I still have not seen a tank where I have done better than 19 mpg and I have been trying. I am really thinking about seeing how BAD of mileage I could get. You know, drive like a lead foot, wait in at least 3 drive-throughs a day, drive with the AC ON and the windows OPEN. I'll keep you posted.
Your 4wd Pilot is rated 17/22 using the old epa test. They don't go over 60 and you got 21-22 @ 80 so what's to complain about? Check out the new epa ratings and it's about what you get in the city. Be smooth and coast into the stops with your toe completely off the gas a little more. Good Luck.
Don't forget to make as many short runs with a cold engine as possible, lower the tire pressure, add a few hundred pounds of weight and maybe a luggage carrier on top.
Tailgate and use the gas-brake-gas-brake driving method as much as possible. And the ever important, keep that foot on the throttle as long as possible, then brake hard and slide up to each necessary stop.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those! Maybe I can drive home from the gas station in reverse and let the car idle for a couple days straight......I'll get negative MPG!
Does anybody use aftermarket air filter elements? When I replaced the OEM filter (at 15,000 miles) in our Odyssey with a NAPA gold, I noticed a significant increase in mpg. Does anyone run a K&N filter? Anyone notice a difference?
"The Energy Department estimates you could save as much as 22 cents per gallon by replacing a bad air filter." link
I think people who spend big bucks on a "wet" filter and make big claims about their mpg increase are simply seeing the effect that a new filter has, and they would have gotten the same (or better) mpg increase with an OEM paper one.
I'm pretty sure my air filter should still be in good shape -- less than a year and only 5k miles. But I suppose I could take a look at it if I can find the right tool over in the pile-o-stuff that is the "workbench" .
The car must have heard me griping and got a complex. I just filled up this morning and got about 15.1 mpg on this tank with close to my usual driving.
22.1 mpg road trip including family of 4 and dog with skis on top. It definitely helped that we had to drive under 60 when we hit the road with snow on it.
2005 Pilot w/ 26k miles
Great car - love the way it feels, looks and drives
Finally did it. Broke 20mpg for the first time in my 2007 EXL 4WD. Got 21.48mpg actually. It took a road trip (130 miles each way, about 115 of it highway) AND an effort on my part to keep the rpms down (below 3,000 when accelerating) to do it. Highways were hilly. Speed varied between 60 and 80. Filled up immediately at same station same pump when I got home.
Suppose I could have done even better if I held it to 60mph and if we didn't get off the road a few times for bathroom and food.
After all, my best ever mpg with my Pilot is still not quite up to the EPA highway rating (22mpg) for this vehicle.
Also, this result on my best ever run only serves to strengthen my impression that, all other things being equal (same family drivers driving in their own driving styles), Pilot and Odyssey do worse as compared to EPA than ALL other cars we have owned. A road trip like this in any vehicle I have owned other than a Pilot or an Odyssey would have come in a few mpg higher than its respective EPA highway rating.
david, I believe you are 100% correct in your observations, as mine are the same. I have managed to actually hit the 22 mpg highway mark, but only on a straight out, flat run at 60 mph, station to station. I normally get about 20 on mostly highway driving and have learned to be happy with that. City is far worse.
Actually, I wanted to use my 2006 Accord LE V6 for this trip, which would have delivered about 10mpg more than the Pilot and saved $. But Mrs. D nixed the Accord, for radio reasons. Our Pilot has XM sat radio - no commercials and no need to re-set stations as we move along. After deciding to use the Pilot for this trip, I resolved to make a strong run at 20+mpg. I did it, but not without going out of my way to "try" to do it by keeping my speed down somewhat and not letting it rev higher than 3,000rpm when accelerating. Had I driven normally without regard to fuel efficiency, I feel I may have come up a bit short of 20.
Reminds me of the two fat gals complaining about their weight while they are gobbling down double orders of everything greasy on the menu. They might say something like "Well I guess I'm just destined to be overweight".
davidd3,
You wrote, " I resolved to make a strong run at 20+mpg. I did it, but not without going out of my way to "try" to do it by keeping my speed down somewhat and not letting it rev higher than 3,000rpm when accelerating. Had I driven normally without regard to fuel efficiency, I feel I may have come up a bit short of 20."
In post 301, umkai wrote, "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."
In post 306 you referred to that post with: "His reported mpg of 19/20 mixed and 26.5 pure highway therefore strikes me as being good but nothing so out of the ordinary. When those same kind of numbers are reported for a 4WD Pilot, now that's remarkable."
