- 21.4 MPG, 100% flat highway 84 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, CO, NE

- 21.0 MPG, 100% highway medium terrain 82 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, NE, IA

- 22.2 MPG, 100 % highway medium terrain 78 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, IA, MN

- 19.7 MPG, 100 % city driving with a LIGHT-LIGHT foot, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - July 30, 2007

- 16.8 MPG, 100% city driving, 0-50 mph, flat terrain and more stop and go, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - Aug 10, 2007

- 22.2 MPG, 100% highway medium terrain, 65 mph, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN, WI - Aug 13, 2007

- 19.0 MPG, 50% highway medium terrain at 65 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, wet conditions, MN - Aug 19, 2007

- 17.0 MPG, 100% city flat, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - Sept. 2, 2007

- 16.0 MPG, 100% city flat, light load, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - September 16, 2007

I'll keep you posted......... Jimmmmmy September 18, 2007

jimmmmmy

I will continue to post my MPG records for my new 2WD PILOT. My first record (Summer 2007) is at the top of this post and the latest record will be on the bottom of this post. These represent tank-to-tank figures.

- 22.0 MPG, 90% highway, 65 mph,rolling terrain, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry, MI, WI, MN - July 6, 2007
- 17.6 MPG, 100% city, 0-50 mph, flat terrain, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN
- 18.5 MPG, 100% highway 80 mph, moderate terrain, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN, IA
- 20.5 MPG, 100% highway, 85 mph, flat terrain, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, NE
- 20.6 MPG, 90% flat highway 80 MPH,fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, CO
- 22.2 MPG, 90% flat highway 70 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, CO
- 21.4 MPG, 100% flat highway 84 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, CO, NE
- 21.0 MPG, 100% highway medium terrain 82 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, NE, IA
- 22.2 MPG, 100 % highway medium terrain 78 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, IA, MN
- 19.7 MPG, 100 % city driving with a LIGHT-LIGHT foot, half loaded, 100% AC, dry, MN - July 30, 2007
- 16.8 MPG, 100% city driving, 0-50 mph, more stop and go, half loaded, 100% AC, dry, MN - Aug 10, 2007
- 22.2 MPG, 100% highway medium terrain, 65 mph, fully loaded, 100% AC, dry, MN, WI - Aug 13, 2007
- 19.0 MPG, 50% highway medium terrain at 65 MPH, fully loaded, 100% AC, wet, MN - Aug 19, 2007
- 17.0 MPG, 100% city flat, half loaded, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - Sept. 2, 2007
- 16.0 MPG, 100% city flat, light load, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - September 16, 2007
- 18.7 MPG, 100% city flat, light load, 100% AC, dry conditions, MN - September 28, 2007

trmend1

J... thanks for posting your mpgs. It does give a better picture to what the potentials are for the Pilot. I am now coming up on 3000 miles and have noticed that my tanks of gas are going longer each time. Being patient and letting the engine break in is very important. One question I do have for the forum... Does anyone else notice the Pilot (I have a 4wd) taching high in acceleration starting from cold for the first 5 - 10 minutes? I can easily tach 3-4000 with a slow acceleration climbing up to 20mph. Once she gets warmed up the ride gets much smoother.

Cheers

davidd3

2007 Pilot EXL 4WD. 12,000 miles.

Averaging 17.39 mpg in mixed highway/city driving. Very few trips with long and flat highway stretches. Best tank returned 21.48mpg. Worst tank returned 15.31mpg.

justaveragejoe

Yes, my 2007 4WD Pilot seems to tach higher than normal but mine seems to do it all the time. I especially notice it when I am very light on the throttle. It is very hard for me to get an upshift below 3000 rpms without lifting off the gas even, if I crawl from a start.

My normal commute mileage is also creeping higher, which is now around 19mpg. Best ever was 22.2 mpg

Joe

typesix

Hondas seem to be setup that way. I have driven my sister's 2005 CRV and an older Accord and noticed that 1st to 2nd upshift is rpm based, not load based. Even under light or creeping acceleration, the 1st-2nd shift seems to occur at same rpm as faster acceleration, found it annoying and it creates worse gas mileage and more noise.

trmend1

Thanks typesix for your input. Something I will talk to my mechanic about with my first oil change in a couple of weeks. Perhaps its just a matter of tweaking the computers or not...

