If friction weren't there this entire discussion would be moot because your tires would just spin and you wouldn't go anywhwere.
LOL, good point Tidester.
If the transmission has to downshift on the hills then I agree you shouldn't be using cruise control on that road. The transmission also has the Honda Grade Logic Control for driving on hilly terrain that monitors throttle position, vehicle speed, and acceleration to minimize gear hunting. A lower gear is held to provide better climbing ability on uphill grades and more engine braking on steeper downhill grades. So with that said, well-timed minor throttle adjustments would certainly be advantageous to the CC in the hills.
I asked a question about gear ratios in a previous post because my RPM is above 2000 at a speed of 65 mph. I found that the 4th and 5th gear ratios were increased in 2005 (also 15 more horsepower, drive by wire with electronic accelerator sensors) and all gear ratios were raised in 2007, which would explain the higher revs. But that didn't change the EPA rated mileage. :confuse:
Acceleration improved but shouldn't that effect cruising efficiency?
Just for fun (maybe a sick kind of fun?)I made a half-assed attempt to achieve the holy grail (at least for me) - 20+mpg in my 2007 EXL 4WD. I came close but failed. I know I can do it next time, if there is a next time.
Last tank was substantially more highway driving than my usual mix. Many 20 mile trips, with 15+ miles stretches on the highway. Also, for these trips I was just about the only driver, not my wife or our nanny. So I decided to try something to see if I could crack 20mpg for the first time. I eased off the accelerator so that I never surpassed 3,000rpms (not sure why I picked that level, but I relaized the Pilot revs very high in my "normal" driving). Keeping it under 3,000rpms is hard to do with the Pilot, coming up to speed from from a stop, entrance to highway, passing on highway, etc. However, cutting the other way I averaged about 75mph on the highway (at which speed rpms were around 2,200). Speed limit is "only" 65. The tank returned 19.6mpg. I probably would have broken 20mpg for the first time if I could have held it to 60 or 65 on the highway. Hard for me to do. In any event, I have now confirmed for myself the potential for this thing to be something other than a gas-guzzling beast. Problem is, I don't like to drive that way. I like to get up to speed quickly and then I like to drive above the speed limit. Then I get what I deserve? Less than 17mpg.
Hard for me to do. In any event, I have now confirmed for myself the potential for this thing to be something other than a gas-guzzling beast. Problem is, I don't like to drive that way. I like to get up to speed quickly and then I like to drive above the speed limit. Then I get what I deserve? Less than 17mpg.
David,
From a Ron White comedy skit. He was describing his dealings with police after his being tossed out of a night club!
"I had the opportunity to keep my mouth shut. I just didn't have the ability."
You have the opportunity to get better mileage, but with that lead foot.....! :shades:
I carpool with 2 other guys at my work, so I haven't had a chance to observe closely yet (I don't really drive the Pilot much for those other two weeks).
I recall it was around 2100 rpm at 70 mph. Maybe someone else can chime in sooner.
Carpooling really helps with my fuel bills, I essentially only pay 1/3 of my annual commute cost. And at 50 miles for a round trip, it keeps the miles off the Pilot, too.
'06 Pilot 4WD, 15,000 miles. I show about 2100-2200 at 65mph; 2300-2400 at 70mph; and 2500 at 75mph. I also have to do 1500, on the gas, going down hill, to get 25??
Third paragraph, "All Pilot trim levels receive revised 4th and 5th gear ratios providing a smoother transition between gears, along with a new fuel tank design, increasing the Pilot's driving range by over 40 miles."
Yeah, 2300 is a big difference from 1850. More air through the cyliders requires more gas.
I would have supposed that, if anything, Honda would have tweaked the first generation Pilot in ways to make it somewhat more fuel efficient since the beginning of its model run. Yet it seems that we have found a reason why, all other things being equal, newer first gen Pilots may actually be less fuel efficient than older first gen Pilots. Humm.
I feel the same way and I too am thinking this gear ratio is the main culprit. I think the "tweaks" were done to improve performance and not gas mileage.
I did learn through this research that the V-TEC doesn't kick-in until 4300 rpm, so I spent this weekend testing that out. I don't think I will get very good mileage on this tank, but I sure had fun! This was the first time I really drove the Pilot like that. Holy Cow, that car flies!
Below are the specifications for the model years that show the gear ratios.
So they increased the gear ratio in '05 and again in '06, for more power and not for better gas mileage.
BTW, does anyone know what does "final drive ratio" mean?
Yeah, I know their VTEC does not kick in until 4300 rpm, which means it is rarely used. I wish they have a shorter stroke for low rpm, and a common stroke for normal, instead of having a long specialized stroke for high rpm and common stroke for "normal." The former should help the gas mileage.
I bought a new 2006 EX 4WD Pilot last August to replace my '03 Tahoe. While fuel economy was not the primary reason I changed vehicles, I certainly hoped/expected the pilot with it's 6 cylinders to get better mileage than the 8-cylinder tahoe. At this point, I still have very low mileage -- < 6000 miles in over 9 months driving.
Overall, I am getting something in the neighborhood of 12.5 mpg. Which is very similar to what I got in the Tahoe. But the Tahoe was RATED at 13-18 mpg, so I expected what I got. I have been very shocked that my overall mileage is so much lower than the EPA ratings in the Pilot. Nothing in my driving habits has changed significantly between the 2 vehicles.
I know I do the absolute WORST driving for fuel economy (mostly short jaunts, a few times a day to deliver kids to school, go to gym, etc). But I am still disappointed to not even be close to the EPA minimum.