Somewhat mixed signals! You find nothing out of the ordinary for umkai to get 26.5 mpg at 70-75 with cruise yet you somehow can't manage to squeak over 20 mpg without serious "TRYING" on your part?
You have said my mileage figures are not real world. I admit that most don't drive the way I do. However, they all don't drive the way you do either.
Last trip to Myrtle beach with cruise at 70 on return trip, got 25.9 mpg, with 4WD and 4 adults on board. I did nothing to improve mileage. Cruise made all the decisions.
Real world, I passed about as many cars as passed me!
(That is 1 mpg less than umkai got at higher average speeds.)
My same trip with same load yielded 18 +/- mpg at 80++ mph.
I would expect the 80++ to be more "normal" for you!
I recon you are just destined to get lousy mileage.
I actually thought you'd offer your congratulations to the newest member of the 20 club. Instead, you are drawing out the argumentative lawyer in me.
Important distinctions, which we have previously discussed, are as follows: (1) Umkai's Pilot is 2WD with VCM technology, which should get substantially better gas mileage than a 4WD Pilot without VCM technology; and (2) while your Pilot is 4WD, it is an older lower revving model year Pilot, which should get substantially better gas mileage than the newer higher revving Pilot.
No mixed signals on my part, despite your efforts to make it look that way. Just distinguishing my Pilot with lower mpg from other contributors' Pilots with reported higher mpg. Our Pilots were not created equal. Your Pilot and umkai's Pilot were born with distinct engineering advantages over my Pilot when it comes to fuel efficiency. Using your fat gals analogy, if our Pilots are three fat gals, my Pilot is the fattest of the fat gals.
Are there any contributors to this forum reporting mpg in the upper 20s for a newer, higher revving 4WD Pilot? I don't think so. I think they made the 4WD Pilot higher revving in the 2006 model year. So I'm talking about only 2006 and 2007 Pilots with 4WD. You are one to read the previous posts. Go ahead and see what you find. I think what you'll find is that my reports are typical for the type of Pilot which I have.
When contributors to this forum report their mpg for higher revving newer Pilots with 4WD, it is not fair for you to tell them that their mpg is bad (must be something wrong) and throw your higher mpg in their faces. Why? Because you are not driving the same exact Pilot as them.
I'd be interested in what our respective results would be if we swapped Pilots for a month or so. I suspect that my mpg would go up and your mpg would go down, substantially in each case. Who wants to sponsor us?
I have come to accept the mileage I get. I am not happy with it, but there is no doubt the MPG I get (average 20 hwy/13-15 city) is pretty much what most people seem to report. I have never had any expectations that this large truck would turn out 28 mpg, and I have yet to see evidence that mpg is a realistic expectation.
Perhaps if one gas pump topped the tank off really high, and the second fill up was on the low side, and I had a strong tailwind. Then, it might be possible
The 07 Pilot 2wd is rated at 18/24 and the 4wd is rated at 17/22. Hardly earthshaking or substantial difference.
You wrote: "When contributors to this forum report their mpg for higher revving newer Pilots with 4WD, it is not fair for you to tell them that their mpg is bad (must be something wrong) and throw your higher mpg in their faces".
Nice try! Good lawyer trick, but it just ain't gonna fly! I did not throw my mileage in his face. Show me where I even mentioned my mileage in my reply to his post ! I did say that 22 at 60, something is wrong. I stand by that.
I don't know if there are or are not any late model contributors getting in the upper 20s as you suggest. Those are your words, not mine.
Just for the record, as you seemed to miss the point. umkai got better mileage with his high revving 07 driving 70-75 than I do at 70. He did it in hilly conditions. I doubt if he was running on 3 cylinders a lot of the time. My understanding is that VCM only works when cruising and very little strain on the engine, such as flat ground. It would be interesting to see what he could do at a constant 70!
If you and I swapped cars, the 03 would probably average 20 or less on the road. I've already proven that by maintaining 80+ (your zone) for nearly 400 miles. 18 mpg! Gosh, that is worse than you get isn't it? Or course I've posted that more than once. If we swapped, your high revving late model would get better than it is getting now.
Speed and heavy feet burn extra fuel. Making all kind of excuses and reasons is not going to change that.
Two things hold true. Misery loves company, and People are quicker to complain than to compliment.