Cheers,
T

trmend1

Date miles fuel price mpg
7/26/2007 280.2 17.23 2.89 16.26
8/06/2007 239.0 17.16 2.83 13.92

8/14/2007 338.2 16.90 4.42 20.01
8/16/2007 359.8 17.70 2.99 20.32
8/27/2007 263.8 17.18 2.88 15.35
9/08/2007 269.1 17.44 2.85 15.42
9/19/2007 284.9 16.82 3.01 16.93
10/2/2007 308.1 17.05 2.89 18.06

All travel is with 2 - 7 passengers, 90% city/10% highway, medium loading (soccer/football gear, costco runs,etc) with 50% AC. The exceptions are the August 14th and 16th and that is 5 passengers,100% highway travel through steep mountain terrain w/ 100% AC.

Hope this helps some of the 4WD owners.

Cheers,
T

kipk

"Hondas seem to be setup that way. I have driven my sister's 2005 CRV and an older Accord and noticed that 1st to 2nd upshift is rpm based, not load based. Even under light or creeping acceleration, the 1st-2nd shift seems to occur at same rpm as faster acceleration, found it annoying and it creates worse gas mileage and more noise."

With a light foot, Both our 4wd 03 CR-V and 4wd 03 Pilot will shift at 2k-2.2k on relatively flat ground.
With a heavy foot they will shift at red line.

On an uphill grade or towing, the shifts will move slightly higher.

Shift points depend on load and/or throttle position.

Same is true with our neighbors 03 CR-V and 07 Ridgeline.

With proper mind set and practice, most shifts will/can take place according to our foot pressure, without lifting the throttle. One exception to this is when "Grade Logic" is activated.

justaveragejoe

Kip,

I understand exactly what you are saying and completely agree, however, what we are saying is that our vehicles are NOT acting in that manner.

With a light foot our 2004 Odyssey shifts at "expected" RPM (2000rpm). However even with a very light foot, (and going DOWN-hill and with a tail wind ), my 2007 Pilot revs way higher than "expected". Most of the time to 3000rpm.

Since the transmission is computer controlled to a certain degree, a re-programming (if possible) may help. Otherwise, there may be a computer sensor that is out of spec and causing this problem with some of our vehicles.

Joe

jpb7190

I posted earlier about my trip from Chicago to Denver in my new 07 LX Pilot averaging 26,2! My wife and I recently traveled to Santa Fe and back to Denver-about 990 miles. On the trip down we averaged 26.5 going between 65-75 with cruise on. On the return trip to Denver at 75-85 with cruise on the mileage fell to 24.4-not bad for the speed. With my total mileage at 2200 miles here are my early conclusions about this wonderfull car. 1.On any long trip you have to use cruise-it really helps. 2.I accelerate very slowly in city driving and average around 22 mpg-it really helps! 3. I use 85 octane here in Denver and have had no problems with response. 4. I watch drivers with other SUV's pass me going too fast-I wonder what their mileage is? 5.I will report back to this forum when I get to 6000 miles or so -by then the engine should be broken in. 6. BTW my oil guage for changing oil at 2200 miles indicates 80%-unbelivable! Thanks guys and hope this info. helps others.

kipk

Joe,

Possibly there is indeed a computer glitch with your car.

Obviously with the ODY shifting at lower rpm, you have the skills. If there is a glitch with the Pilot computer, it could also explain your lower than desired mileage. Might be worth a shot to have Honda re boot the computer. I think they call that "Flashing" the computer.

Kip

davidd3

my 2007 Pilot revs way higher than "expected". Most of the time to 3000rpm.

Joe,

Same is true for my 2007 Pilot. We discussed this before. Are you now thinking that there's something wrong, not that this is just the way they are set up?

David

kipk

FWIW my economy minded neighbors new 07 Ridgeline will shift at about 1800-2000 RPM on a flat or even slightly up or down.