I have tried to get some feedback from the Honda service people and really get no answers or assistance. Not even an "I'm sorry your mileage sucks and you're disappointed". Last guy I talked to pretty much told me if the check engine light isn't on, then there's nothing wrong for them to check out. They also blame it on the oxygenated fuels used in our area. But those same fuels have been used in every other car our family has driven and we've always gotten MPG numbers close to the EPA range.
We did take a 290 mile road trip this weekend, with most of it on the interstate doing 80-ish. Probably about 50 of it was off the interstate. For that tank, we did get 21 MPG, so that's encouraging. My husband did all the driving and a lot of it was on cruise control. So I don't know if the improved mileage was just being highway long-haul trip, or if there's a difference in our driving styles that makes a difference.
I've posted numbers here a couple of times regarding a trip from South of Atlanta to Myrtle beach.
In a nutshell, with 4 adults in the Pilot.
Going over at 80+ MPH = 18ish Coming back at 60-65 mph = 27-28ish. There were some driving style differences, but I believe the main difference was speed!
Simply put, run it hard, try to get it to perform like a V8 and it will burn gas like one. Short trips with a cold engine are murder on gas mileage.
There are tons of posts on this forum. Many deal with your situation, or one very close. If you will spend a couple of hours starting with post 1, you will be very informed when you get back here.
Of course we wish to help. But sometimes communications can come very slow. The info you seek has already been posted. Between that info and what you can learn from here forward, you will hopefully be helped!
well, I did notice in my evening round of errands that I frequently end up around 4000 rpm trying to get up to 20 mph from a stop. If it was a stick, I'd be shifting into 2nd gear much sooner than the pilot's auto transmission seems to. Even though I don't usually sit in traffic much, a lot of my routes have several stop signs, so I end up going through 1st gear a lot of times in the course of a trip.
Somewhere in the last few weeks/months there is a link, Provided by Tidester or Steve (Host), that addresses the Professionals Opinions on achieving the best possible mileage.
Excellent post by "davidd3" and others that prefer to "Feel" the acceleration and stay ahead of traffic. They are willing to pay more for fuel. See post 357!
Other posts by folks that prefer to play the "Good MPG" game. Lighter acceleration that allows the tranny to shift (without lifting the throttle) at 2500 rpm. Coasting to stops instead of braking, blah, blah, blah...We spend less for fuel.
We are driving 4500 pound vehicles that are capable of getting 25-27 MPG on the road.. Real world mileage depends on how we are willing to drive them. The folks on the "CR-V" forums are driving 3500 lb vehicles that are capable of near 30+ mpg depending on how they drive them. The "Fit" forums are driving even lighter vehicles capable of 40 mpg. These same discussions are "Topics" on all 3 forums.
A 600 mile trip at 26 mpg will use 23 gallons. At 22 mpg it will take 27 gallons. At $3 per gallon the 22mpg car will burn $12 more fuel. The 22 mpg car will get there maybe 1.5-1.7 hours sooner. That $12 is not going to break the bank.
It is simply a matter of priorities. Drive it like a V8 and it will burn fuel like one! Do yourself a favor and read the posts!
My frustration is that my driving habits have not changed regardless of what car I drive. Before the Tahoe, I drove an Accord with the same habits and patterns and I always got at least the minimum EPA rating. Since my natural driving patterns have always gotten me reasonable mileage compared to the EPA ratings in any other car, I had no reason to expect any different from the Pilot. It makes shopping for a car based on fuel economy very difficult if you can't predict where in the EPA range you'll likely fall based on past experience. I fully expect to be in the low end of the mileage spectrum because of the nature of my driving. And if I was getting 15-ish routinely, I'd be fine with that and accept that as an expected result of my driving (or lack of driving). But there appears to be a unique mis-match between my natural habits and the Pilot's performance. I've never needed to adjust my driving style to get the stated minimum in any other car.
ad4618, don't feel bad. The simple truth is if you actually expect results like (60-65 mph = 27-28ish), you are going to be very very disappointed. Pilots are great cars, but I don't believe anyone can realistically expect to get 28 mpg on a regular basis.
Yes I did (see my posts earlier). And don't believe in "lead foot" theory. Our "foot" has not changed simply because we changed vehicles.
Let's just say that my experience shows Pilot has lower real world gas mileage relative to the EPA estimates than other vehicles that I have owned. I also found it interesting that Honda has increased the gear ratio twice since 2005, and has not altered its EPA mileage rating.
BTW, kipk's Pilot is a '03 and has different gear ratios than the newer model years.
My Pilot is still new, I am hoping it would improve its gas mileage (wishful thinking maybe). Unfortunately, I have ruptured my Achilles tendon playing sport, and cannot drive right now. So I do not have new gas mileages to provide here.
"The simple truth is if you actually expect results like (60-65 mph = 27-28ish), you are going to be very very disappointed."
The simple truth is that you probably can't, if you are not willing and patient enough to try!! And it doesn't always work out that well. Use of AC, speed, humidity,terrain all have an effect!
I can and have posted mileage reading and gas required on more than one occasion.
"I don't believe anyone can realistically expect to get 28 mpg on a regular basis."
I don't believe anyone can expect to get 28 on a regular basis either. I do believe that most can get better than they are now experiencing, by practicing some different driving techniques.
I posted the last trip we took with 4 adults and cruise at 70 we got 26 average for both ways. There is a difference in 60-65 and 70. Two mpg for me!
"And don't believe in "lead foot" theory. Our "foot" has not changed simply because we changed vehicles."
We tend to get use to a certain "TUG" in our seat and seat back when we start off. We get comfortable with that.
We change cars and tend to copy that "Tug" in the new car. If the car is reasonably light and reasonably powerful, (High power to weight ratio), it requires less throttle than a heavier less powerful car.
The heavier, less powerful (low power to weight ratio) will require more throttle for that same tug. So we press a little harder without realizing it. Lead foot!