"Perhaps if one gas pump topped the tank off really high, and the second fill up was on the low side, and I had a strong tailwind. Then, it might be possible"
Don't forget the 50 PSI of Helium in the tires and seats to make it lighter. Of course the new and improved V wedge on the front doesn't hurt, or the 18 wheeler to draft behind!
Most of our discussions can only ever end by agreeing to disagree. We can't seem to agree on much more than that.
When did I become an 80+mph driver? 80 is my top speed. I'll typically do 60 to 70 in a 55 speed zone, and 70 to 80 in a 65 speed zone, traffic permitting. Unfortunately, 65 is the highest speed zone in places where I drive.
I'm going to stop right there. Trying to set records straight with you has been an exercise in futility and I will resist the temptation to engage in it any further.
"Most of our discussions can only ever end by agreeing to disagree"
True!
"When did I become an 80+mph driver? 80 is my top speed".
Don't know that you have ever said you are an 80+ mph driver. However statements like:
"I wish I got better mpg, but it's not that big a deal that I would be willing to alter my driving style (become a right lane driver, etc.) in order to maximize mpg."
Indicate you prefer and tend to drive faster than average traffic. Todays average traffic tends to run at or above the posted speed limits.
"Typically exceed speed limits by 10 to 25 mpg. Get up to speed quickly."
As posted most 4 lane speed limits are generally 55-70 and possibly higher, adding "Typically" 10-25 mph to them would put you at a low of 65 and a possible high of 95 mph. This is the first you have said that 80 is your top speed!
Thus the cause and result of the misunderstanding.
My apologies for apparently misreading your post!
BTW, we did agree that categories would be helpful.
"David,
I have no problem with categories. ie, 4wd,2WD etc..
I believe your suggestion for the sub categories could be a good one. Then those categories would need sub categories.
What is meant by city driving, can be different to different folks. Is that highway mileage in the mountains or in relatively flat areas such as Florida and Kansas."
Yes, we did at least agree that categories and sub-categories would be helpful to distinguish between mpg postings.
This is why I was surprised by (and then reacted to) your comment that 22mpg @ 60mph in a new higher revving 4WD Pilot is not good and something must be wrong. Srikes me as being pretty much par for the course for the type of Pilot the owner reported on. I do not recall reading ANY posts in this forum reporting upper 20s mpg in the case of a new higher revving 4WD Pilot. My memory is that 22mpg is about as good as it gets in the case of this particular kind of Pilot.
David, my reply to nvdriver was based on a couple of things.
First, by your own admission you are a fairly aggressive driver. You don't care to be in the RH lane, drive 10-25 mph over the speed limits and like to get up to speed fast. In spite of that you managed 21.48 on a trip.
You stated: "130 miles each way, about 115 of it highway" and you were driving "between 60 and 80" So it wasn't all highway and you had some 80mph mixed in. And you made some pit stops. You still managed 21.48 mph. In hilly terrain. From your description I don't know that the 03 would have done any better.
On the other hand nvdriver stated "I have managed to actually hit the 22 mpg highway mark, but only on a straight out, flat run at 60 mph, station to station."
Going strictly by what was stated by you and him:
You were driving faster than him. Your conditions were hilly where his were flat. You made some pit stops, he did not. Yours was not all highway, his was.
So judging by statements from each of you, I don't feel his mileage was good, especially compared to yours. And you say yours is the Fattest of the fat girls!
umkai got 26 or so at 70-75. His 2wd is rated at 2mpg higher than a 4wd. Going by that, a 4wd should get 24 or so MPG at that 70-75. Should be even better at 60.
I don't expect you to agree with my reasoning. Just wanted to explain it. I didn't throw my mileage in his face. I simply think 22mpg at 60mph on flat ground with no stops is not good. Based on what you got with a half hearted try, and umkai's post.
Somebody had a URL for that. Hopefully they still around here and will share.
FWIW: While lower gear ratios do result in the engine revving higher, they can also be a good thing for fuel mileage on the road under hilly conditions.
Example; on the highway my 03 gets halfway up a long hill and the torque converter may unlock, resulting in a 400-500 RPM increase. It did this because the engine horse power at the original RPM was not enough to maintain the speed without excessive throttle. The computer made a decision. The extra 400-500 rpm resulted in enough extra HP to make the grade. If not, the computer may decide to "DOWNSHIFT" a gear, resulting in even more RPM for more power.