Might be worth a test drive of a few other New Pilots to see how they shift.

Kip

justaveragejoe

Hey guys,

I've been out of town a while so it's time to catch up. With the post from jpb7190, it is apparent the potential mpg for the 2007 AWD is much higher than what I have been getting with mine (and with no break-in period required). I agree with him and I am a firm believer that the cruise control will help deliver the best mileage when on level ground. So yeah David, I am thinking that there may be a glitch with my Pilot.

Although I still don't think my Pilot is shifting properly, once I'm on the freeway and the transmission is in overdrive, the shift points should not matter. That could indicate a sensor might be out of spec. Maybe a computer "flash" may help.

We really don't get many chances to get our vehicles out on the open road very often (our 2004 Odyssey turned 3-years-old in August and we only have 26,000 miles now).

Guess its time to plan a road trip.

Joe

trmend1

Hi there.... I have a little more info on the shift points for the 07 AWD Pilot. I had to take my Acura RL in for an oil change this morn and brought this issue up with my VERY trusted mechanic (yes rare and I bring treats almost everytime in appreciation... but I digress)...

The shift point is set at 2700 with a "typical" foot. This should be the case no matter the time of day or weather or hot or cold. You can shift lower if you are really light... and of course shift much higher if you are gunning it! "Flashing" is usually the first step with any concerns and he will go through my Pilot with a fine tooth comb when I bring it in for its first oil change in about 150 miles. I will definately report back with any information when that time comes!

Cheers,
T

kipk

Joe,

If there is a glitch resulting in higher than normal shift points, it could be also be unlocking the torque converter and/or down shifting prematurely.

Something else... When my car is cold, the shift points are higher. Actually closer to 2700-3000, even with a light foot. It is quicker to down shift on hills that it would normally accend in OD. I expect the engine is also running richer.

Once it warms up, shift points with a light foot go back to 2000-2200. Engine probably leans out at that time.

What if, and this is a stretch, something about your car doesn't recognize that it has warmed up and continues to hold the shift points higher and the engine a bit richer?

Kip

justaveragejoe

I replaced my locking gas cap a few weeks ago on my old truck with a standard type so that I could fill my tank for a trip to the mountains and not have gas slosh out.

Well, today after taking my two young boys to mow my parents' lawn, we stopped at their local park to play tennis. While we were playing, (in the middle of the day, in a nearly empty parking lot) someone swiped my gas. I'm glad I locked the leaf blower in the cab or it would likely have been gone, too. :mad:

I was hoping to check the gas mileage on the ol' 1968 GMC now that I could fill-up my tank again without spilling out the side. I'm thinking the mileage won't be very good on that tank.

Guess I have to put the sloppy locking cap back on it.

As far as the 2007 Pilot AWD, last four tanks of regular commuting returned 20.4 mpg, 18.9 mpg, 20.0 mpg, 20.5 mpg. That's up from 17-18 when it was new. I'm glad to see that magic 20 showing up more often.

Joe

texaspilot

Sorry for the late reply. Alpine speakers in Pilot made world of difference. I got 3 way poly speakers....No more Pilot, though: we bought an Airstream, so had to sell the Pilot for a bigger SUV~08 Tahoe. Miss the 4WD, but ride in Tahoe and stereo system is awsome!

justaveragejoe

It has been one year (Nov 5th) since I bought the 2007 4WD Pilot EX and I just had an opportunity to take it on a road trip for my work to the Sierras. Luckily it was beautiful weather and a nice week for a drive.

I got the best gas mileage so far. 23.3 mpg. This trip went from Sacramento Valley over Donner Summit (7200' elevation in 80 miles) and north on Hwy 89 for 140 miles through the mountains (5000-6000' elevation) with ups and downs across many summits. Finally came back down home on Hwy 49 alongside the river canyons. Total trip was 430 miles on that tank.

The grade control in the transmission engaged nearly the entire way through the twisty and steep roads and I am very happy with the way it performed.

I look forward to many more years with the Pilot. I have 8,100 miles so far.