If you choose to ignore the lead foot theory, your mileage will suffer. Prove it to yourself. Drive a tank with reckless abandon. Petal to the metal at every opportunity. LEAD Foot it!
For the next tank, drive with a magazine on the dash. Practice starts so that the magazine doesn't slide off. Coast up to stops instead of having to brake for them.
Take a trip with the cruise set as high as you feel comfortable with. On the return trip lower the speed by 15 MPH. If weather, temperature and load are the same You will see a difference.
You will see a difference if you hang in there, be honest with yourself, and stick to the regiment. It may bore you to tears, but you will see a difference.
Try this! Find a road with little traffic and a relative high speed limit. From a standstill give just enough throttle to allow the car to shift at 2500 rpm without lifting your foot. Eventually you will be running 70 or so. Then do the same without watching the tach. Press that throttle on down so that it feels good! You will find that you will eventually be going much faster than 70. You might even have acquired some company with a blue light on top.
"BTW, kipk's Pilot is a '03 and has different gear ratios than the newer model years."
This is true. The lower numerical number will allow my car to turn less rpm than a newer model does in Overdrive. However it doesn't pull as good. This will usually result in better mileage on flat roads. However, with hilly conditions, that is not necessarily so. Mine may downshift on a hill that a newer one will stay FIXED! Around town the car is usually in something other than Overdrive anyway. In fact the newer cars may actually shift to higher gears a bit quicker because they pull better!
Pilot is rated at 17/22. Several have posted getting better than that. Many have posted worse.
How fast we take off, how fast we top out and how far we accelerate before hitting the brake all have an effect.
Let's just say that my experience shows Pilot has lower real world gas mileage relative to the EPA estimates than other vehicles that I have owned.
Good observation and one which holds true in my personal experience too. I could add the Odyssey to the short list, another Honda light truck I had before changing to the Pilot. In my case, my family's way of driving generally results in real world EPA which is the mid-point between the city/highway EPA ratings (and that's what we're currently getting for our Accord and our BMW). But in the case of the Odyssey and Pilot, our real world EPA has been slightly below the city EPA ratings and therefore comparatively disappointing.
Thank you -- that is exactly my point!! As I stated in my original post, if I was even getting around 15 normally, I'd at least be able to just chalk that up to my driving habits even though it's below the EPA rating.
I did find a link at fueleconomy.gov that uses the new EPA rating formula with older cars. If the 2008 EPA fuel economy formula was applied to the 2006 EX 4WD, the rating would be 15-21 instead of 17-22.
Nobody is discounting that "lead foot" would result in worse gas mileage! I am discounting, however, is that my experience of worse "relative to EPA mileage in comparison with other cars" can be attributed to the "lead foot" problem.
Yes, I understand your theory about you accustomed to certain way of depressing the gas pedal, and this may not be optimal when you switch cars. But we all have switched cars before. I cannot even remember how many vehicles I have before Pilot (in both side of the weight spectrum of the Pilot). But somehow I could adopt to other vehicles' pedal but not Pilot's?
I am not trying to compete with you for better Pilot mileage, so whether or not you have a lighter foot than mime is never the issue. All I am comparing is the gas mileages I got from my other vehicles in comparison to their respective EPA mileages visa vie "my" Pilot's real world mileage to its EPA estimates. Here, davidd3, ad4618 and I all seem to have the same experience, even though we might have totally different gas mileages and driving habits.
Yeah, but all of our other cars have used the "old" formula (since the new formula won't be in effect untill 2008), so this still could not explain it.
"Operating the air conditioner on "Max" can reduce MPG by roughly 5-25% compared to not using it."
5-25% is a HUGE range. I wonder if this is an area where there could be a lot of variability between different cars in terms of design??
I am certainly not trying to win any prizes for "beating" the EPA ratings. I'd just like to get close to the minimum. And it appears it will take more effort to get that from the Pilot than other cars I have driven.
"hmmm, maybe you need to drive around with the A/C off and the windows up? "
Not happening. It's 100+ and I prefer to not mix sauna and driving. And windows down isn't going to happen either. I HATE HATE HATE wind noise. I do not like the wind blowing in my hair feeling -- just makes my hair go in my face where I can't see!!
If I'm ever going to experiment with a tank with the AC off, it will be in January!!
Again, I've always driven with the AC on most of the time.
"Nobody is discounting that "lead foot" would result in worse gas mileage!"
Actually you did in your post #375.
"And don't believe in "lead foot" theory. Our "foot" has not changed simply because we changed vehicles."
Our "FOOT" should change any time we switch vehicle type. Different power to weight rations and transmission gear ratios tend to react differently to throttle pressure. Around town, My wifes 03 CR-V is much more responsive to throttle than the Pilot. A light throttle pressure in the Pilot is a heavy pressure in the CR-V. Foot has to be adjusted.
In post 369, ad4618 wrote her concerns about mileage. Contained in that post was: "We did take a 290 mile road trip this weekend, with most of it on the interstate doing 80-ish. Probably about 50 of it was off the interstate. For that tank, we did get 21 MPG,..."
I attempted to address her concerns. Fifty % of her trip was interstate where they likely had the "opportunity" to get the best mileage. Yet they drove 80ish. That indicates the rest of the trip may have also been with a fairly heavy foot. They still managed to get 21 mpg. I pointed out in post 370 that our 03 Pilot only managed 18ish mpg at 80+. That was 95% freeway. Seems to me that their Pilot has the potential to get better mileage than ours. Whether they take advantage of that potential is up to them!
"I am not trying to compete with you for better Pilot mileage, so whether or not you have a lighter foot than mime is never the issue."