An 06/07 may not unlock the TQ because the engine is riding at enough RPM/HP to get up the grade without having to unlock or downshift.
Without being exact it seems the 03 is right about 2000 RPM at 70mph. At that speed when the TQ unlocks the tach jumps to about 2500 rpm. If it downshifts one time the RPM goes to about 3000.
On relatively flat highway the higher RPM of the 06/07 can hurt mileage, especially at higher speeds.
Around town/suburbs the lower gear ratios can actually help move the bulk of the Pilot easier. Gears may shift a little sooner and so forth. This can result in better "City" mileage.
City is also worse mpg for newer Pilots, I believe. It is unbelievable how high this vehicle revs from a stop to coming up to speed. And that's what we do again and again in city driving.
I read somewhere that the transmission/computer reads and adapts to different driving styles.
I can't speak of the newer transmissions, but I know that, with the 03, a light foot will result in 2200-2500 rpm shifts. That might increase to higher RPM if I had a heavier foot!
With the newer transmission, from a stop I hit 4,000rpm multiple times before coming up to speed. I do not think that it can avoided with a light foot alone. Even when I baby it and purposely try to keep it below 3,000rpm, I find that I have to ease off the accelerator at certain points where rpm is rising. Improves gas mileage but so slow to come up to speed that I'm looking behind me to see if there's another driver that may become agitated. Not wanting to become a victim of road rage, I'll pick my spots for being a slowpoke. But at $65 per fill up, . . .
Bottom line, don't trade your 03 in on an 07, because you will be disappointed.
"Bottom line, don't trade your 03 in on an 07, because you will be disappointed."
Sure is seeming that way! :sick:
On the way to work yesterday, I picked a few flat stretched of road to find the RPM shift points with a really light foot. Turns out to be 1800-1900 rpm. It was pretty slow acceleration, would not wish to do it in traffic. With most of my local driving the shifts take place at 2400-2800. Yesterday and most of the time these shift points are done with a steady foot without letting up the pressure on the throttle.
Simply do not understand why HONDA would deliberately do anything to lessen the mileage on one of their vehicles. They claim to be THE super efficient, fuel sipping company!
A drive in an 07 is definitely in order. Shift points and speed in the gears at given RPMs are of interest!
I would really like to know more about this lower-geared (and therefore lower gas mileage) Pilot starting in 2006. Maybe I should go to the other Pilot forums? I googled it and haven't found anything yet. We are planning to purchase a 2005 or 2006 Pilot soon.
I would like to see them also. Would seem to me that the folks that rely on them for their poor mileage would have access to them.
The Pilot is a fairly good performer for it's size and shape. However it has never been marketed as a ZOOM-ZOOM or any type of "SPORT" SUV.
Therefore, I can't imagine why Honda would change their overall gear ratio for better performance at the cost of mileage. Contrary to what some/most wish to believe, often times a slightly lower gear ratio can/will result in better efficiency and better mileage. This is especially true in city and hilly highway driving. As MPG seem to be the "BUZZ" today, it would make no sense for the "MILEAGE FOLKS" at Honda to lower the mileage on a Non-performance vehicle to gain more performance.
You can visit the Honda "Fit" and the "Civic" forums and find folks complaining about their 30/38 MPG cars are only getting 22 to 32 MPG and others are rejoicing that they are getting 32 to 42 MPG. Same as the spread with the Pilot forum.
In heavy city driving where a trip of 5-10 miles may take 30 minutes or more, or a number of short trips with a cold engine is the norm, any car will suffer MPG. On the road where speeds in excess of 65 is the norm the mileage will suffer. My '03 with that magical "Higher Ratio" returned 18 mpg with CC set at at 80 and some driving at 80+ MPH. That is actually worse than the later models are reporting. Yet with the same load and near same conditions the '03 returns on a regular basis 26+ mpg at 65-70 mph. In reality the older Pilots don't get any better mileage than the newer ones when driven the same way.
Go back and start at Post one of this Forum and you will find good and poor reports, just like you do today. With few "REAL" exceptions, the milesge you get will depend on driving style and driving conditions.
Visit forums with similar size/powered SUVs and you will likely see worse reports than here.
Go for the 2005 then. You'll save money over buying a 2006 and you will probably get better gas mileage. Ask your dealer, but I am not aware of any noteworthy improvements from model year 2005 to 2006 that would tip the scale in favor of going for the 2006.
" the '03 returns on a regular basis 26+ mpg at 65-70 mph."