Joe

See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com

See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com

kipk

What was your typical speed Joe?

Kip

justaveragejoe

Kip,

I probably averaged 65-70 mph up over the summit on the Interstate, then 55-65 along Hwy 89 passing a couple cars on that 2-laned-road, some local driving around Portola 25-55 mph, and then...coming back home downhill through the canyon... I could barely let it get above 40 mph with all the sharp turns. In the beginning, I tried to get above 45 mph so that the transmission would get into overdrive, but I gave up on that and let the Pilot do whatever it wanted and just enjoyed the road. The last 30 miles were back on the Interstate at 65 mph.

Joe

kipk

Considering the terrain, it seems you did pretty well with the MPG thingie. Certainly better than past reports and better than the EPA ratings.

Our '03 waits until about 50 to shift into OD on flat ground. I've wondered about the 45 mph in 4th gear vs 50 mph in overdrive. I try to get to the 50mph range to get into the higher gear, but really hard to do in our local driving. What I've observed is that when the shift into OD occurs, the engine seems to "Load" slightly .

I recon I'm going to have to break down and get a "Scangauge" or something equivalent to settle the curiosity. Don't know if it would actually help local mileage any/much, because traffic and conditions are what they are. Might show that 45 in 4th gets the same or better than 50 in OD. Might not!

I do think a MPG gauge might help on the road, especially when dealing with rolling hills, AC, and Cruise control. :confuse:

Kip

bsolve1

light to moderate traffic, flat terrain, a few stop lights within Virginia Beach and at around 9 am which is already past rush hours going to a 6 mi commute to work. I'm the only load, not carrying anything except myself; using 87 unleaded w/ ethanol blend for gas. sounds ridiculous but its true. this may be the reason why the first owner brought it back to the dealership only after a few months of ownership. It was even a used honda certified suv when I bought it.

cbrunson1

I bought a 2007 a couple of months ago but thought I would give it a couple of months before tracking the mileage. I live in Houston and have done very little highway driving so far, but we'll be putting 2500 highway miles on it in the next week or so. So far, I'm averaging 18.7 in city driving. I have a pretty light foot but think we're doing pretty well so far. I look forward to averaging over 20 on our trip, but we'll be driving with a carrier on the roof and I'm sure that's going to hurt a little. I hope we can average the big numbers that some of the other posters have.

kipk

That carrier will be like an extra "air catcher" and will affect mileage. The faster you go, the more.

Read carefully the mileage reports. I can't speak 100% for the others. But, for myself, I have averaged nearly 28 for a near 1100 mile round trip with me and my wife. That was achieved by pulling every trick I knew out of the MPG bag.

With 4 aboard and running 80+ using AC and cruise constantly, the mileage dropped to 18 mpg. On the return trip the next day with similar weather and with the same load and using the AC and Cruise sparingly, at 60-65 average mph resulted in 26+/- MPG. Others have reported near the same results.

Me and my wife on a 300+ mile trip with AC and cruise on full time at 65-70 got around 23.5.

All that to say that the Pilot is heavy and has a large frontal area pushing air. As "justaveragejoe" says, it has the aerodynamics of a brick. I don't remember the formula, but a slight increase in speed can result in a large increase in wind resistance.

That 18.7 city you are getting is really good when compared to most. Just don't get all carried away when you hit the road, and you can probably expect above the EPA, even with the carrier! Speed kills mileage!

Kip

k28

I just filled up my Honda Pilot EX-L 4WD with 22.5 gallons of gasoline. My empty light had just come on and I thought that I top it off. I had 320 miles on this tank at the time. Do you think that the fuel hose between the gas cap and the fuel tank holds 2 gallons of gasoline? The empty light had just come on, so there was still some fuel left in the tank in addition to the 22.5 gallons that I just put in? Maybe it holds more than 23 gallons?
Has anyone else experienced this high capacity fuel tank?

kipk

Seems that our Pilot has near 3 gallons left when the light comes on. It takes 17 +/- gal to refill.

So if it took 22.5 to fill from the "light", the tank would hold 25+ gallons. That could be a blessing on a long trip.