In many cases a lighter or heavier foot is the issue in mileage! I'm not trying to compete with you or anyone else on mileage. I'm trying to help! This forum tends to contain a lot of "How can I get better mileage" questions. A few try to answer those questions. Some take the advice and some don't! Those, that don't, often tend to criticize the advice and seem to have trouble admitting that their driving styles may be the problem.
Post 357 is about as honest and straight forward a post as you will find. Davidd3 and I have been going back and forth at each other from the start, but I always respect his opinion, even though we mostly disagree. Those not satisfied with their mileage can learn a lot from that post.
In post 383, Steve posted a link worth reading.
My apologies for anything I may have said that seemed hurtful to you.
Other than the sentences that you quoted directly below, where did I question, "lead foot would result in worse gas mileage?"
The sentences I wrote and you quoted should not be read separately. In other words, I was questioning the theory that we suddenly developed the "lead foot syndrome" by switching to a Pilot, not questioning the "fact" (not theory) that "lead foot" results in poor gas mileage.
Again, I understand what you said about we may not accustomed to different vehicle's power/weight ratio, which may result in poor gas mileage. But as I said, I have switched vehicles numerous times, why Pilot so significantly different? That is why I do not believe the said theory alone can satisfactory explain it.
No offense taken, nor did I ever question the gas mileage you achieved on your Pilot (good for you). Let me make it perfectly clear here, I was comparing my experience with Pilot to other vehicles I owned, not my Pilot's gas mileage with other Pilot owners' (and at least two other readers have similar experience when comparing their Pilots with other vehicles they owned/operated). Hence, I "honestly" stand by what I said.
I must say that getting 28 mpg from a car that is only rated at 22 by the EPA is amazing indeed. My experience on every car I have ever owned has been the opposite, rarely, if ever achieve the EPA estimates, much less get mileage that is 27% better.
For what it's worth, I meant that roughly 50 miles of 290 miles was NOT on the interstate, not 50%. So that trip was rougly 80% interstate at 80ish (speed limit is 75). The other 20% was a mix of in-town driving and some rural road at 35-50mph with no stoplights. The mileage we got on that trip is very reasonable in my mind. It's the mileage for my routine driving that's troublesome.
I'm not really asking for advice on how to get better mileage from my Pilot. A car is a car is a car in terms of what changes to make to improve your mileage. I was looking for feedback to find out if the lousy mileage I'm getting is typical for the Pilot or if I maybe need to push my service department to pursue it. As I've said repeatedly, based on my prior experiences, I had no reason to EXPECT to get 4-5 mpg less than the EPA minimum because I've always gotten close to the minimum before, even in rental cars, even with my lousy habits and driving patterns. If I had chosen the Pilot over another vehicle based on fuel economy alone, I'd be very frustrated.
I just had another thought when thinking through the fuel economy I got with my 2003 Tahoe compared to my 2006 Pilot. My old Tahoe had the flex-fuel engine that could accept E85 if I wanted. I never used it because there's no place to buy it. I know almost nothing about the performance implications of ethanol vs. gasoline vs. oxygenated fuels. Would an engine that's able to run on ethanol do better on oxygenated fuels than engines that are designed for gas only?
We, on this forum, are not the only ones confused about the discrepancy in MPG from car to car, driver to driver. Hopefully this link will get to the last page of the Honda "Fit" Forum. It starts with post 1088, on that particular page, that hits our discussion squarely on the head. I think a Fit is EPA rated 32/38 http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0c139c/1087
Biggest difference being we are discussing 13-28 and they are discussing 22-40+. The same reasoning and theories pop up there as here.
I can't begin to get into the mechanical and engineering reasons for behavior of our cars. It's not that I don't want to. I simply don't know!
A theory is that the Pilot is actually a fairly large and heavy car. It has a medium size 6 cylinder engine, that is capable of moving that bulk out fairly quickly. (Some other cars of it's size and weight are powered by V8s.)
The 6 cylinder doesn't have the torque or horse power of those 8s, yet it does the job. However there is a thin line with it between what will get good mileage and what will not.
If I attempt to get the same "Seat of the Pants" feel of "quickness" from our Pilot as we get from the CR-V, it will cost in fuel mileage!
That 17/22 rating is an "average" for the average person that gets into a car and drives. It will be higher for the MPG Geeks and lower for the Hot Roders. Higher for those in rural environments and lower for those in heavy city driving. My wifes driving style is "GO" My style is "Enjoy". Driving her CR-V, I generally average about 3 miles per gallon better than she does. Nothing different except driving styles.
Have a blessed Sunday. Hope you and your Pilot can come to terms!
"I must say that getting 28 mpg from a car that is only rated at 22 by the EPA is amazing indeed."
mer66,
Yes I have gotten 28 on some trips when really concentrating on squeezing every foot of mileage from every drop of gas and only 2 people in the car.
Also gotten 26 MPG at 70 MPH and running the AC very little and a whopping 18 MPG at 80+ MPH with the AC running the entire time.
That 17/22 posted on the window sticker is AVERAGE! If you read to the left of that, it will tell you the highs and lows that can also be expected. Quite a variation!
What is amazing to me is how folks are hesitant to post good mileage they get. However here is a good one, from a brave soul, from POST 301.
"For our new 2007 2WD EX-L pilot, with only around 1000 miles on the car, we usually get 19-20 mpg in mixed hwy/city, driving to and from work. We track our mileage every fill-up.
However, for long trip, purely highway, our pilot just returned 26.5 mpg, it was a 400 mile round trip between NC and Northen VA (Ikea) in a fairly hilly condition. The cruise control was always on, set to 70-75 mph. There were 2 people and a lot of cargo on the car.
I think this is not bad for a car rated 18 city and 24 hwy. IMO, it all depends on how you drive the car and the condition where the car is driven"
That is excellent mileage and certainly better than anything I have gotten at those speeds and conditions.