Sorry, but that just aint true. The majority of the posters on this board report far, far less. For those who report consistent and somewhat acceptable mpg, 20-21 on the fwy on a regular basis is much more realistic. I have gone though this board throughly and other than yourself, only one other poster reported getting anything close, and that was reported as an isolated, not regular instance.
It is very misleading and discouraging to keep insisting that something like 26-28 can be achieved on a regular basis, when that is simply not true based on most peoples experience.
If mileage is a concern, just wait for the diesel Pilot. So far the Diesel lineup for 2008 includes the Oddesy,Crv,and the Accord. Diesel Pilot can't be too far behind.
It is very misleading and discouraging to keep insisting that something like 26-28 can be achieved on a regular basis, when that is simply not true based on most peoples experience.
Thank you. My point exactly. Kip's spectacularly high mpg is real world for Kip only and nothing but a fantasy for most folks. It therefore aggravates me when he declares as being not good posts which report what is actually very mainstream mpg for this vehicle.
I was not the contributor who brought this issue to light. Someone else did, and if memory serves, that someone else posted the technical data. Trace it back if you are interested to get to the bottom of it.
However, as a practical matter, through discussions you have had with me and other contributors with newer Pilots, you have come to know that out Pilots rev higher than your Pilot at various speeds which we compared.
It ain't? How many times have you ridden with me or put fuel in my car?
"It is very misleading and discouraging to keep insisting that something like 26-28 can be achieved on a regular basis, when that is simply not true based on most peoples experience."
I said the the "03 returns on a regular basis 26+ mpg at 65-70 mph." I stand by that. The 03 refers to my car with my driving habits. I have posted exactly how it was done and the conditions. Since you have gone through this board thoroughly please point out the post where I said I get 28 on a regular basis. I will be glad to post a retraction.
To say "when that is simply not true based on most peoples experience."
What others get has nothing to do with what I get. What "MOST" people experience is not the experience of everyone.
Keep on doing what you do and be a happy camper. So will I!
Now I offer you and David a challenge. Come on down to Atlanta. The 3 of us will take a trip to Myrtle beach in my car or one of yours. I drive!
I didn't say you were the contributor. I hoped you might have a URL for the data, because you refer to revs a great deal.
Of course we have had those discussions. That doesn't stop me from asking if you had the URL available. It would be quicker than going through the posts looking.
Thought you might be able to help. Guess not!
BTW you wrote: "It therefore aggravates me when he declares as being not good posts which report what is actually very mainstream mpg for this vehicle".
Only if the challenge includes golf and you getting high 20 mpgs by driving the 3 of us in my Pilot, the caveat being whether I can afford to drive my Pilot down to Atlanta in the first place.
And mine was a simple answer. Someone else posted that info. I don't have it. So if you want it find it, you can look it up yourself.
To answer your latest question (how could you ask this?), most recently you told some new Pilot owner who reported getting 22mpg at 60mpg that his mpg was either "bad" or "not good" (I'm not sure which way you put it and I won't take time to find your post and play the quote game - the meaning is the same either way). And then we had a long discussion about why you would say such a thing. And you explained . . .
My TV is broken and I find myself with time to fill. So I went back to look for the post with the gear ratios. Justaveragejoe was the poster and it was in response to one of my posts. #367 on May 14. I'm quoted it here for ease of reference.
David
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. With time on my hands, now I am going to read it for myself.
I did say his mileage was either not good or bad, Also said there is something wrong. Never said anything about the post itself.
I explained why I felt that way and you seemed to agree or understand, the rational.
Pretty sure the Myrtle beach trip in your car will get over 25 MPG even this time of year. Can't guarantee the HIGH 20s in your car or mine. Keep in mind my last MB trip yielded 25.9 one way and 26.1 the other. Reasonably cool (70ish) and overcast. Speed 65-70 I think! From what you have said, it seems your car gets better mileage than mine at 80 so I have no reason to believe it won't also do better at a lower speed.
Be glad to drop you off at one of the many Golf courses.
Comments
Don't forget to make as many short runs with a cold engine as possible, lower the tire pressure, add a few hundred pounds of weight and maybe a luggage carrier on top.
Tailgate and use the gas-brake-gas-brake driving method as much as possible. And the ever important, keep that foot on the throttle as long as possible, then brake hard and slide up to each necessary stop.
Have fun, it's your car!