According to the numbers, you got 14.22 mpg on that tank. Sounds a bit low, unless you drive in really serious traffic.

On the other hand, if you had filled with 17 gallons the mileage would have been 18.8 mpg which is close to what we "average" on a fill up.

Sounds like these are possibilities.

1. You pumped the gas and went inside to pay and they rang up the wrong pump.

2. The pump was very inaccurate.

3. You also filled a 5 gallon gas can.

4. Someone else filled it, and didn't really remember how many gallons it took. My wife does that.

5. You have a 25 gallon tank, and need it!

Please follow up here, when you fill next time!

Kip

cbrunson1

Just got back from a 2,400 mile trip from Houston to Pensacola to Greenville, SC and back to Houston. When my lead-footed, downshifting wife was driving at 80 MPH downhill and 85 uphill, we got about 18.5 mpg with the carrier on top while running the air. When I was driving 68 - 70 using the cruise control and no A/C with the carrier, I got about 24.8. I think you're exactly right, Kip, without the carrier and running at 60 - 65, a Pilot could get 26 or more running the cruise. I think I could get close to that 28 you observed by running without the cruise. The hills between Houston and South Carolina are pretty mild and I found that below 70 the Pilot can negotiate the hills without a downshift, but once you get over 70 - 75, it downshifts and uses that much more fuel. I wish the ride were a little less noisy, but other than that, I couldn't be happier. The Thule carrier was very good; I wouldn't have known it was up there, no noise at all. The driver's seat is particularly comfortable for very long runs. An editorial note: at 68 - 70, people were blowing by me like I was sitting still, and I doubt I passed twenty vehicles in 1,000 miles; there didn't seem to be many people concerned with fuel mileage or the price of gas.

kipk

cbrunson1,

Honestly, you got much better mileage than expected with the carrier on top. Apparently it is very aerodynamic and well engineered.

Isn't it amazing the difference in MPG by lowering the speed ?

Our MPG is nearly identical to yours at the various speeds, but we don't use the box on top. That 1100 mile trip of near 28 mpg was done by running the posted speed limits, but not running over 65 mph, except for safety reasons a couple of times. The AC control was on Recirculate and the compressor turned on only occasionally, when needed, while going down hill. Perfect weather for that.

Actually, 1100 miles at say 27 mpg vs 24 mpg, at $2.75, only saves about $14 for the trip. Nothing earth shaking. However 27 mpg vs 18 mpg is a $56 dollar savings.
I personally enjoy the "Traveling" part of a trip as much as the getting there! My wife would rather blink her eyes and bypass the road part. Therefore she tends to drive a lot harder than I do. I like the mileage game, and she doesn't. We all have different mind sets. Every once in a while she will say something like, "are we parking?"

It would be interesting to know what your Pilot is capable of at 60 mpg without the box. :shades:

Kip

cbrunson1

It sounds like our wives were separated at birth. My wife drives as if every green light is a space shuttle lift-off. She's either on the gas or on the brake, and sometimes I think she's standing on both at the same time. Two feet; two pedals, what else should I expect? Then she complains about her mileage and thinks something's wrong with her minivan; 'shouldn't I be getting better mileage?' When I begin my lecture on driving habits I get the eye-roll. And I do the same to her on other issues . We're meant for each other. Anyway, the Thule carrier I got from REI is great; lightweight, pretty aerodynamic, and quiet. I never heard a whistle or vibration or anything. It's the sleekest part of the vehicle, which isn't saying much. I doubt that it's possible that an accessory could reduce the wind resistance of a Pilot, but this carrier certainly didn't hurt. Regardless, I'm getting better mileage out of the Pilot than I got out of my old Honuzu Passport, and it's much more comfortable for everyone on the trip. My beloved likes the column shift and the kids like the outlets and cupholders. I like the split back seats: I rode for 600 miles in the backback seat with the back seat folded forward and had plenty of leg/head room and was pretty comfortable. The backback seat in an Acadia/Enclave might be better, but for now, I prefer having an extra $10k in the bank. But getting back to mileage, I think it's not stretching things to say that 28 MPG is consistently possible without a lot of inconvenience.

justaveragejoe

Okay guys, I think you are pushing it. The only probable way that I see 28 mpg is at the lowest speed possible with the tranny in OD and the the 3 cyls deactivated (47 mph??).