I looked at the Pilot and loved the turning circle, cargo capacity for my fishing rods, and handling. One day while fueling my Accord,a lady pulls up to the same fueling island in a Pilot. I asked her what mpg she was getting. She said 15. I said thanks and stopped looking at Pilots. Just check around before you buy.
Thats about right...the best MPG I usually get with my Pilot (with about 20K miles now) is 13-15 city, 15-17 mixed and, if I am really careful, 20-22 on straight out highway driving. That seems to be what most everyone else reports as well. Not all that surprising because it is a big truck.
Turning off the AC is NOT an option -- there are very few stretches of I-10 where no AC in May would be a good choice!!!
And speed limits do work the other way as well -- you can be cited for driving below the posted limited if you are posing a hazard to traffic. And on an interstate with a posted limit of 75mph, going 65mph just to get better mileage is a death wish!!
And as for asking around - I honestly rarely saw a Pilot on the road before the past 6 months. And as we've seen here, getting a random stranger's mpg without asking a dozen questions about their driving habits would be meaningless.
The slower you go the better the mileage will get. You're going 80 in a truck with the aerodynamic signature of the Goodyear blimp! Just slow down if you want better mpg. The epa highway tests were done not exceeding 60 mph.
Ha-ha. My point was that you could have just as well run into a mpg champ getting 24mpg. Then you would be super bummed to get 14.
As for slowing down on the interstate -- I can live with getting 21 mpg for going 80. It's the 12mpg I normally get doing my daily driving that's disappointing.
Well, she didn't look like a mileage champ. I think if you can get 21 at 80 then nothing is wrong with your car. Is the car 2wd or 4wd? 4wd = -2mpg. I think it's your city driving style/route. Re think your routes for less stops and use right hand on red turns more. Be smooth.
I have a 4WD and I realize the mileage is going to be worse than a 2WD, but the EPA estimate is already lowered for 4WD. It's just been surprising and disappointing to see my mileage fall so much further out of the EPA range than I have experienced with other vehicles.
Comments
LOL, good point Tidester.
If the transmission has to downshift on the hills then I agree you shouldn't be using cruise control on that road. The transmission also has the Honda Grade Logic Control for driving on hilly terrain that monitors throttle position, vehicle speed, and acceleration to minimize gear hunting. A lower gear is held to provide better climbing ability on uphill grades and more engine braking on steeper downhill grades. So with that said, well-timed minor throttle adjustments would certainly be advantageous to the CC in the hills.
I asked a question about gear ratios in a previous post because my RPM is above 2000 at a speed of 65 mph. I found that the 4th and 5th gear ratios were increased in 2005 (also 15 more horsepower, drive by wire with electronic accelerator sensors) and all gear ratios were raised in 2007, which would explain the higher revs. But that didn't change the EPA rated mileage. :confuse:
Acceleration improved but shouldn't that effect cruising efficiency?
Last tank was substantially more highway driving than my usual mix. Many 20 mile trips, with 15+ miles stretches on the highway. Also, for these trips I was just about the only driver, not my wife or our nanny. So I decided to try something to see if I could crack 20mpg for the first time. I eased off the accelerator so that I never surpassed 3,000rpms (not sure why I picked that level, but I relaized the Pilot revs very high in my "normal" driving). Keeping it under 3,000rpms is hard to do with the Pilot, coming up to speed from from a stop, entrance to highway, passing on highway, etc. However, cutting the other way I averaged about 75mph on the highway (at which speed rpms were around 2,200). Speed limit is "only" 65. The tank returned 19.6mpg. I probably would have broken 20mpg for the first time if I could have held it to 60 or 65 on the highway. Hard for me to do. In any event, I have now confirmed for myself the potential for this thing to be something other than a gas-guzzling beast. Problem is, I don't like to drive that way. I like to get up to speed quickly and then I like to drive above the speed limit. Then I get what I deserve? Less than 17mpg.
David,
From a Ron White comedy skit. He was describing his dealings with police after his being tossed out of a night club!
"I had the opportunity to keep my mouth shut. I just didn't have the ability."
You have the opportunity to get better mileage, but with that lead foot.....! :shades:
Kip
Our o3 turns about 1850 at 70 mph. What are the new ones turning?
Kip
You have the opportunity to get better mileage, but with that lead foot.....!
Kip,
Well said.
David
I recall it was around 2100 rpm at 70 mph. Maybe someone else can chime in sooner.
Carpooling really helps with my fuel bills, I essentially only pay 1/3 of my annual commute cost. And at 50 miles for a round trip, it keeps the miles off the Pilot, too.
But you got 23 mpg once, so there is hope that I can get that, too. I bought our '07 4WD in November and only have 3,700 miles so far.
http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=2004091070407
Third paragraph, "All Pilot trim levels receive revised 4th and 5th gear ratios providing a smoother transition between gears, along with a new fuel tank design, increasing the Pilot's driving range by over 40 miles."
I would have supposed that, if anything, Honda would have tweaked the first generation Pilot in ways to make it somewhat more fuel efficient since the beginning of its model run. Yet it seems that we have found a reason why, all other things being equal, newer first gen Pilots may actually be less fuel efficient than older first gen Pilots. Humm.
I did learn through this research that the V-TEC doesn't kick-in until 4300 rpm, so I spent this weekend testing that out. I don't think I will get very good mileage on this tank, but I sure had fun! This was the first time I really drove the Pilot like that. Holy Cow, that car flies!
Below are the specifications for the model years that show the gear ratios.
2007
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/889/releases/3635
2006
http://www.hondanews.com/search/release/2943
2005
http://www.hondanews.com/search/release/2265
2004
http://www.hondanews.com/search/release/1469
BTW, does anyone know what does "final drive ratio" mean?
Yeah, I know their VTEC does not kick in until 4300 rpm, which means it is rarely used. I wish they have a shorter stroke for low rpm, and a common stroke for normal, instead of having a long specialized stroke for high rpm and common stroke for "normal." The former should help the gas mileage.
Overall, I am getting something in the neighborhood of 12.5 mpg. Which is very similar to what I got in the Tahoe. But the Tahoe was RATED at 13-18 mpg, so I expected what I got. I have been very shocked that my overall mileage is so much lower than the EPA ratings in the Pilot. Nothing in my driving habits has changed significantly between the 2 vehicles.
I know I do the absolute WORST driving for fuel economy (mostly short jaunts, a few times a day to deliver kids to school, go to gym, etc). But I am still disappointed to not even be close to the EPA minimum.
I have tried to get some feedback from the Honda service people and really get no answers or assistance. Not even an "I'm sorry your mileage sucks and you're disappointed". Last guy I talked to pretty much told me if the check engine light isn't on, then there's nothing wrong for them to check out. They also blame it on the oxygenated fuels used in our area. But those same fuels have been used in every other car our family has driven and we've always gotten MPG numbers close to the EPA range.
We did take a 290 mile road trip this weekend, with most of it on the interstate doing 80-ish. Probably about 50 of it was off the interstate. For that tank, we did get 21 MPG, so that's encouraging. My husband did all the driving and a lot of it was on cruise control. So I don't know if the improved mileage was just being highway long-haul trip, or if there's a difference in our driving styles that makes a difference.
Anyone else averaging as low as 12-13?
In a nutshell, with 4 adults in the Pilot.
Going over at 80+ MPH = 18ish
Coming back at 60-65 mph = 27-28ish. There were some driving style differences, but I believe the main difference was speed!
Simply put, run it hard, try to get it to perform like a V8 and it will burn gas like one. Short trips with a cold engine are murder on gas mileage.
There are tons of posts on this forum. Many deal with your situation, or one very close. If you will spend a couple of hours starting with post 1, you will be very informed when you get back here.
Of course we wish to help. But sometimes communications can come very slow. The info you seek has already been posted. Between that info and what you can learn from here forward, you will hopefully be helped!
Kip
Somewhere in the last few weeks/months there is a link,
Provided by Tidester or Steve (Host), that addresses the Professionals Opinions on achieving the best possible mileage.
Excellent post by "davidd3" and others that prefer to "Feel" the acceleration and stay ahead of traffic. They are willing to pay more for fuel. See post 357!
Other posts by folks that prefer to play the "Good MPG" game. Lighter acceleration that allows the tranny to shift (without lifting the throttle) at 2500 rpm. Coasting to stops instead of braking, blah, blah, blah...We spend less for fuel.
We are driving 4500 pound vehicles that are capable of getting 25-27 MPG on the road.. Real world mileage depends on how we are willing to drive them. The folks on the "CR-V" forums are driving 3500 lb vehicles that are capable of near 30+ mpg depending on how they drive them. The "Fit" forums are driving even lighter vehicles capable of 40 mpg. These same discussions are "Topics" on all 3 forums.
A 600 mile trip at 26 mpg will use 23 gallons. At 22 mpg it will take 27 gallons. At $3 per gallon the 22mpg car will burn $12 more fuel. The 22 mpg car will get there maybe 1.5-1.7 hours sooner. That $12 is not going to break the bank.
It is simply a matter of priorities. Drive it like a V8 and it will burn fuel like one!
Do yourself a favor and read the posts!
Kip
My frustration is that my driving habits have not changed regardless of what car I drive. Before the Tahoe, I drove an Accord with the same habits and patterns and I always got at least the minimum EPA rating. Since my natural driving patterns have always gotten me reasonable mileage compared to the EPA ratings in any other car, I had no reason to expect any different from the Pilot. It makes shopping for a car based on fuel economy very difficult if you can't predict where in the EPA range you'll likely fall based on past experience. I fully expect to be in the low end of the mileage spectrum because of the nature of my driving. And if I was getting 15-ish routinely, I'd be fine with that and accept that as an expected result of my driving (or lack of driving). But there appears to be a unique mis-match between my natural habits and the Pilot's performance. I've never needed to adjust my driving style to get the stated minimum in any other car.
Let's just say that my experience shows Pilot has lower real world gas mileage relative to the EPA estimates than other vehicles that I have owned. I also found it interesting that Honda has increased the gear ratio twice since 2005, and has not altered its EPA mileage rating.
BTW, kipk's Pilot is a '03 and has different gear ratios than the newer model years.
My Pilot is still new, I am hoping it would improve its gas mileage (wishful thinking maybe). Unfortunately, I have ruptured my Achilles tendon playing sport, and cannot drive right now. So I do not have new gas mileages to provide here.
The simple truth is that you probably can't, if you are not willing and patient enough to try!! And it doesn't always work out that well. Use of AC, speed, humidity,terrain all have an effect!
I can and have posted mileage reading and gas required on more than one occasion.
"I don't believe anyone can realistically expect to get 28 mpg on a regular basis."
I don't believe anyone can expect to get 28 on a regular basis either. I do believe that most can get better than they are now experiencing, by practicing some different driving techniques.
I posted the last trip we took with 4 adults and cruise at 70 we got 26 average for both ways. There is a difference in 60-65 and 70. Two mpg for me!
Kip
We tend to get use to a certain "TUG" in our seat and seat back when we start off. We get comfortable with that.
We change cars and tend to copy that "Tug" in the new car. If the car is reasonably light and reasonably powerful, (High power to weight ratio), it requires less throttle than a heavier less powerful car.