Wind drag increases to the square of the velocity. Let's make a simple equation and combine other variables (friction coefficient, cross sectional area, air density, etc.) into one and call it "C" which remains constant for your Pilot.

Drag Force = C x Velocity x Velocity

Drag Force at 45 mph = C x 45 x 45 = 2025 C

Drag Force at 55 mph = C x 55 x 55 = 3025 C

Drag Force at 65 mph = C x 65 x 65 = 4225 C

Drag Force at 85 mph = C x 85 x 85 = 7225 C

So there is twice as much drag on the vehicle at 65 than at 45 mph and the drag more than triples at 85 mph.

Here is an interesting website link on MPG factors:

http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Improve_MPG_The_Factors_Affecting_Fuel_Efficien- cy

Lets talk about lead-foot acceleration so I can review the whole F=ma Fig Newton thing.

Joe

cbrunson1

Okay guys, I think you are pushing it. The only probable way that I see 28 mpg is at the lowest speed possible with the tranny in OD and the the 3 cyls deactivated (47 mph??).

I meant 28 MPG in highway driving, of course. Sorry for not clarifying if I gave the impression that I was talking about day-to-day commuting/errand-running/hauling the kids around.

Lets talk about lead-foot acceleration so I can review the whole F=ma Fig Newton thing.

Let's don't and say that we did.

justaveragejoe

I just don't think you will get 28 mpg at highway speeds. On a highway, at less than highway speeds, possibly.

....and I can honestly say "we did"

Joe

davidd3

Joe,

As for my Pilot (2007 EXL 4WD), still averaging a bit better than 17mpg overall. Best case highway for me so far is not quite 22mpg. That's my own personal real world. Others do better (and I figure that I could likewise do better) in the city by using a lighter foot and on the highway by cruising at lower speed. Add to the mix that his is a 2WD and 28mpg highway seems possible (or at least not far-fetched).

I'm still lurking, but haven't had much to say for quite a while. I'm much more concerned these days with quality problems with one of my other vehicles than with the gas mileage of my Pilot.

Best regards,

David

kipk

Joe,

Using your numbers there is 71% more wind drag at 85 mph than at 65 mph.

Now if a vehicle gets say 18 mpg at 85 mph, ( mine does) then dropping the speed to 65 could conceivably yield 18 + 71% = 30.78 mpg.

At 60 miles per hour the formula would look more like C X 60 X 60= 3600 C . !00% more wind drag at 85 than at 60. Therefore conceivably at 60 mph that vehicle should be getting 18 + 100% = 36 mpg.

Of course we know that isn't likely to happen. There are other factors involved that I don't understand. I do know that we get about 23-24 at 65+/- and 26-27 at 60+/-
when using AC and cruise sparingly. The only thing that changed is the speed and therefore wind resistance.

According to the formula there is 17% more wind drag at 65 than at 60.
23.5 mpg at 65 + 17% by dropping speed to 60 = 27.5 MPG which is real close to our best mileage trip of 1100 miles, as well as shorter trips.

I see no reason that a 2WD with 6/3 could not achieve 28mpg or more, if driven conservatively at 60 mph. There have been other reports of great mileage on this forum which most folks seem to discount or ignore.

I say WELCOME to those high mileage guys! Is it their particular vehicles or is it the way they drive?

I read a long time ago. "If you don't think you can do something, you probably can't" !

Kip

justaveragejoe

Kip,

There are also other losses besides wind drag. Although a gasoline engine converts most of it's energy to heat anyway, there is room for efficiency improvements regarding how that engine moves the vehicle down the road.

I do believe 28 or even 30 mpg can be achieved and I am just suggesting one way that I think it could possibly happen.

When my car idles, I am getting zero miles per gallon. But if I turn-off the engine an push it 10 feet, I just got infinite miles per gallon.

Both scenarios are possible, but one is much more probable to occur.