The heavier, less powerful (low power to weight ratio) will require more throttle for that same tug. So we press a little harder without realizing it. Lead foot!
If you choose to ignore the lead foot theory, your mileage will suffer. Prove it to yourself. Drive a tank with reckless abandon. Petal to the metal at every opportunity. LEAD Foot it!
For the next tank, drive with a magazine on the dash. Practice starts so that the magazine doesn't slide off. Coast up to stops instead of having to brake for them.
Take a trip with the cruise set as high as you feel comfortable with. On the return trip lower the speed by 15 MPH. If weather, temperature and load are the same You will see a difference.
You will see a difference if you hang in there, be honest with yourself, and stick to the regiment. It may bore you to tears, but you will see a difference.
Try this! Find a road with little traffic and a relative high speed limit. From a standstill give just enough throttle to allow the car to shift at 2500 rpm without lifting your foot. Eventually you will be running 70 or so. Then do the same without watching the tach. Press that throttle on down so that it feels good! You will find that you will eventually be going much faster than 70. You might even have acquired some company with a blue light on top.
"BTW, kipk's Pilot is a '03 and has different gear ratios than the newer model years."
This is true. The lower numerical number will allow my car to turn less rpm than a newer model does in Overdrive. However it doesn't pull as good. This will usually result in better mileage on flat roads. However, with hilly conditions, that is not necessarily so. Mine may downshift on a hill that a newer one will stay FIXED! Around town the car is usually in something other than Overdrive anyway. In fact the newer cars may actually shift to higher gears a bit quicker because they pull better!
Pilot is rated at 17/22. Several have posted getting better than that. Many have posted worse.
How fast we take off, how fast we top out and how far we accelerate before hitting the brake all have an effect.
Kip
Good observation and one which holds true in my personal experience too. I could add the Odyssey to the short list, another Honda light truck I had before changing to the Pilot. In my case, my family's way of driving generally results in real world EPA which is the mid-point between the city/highway EPA ratings (and that's what we're currently getting for our Accord and our BMW). But in the case of the Odyssey and Pilot, our real world EPA has been slightly below the city EPA ratings and therefore comparatively disappointing.
I did find a link at fueleconomy.gov that uses the new EPA rating formula with older cars. If the 2008 EPA fuel economy formula was applied to the 2006 EX 4WD, the rating would be 15-21 instead of 17-22.
Yes, I understand your theory about you accustomed to certain way of depressing the gas pedal, and this may not be optimal when you switch cars. But we all have switched cars before. I cannot even remember how many vehicles I have before Pilot (in both side of the weight spectrum of the Pilot). But somehow I could adopt to other vehicles' pedal but not Pilot's?
I am not trying to compete with you for better Pilot mileage, so whether or not you have a lighter foot than mime is never the issue. All I am comparing is the gas mileages I got from my other vehicles in comparison to their respective EPA mileages visa vie "my" Pilot's real world mileage to its EPA estimates. Here, davidd3, ad4618 and I all seem to have the same experience, even though we might have totally different gas mileages and driving habits.
"Operating the air conditioner on "Max" can reduce MPG by roughly 5-25% compared to not using it."
5-25% is a HUGE range. I wonder if this is an area where there could be a lot of variability between different cars in terms of design??
I am certainly not trying to win any prizes for "beating" the EPA ratings. I'd just like to get close to the minimum. And it appears it will take more effort to get that from the Pilot than other cars I have driven.
"Test #4 A/C On, Windows Up vs. A/C Off, Windows Down
Result: Nice in theory; not true in practice
Cold Hard Facts: No measurable difference (unless you open the sunroof, too!)
Recommendation: Please, make yourself comfortable."
We Test the Tips - What Really Saves Gas? And How Much?
hmmm, maybe you need to drive around with the A/C off and the windows up? :confuse:
Not happening. It's 100+ and I prefer to not mix sauna and driving. And windows down isn't going to happen either. I HATE HATE HATE wind noise. I do not like the wind blowing in my hair feeling -- just makes my hair go in my face where I can't see!!
If I'm ever going to experiment with a tank with the AC off, it will be in January!!
Again, I've always driven with the AC on most of the time.
Are there stats somewhere on how cargo load will affect mileage? Like how much 50 pounds of junk in your trunk will increase your gas consumption?
Don't Carry Junk in Your Trunk
Ok, just found this link that says you'll reduce your mpg by 2% for every extra 100 pounds you carry in your car.
Actually you did in your post #375.
"And don't believe in "lead foot" theory. Our "foot" has not changed simply because we changed vehicles."
Our "FOOT" should change any time we switch vehicle type. Different power to weight rations and transmission gear ratios tend to react differently to throttle pressure. Around town, My wifes 03 CR-V is much more responsive to throttle than the Pilot. A light throttle pressure in the Pilot is a heavy pressure in the CR-V. Foot has to be adjusted.
In post 369, ad4618 wrote her concerns about mileage. Contained in that post was:
"We did take a 290 mile road trip this weekend, with most of it on the interstate doing 80-ish. Probably about 50 of it was off the interstate. For that tank, we did get 21 MPG,..."
I attempted to address her concerns. Fifty % of her trip was interstate where they likely had the "opportunity" to get the best mileage. Yet they drove 80ish. That indicates the rest of the trip may have also been with a fairly heavy foot. They still managed to get 21 mpg. I pointed out in post 370 that our 03 Pilot only managed 18ish mpg at 80+. That was 95% freeway. Seems to me that their Pilot has the potential to get better mileage than ours. Whether they take advantage of that potential is up to them!
"I am not trying to compete with you for better Pilot mileage, so whether or not you have a lighter foot than mime is never the issue."
In many cases a lighter or heavier foot is the issue in mileage! I'm not trying to compete with you or anyone else on mileage. I'm trying to help! This forum tends to contain a lot of "How can I get better mileage" questions. A few try to answer those questions. Some take the advice and some don't!
Those, that don't, often tend to criticize the advice and seem to have trouble admitting that their driving styles may be the problem.
Post 357 is about as honest and straight forward a post as you will find. Davidd3 and I have been going back and forth at each other from the start, but I always respect his opinion, even though we mostly disagree.
In post 383, Steve posted a link worth reading.
My apologies for anything I may have said that seemed hurtful to you.
Regards,
Kip
>> Actually you did in your post #375.
Other than the sentences that you quoted directly below, where did I question, "lead foot would result in worse gas mileage?"
The sentences I wrote and you quoted should not be read separately. In other words, I was questioning the theory that we suddenly developed the "lead foot syndrome" by switching to a Pilot, not questioning the "fact" (not theory) that "lead foot" results in poor gas mileage.
Again, I understand what you said about we may not accustomed to different vehicle's power/weight ratio, which may result in poor gas mileage. But as I said, I have switched vehicles numerous times, why Pilot so significantly different? That is why I do not believe the said theory alone can satisfactory explain it.
No offense taken, nor did I ever question the gas mileage you achieved on your Pilot (good for you). Let me make it perfectly clear here, I was comparing my experience with Pilot to other vehicles I owned, not my Pilot's gas mileage with other Pilot owners' (and at least two other readers have similar experience when comparing their Pilots with other vehicles they owned/operated). Hence, I "honestly" stand by what I said.
I'm not really asking for advice on how to get better mileage from my Pilot. A car is a car is a car in terms of what changes to make to improve your mileage. I was looking for feedback to find out if the lousy mileage I'm getting is typical for the Pilot or if I maybe need to push my service department to pursue it. As I've said repeatedly, based on my prior experiences, I had no reason to EXPECT to get 4-5 mpg less than the EPA minimum because I've always gotten close to the minimum before, even in rental cars, even with my lousy habits and driving patterns. If I had chosen the Pilot over another vehicle based on fuel economy alone, I'd be very frustrated.
We, on this forum, are not the only ones confused about the discrepancy in MPG from car to car, driver to driver.
Hopefully this link will get to the last page of the Honda "Fit" Forum. It starts with post 1088, on that particular page, that hits our discussion squarely on the head. I think a Fit is EPA rated 32/38
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0c139c/1087
Biggest difference being we are discussing 13-28 and they are discussing 22-40+. The same reasoning and theories pop up there as here.
I can't begin to get into the mechanical and engineering reasons for behavior of our cars. It's not that I don't want to. I simply don't know!
A theory is that the Pilot is actually a fairly large and heavy car. It has a medium size 6 cylinder engine, that is capable of moving that bulk out fairly quickly. (Some other cars of it's size and weight are powered by V8s.)
The 6 cylinder doesn't have the torque or horse power of those 8s, yet it does the job. However there is a thin line with it between what will get good mileage and what will not.
If I attempt to get the same "Seat of the Pants" feel of "quickness" from our Pilot as we get from the CR-V, it will cost in fuel mileage!
That 17/22 rating is an "average" for the average person that gets into a car and drives. It will be higher for the MPG Geeks and lower for the Hot Roders. Higher for those in rural environments and lower for those in heavy city driving. My wifes driving style is "GO" My style is "Enjoy". Driving her CR-V, I generally average about 3 miles per gallon better than she does. Nothing different except driving styles.
Have a blessed Sunday. Hope you and your Pilot can come to terms!
Kip
mer66,
Yes I have gotten 28 on some trips when really concentrating on squeezing every foot of mileage from every drop of gas and only 2 people in the car.
Also gotten 26 MPG at 70 MPH and running the AC very little and a whopping 18 MPG at 80+ MPH with the AC running the entire time.
That 17/22 posted on the window sticker is AVERAGE! If you read to the left of that, it will tell you the highs and lows that can also be expected. Quite a variation!
What is amazing to me is how folks are hesitant to post good mileage they get. However here is a good one, from a brave soul, from POST 301.
"For our new 2007 2WD EX-L pilot, with only around 1000 miles on the car, we usually get 19-20 mpg in mixed hwy/city, driving to and from work. We track our mileage every fill-up.
However, for long trip, purely highway, our pilot just returned 26.5 mpg, it was a 400 mile round trip between NC and Northen VA (Ikea) in a fairly hilly condition. The cruise control was always on, set to 70-75 mph. There were 2 people and a lot of cargo on the car.
I think this is not bad for a car rated 18 city and 24 hwy. IMO, it all depends on how you drive the car and the condition where the car is driven"
That is excellent mileage and certainly better than anything I have gotten at those speeds and conditions.
Kip
ad4618,
My apologies. I misread your post. You did say 50, not 50%.
Averaging 21 at 80 is not all bad. Drop the speed to 70 and y'all will likely see the MPG go over the 22 mpg EPA rating!
Turn off the AC and reduce the speed to 65ish and people might question your honesty about your reported MPG!
Kip
And speed limits do work the other way as well -- you can be cited for driving below the posted limited if you are posing a hazard to traffic. And on an interstate with a posted limit of 75mph, going 65mph just to get better mileage is a death wish!!
And as for asking around - I honestly rarely saw a Pilot on the road before the past 6 months. And as we've seen here, getting a random stranger's mpg without asking a dozen questions about their driving habits would be meaningless.
As for slowing down on the interstate -- I can live with getting 21 mpg for going 80. It's the 12mpg I normally get doing my daily driving that's disappointing.
I regularly get 17 mpg in town but not when the air is on.
I am happy with my mpg.