Joe

kipk

Joe,

Just putting thoughts on paper. Maybe someone didn't know all this neat stuff!

We all know that speed affects wind drag, but I didn't know how drastic the effect can be until the formula you presented.

As you are saying above, most of the energy of the combustion engine is converted to heat. I recently read that the gasoline engine only utilizes about 30% of the energy that's stored in the gasoline. The rest is simply heat or out the tail pipe.

On top of that even more energy is used to cool the engine, such as the water pump. Then we add electrical loads which can result in the alternator being a bit harder to turn, then the AC compressor, Power steering and such! In reality that inefficient engine is doing a lot of work, requiring fuel, just running.

Then we put it in gear which adds more load of moving liquids around inside the tranny. Now let's get this 4500 +/- # "Brick" moving and see how much wind resistance we can create. Amazing that we get the mileage that we do!

Thanks,
Kip

zarba

This is right in line with what we've gotten with our '07 EX-l AWD. 15K miles.

I had hoped for about 18-19 avg, but it's not to be.

It's a big, heavy AWD SUV. I'm surprised people are complaining about the mileage. :confuse:

tidester

the gasoline engine only utilizes about 30% of the energy that's stored in the gasoline

And there's a good reason for that! There's a maximum efficiency at which any engine can operate based on thermodynamics. For an eye glazing account read about the Carnot Cycle.

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

davidd3

This is right in line with what we've gotten with our '07 EX-l AWD. 15K miles.

Par for the course.

I had hoped for about 18-19 avg, but it's not to be.

Same here.

It's a big, heavy AWD SUV. I'm surprised people are complaining about the mileage.

My beef is that my (and your) overall average mpg is about the same as our Pilot's city EPA rating of 17mpg. I was hoping to average around the mid-point of the 17city/22highway mpg ratings since my driving is mixed. I have had better relative mpg luck with most other vehicles I have had over the years.

By the way, I got caught in an unexpected snow/ice storm today coming home to NY from MA. Very slow going. Saw some spin-outs and accidents along the way. Glad we were in the secure 4WD Pilot. Actually, we drove it by default. Due to poor gas mileage, I prefer to drive one of our cars on long trips when it's just me and my wife. But my daughter, a new driver who drives only the Accord for now, needed the Accord in the mid-afternoon and we didn't think we'd be back home in time. So we took the Pilot instead. Also made good use of the Pilot's utility today to help with a winter tire changeover on another family vehicle. Folded the 3rd row flat and easily loaded up 4 wheels/tires. A very good day indeed to be a Pilot owner. Tomorrow will be another trip to the dark side - errrr, another fill up at the gas station where Regular is now $3.399.

mer66

Me too, and I am not really surprised given the size and weight of this truck. 15-17 mpg average and 19-21 on the highway has been the rule for the last 40K miles. But then again, I never expected to get mileage higher than the EPA estimates. That is a rare occurance for any car. I dont think anyone can realistically expect to get more than about 21 MPG under the best of circumstances on flat out hwy drives with a Pilot.

justaveragejoe

Exactly correct on maximum efficiency.

Heat engines use various engine-cycles, which describe how much WORK you can get out of an engine from a certain amount of energy, the rest is heat.

The Carnot cycle is the idealistic cycle of energy transferred to WORK and could be 99% thermally efficient.

The Otto cycle describes the 4-stroke engine. It uses the expansion of the gas/air mixture (ignition by spark plug) to do work, (pushing down of a piston). Given the Pilot's 10:1 compression ratio, its engine could only be 60% thermally efficient at best (its theoretical maximum).

The 30% refers to the engines actual efficiency. Of the available 60% in an ideal Otto cycle, most of this energy in an engine goes into heat (not WORK) which is lost to the environment through the exhaust and through the engine block (which is transferred to the cooling system to keep the pistons from melting).

So Kip, you are exactly correct on what you meant, but.... today's gasoline engine use over 99.9% of the energy that is stored in the gasoline, but only converts around 30% of it into WORK, the rest is heat.

Since Tidester set the bait, I couldn't help but take it.

Joe