Kip
:P
I think people who spend big bucks on a "wet" filter and make big claims about their mpg increase are simply seeing the effect that a new filter has, and they would have gotten the same (or better) mpg increase with an OEM paper one.
The car must have heard me griping and got a complex. I just filled up this morning and got about 15.1 mpg on this tank with close to my usual driving.
road trip including family of 4 and dog with skis on top.
It definitely helped that we had to drive under 60 when we hit the road with snow on it.
2005 Pilot w/ 26k miles
Great car - love the way it feels, looks and drives
Keeping bad stuff out of the engine is a filters main purpose in life.
It would seem that Honda, Toyota and such would use the best filter possible for mileage, while still keeping out the bad stuff.
Kip
Suppose I could have done even better if I held it to 60mph and if we didn't get off the road a few times for bathroom and food.
After all, my best ever mpg with my Pilot is still not quite up to the EPA highway rating (22mpg) for this vehicle.
Also, this result on my best ever run only serves to strengthen my impression that, all other things being equal (same family drivers driving in their own driving styles), Pilot and Odyssey do worse as compared to EPA than ALL other cars we have owned. A road trip like this in any vehicle I have owned other than a Pilot or an Odyssey would have come in a few mpg higher than its respective EPA highway rating.
Intersting read though.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
22 mpg at a constant 60 mph is not good! Something definitely wrong.
davidd3,
You wrote, " I resolved to make a strong run at 20+mpg. I did it, but not without going out of my way to "try" to do it by keeping my speed down somewhat and not letting it rev higher than 3,000rpm when accelerating. Had I driven normally without regard to fuel efficiency, I feel I may have come up a bit short of 20."
In post 301, umkai wrote, "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."
In post 306 you referred to that post with: "His reported mpg of 19/20 mixed and 26.5 pure highway therefore strikes me as being good but nothing so out of the ordinary. When those same kind of numbers are reported for a 4WD Pilot, now that's remarkable."
Somewhat mixed signals! You find nothing out of the ordinary for umkai to get 26.5 mpg at 70-75 with cruise yet you somehow can't manage to squeak over 20 mpg without serious "TRYING" on your part?
You have said my mileage figures are not real world. I admit that most don't drive the way I do. However, they all don't drive the way you do either.
Last trip to Myrtle beach with cruise at 70 on return trip, got 25.9 mpg, with 4WD and 4 adults on board. I did nothing to improve mileage. Cruise made all the decisions.
Real world, I passed about as many cars as passed me!
(That is 1 mpg less than umkai got at higher average speeds.)
My same trip with same load yielded 18 +/- mpg at 80++ mph.
I would expect the 80++ to be more "normal" for you!
I recon you are just destined to get lousy mileage.
Kip
Where do I begin?
I actually thought you'd offer your congratulations to the newest member of the 20 club. Instead, you are drawing out the argumentative lawyer in me.
Important distinctions, which we have previously discussed, are as follows: (1) Umkai's Pilot is 2WD with VCM technology, which should get substantially better gas mileage than a 4WD Pilot without VCM technology; and (2) while your Pilot is 4WD, it is an older lower revving model year Pilot, which should get substantially better gas mileage than the newer higher revving Pilot.
No mixed signals on my part, despite your efforts to make it look that way. Just distinguishing my Pilot with lower mpg from other contributors' Pilots with reported higher mpg. Our Pilots were not created equal. Your Pilot and umkai's Pilot were born with distinct engineering advantages over my Pilot when it comes to fuel efficiency. Using your fat gals analogy, if our Pilots are three fat gals, my Pilot is the fattest of the fat gals.
Are there any contributors to this forum reporting mpg in the upper 20s for a newer, higher revving 4WD Pilot? I don't think so. I think they made the 4WD Pilot higher revving in the 2006 model year. So I'm talking about only 2006 and 2007 Pilots with 4WD. You are one to read the previous posts. Go ahead and see what you find. I think what you'll find is that my reports are typical for the type of Pilot which I have.
When contributors to this forum report their mpg for higher revving newer Pilots with 4WD, it is not fair for you to tell them that their mpg is bad (must be something wrong) and throw your higher mpg in their faces. Why? Because you are not driving the same exact Pilot as them.
I'd be interested in what our respective results would be if we swapped Pilots for a month or so. I suspect that my mpg would go up and your mpg would go down, substantially in each case. Who wants to sponsor us?
As always, I look forward to what comes back.
David
Perhaps if one gas pump topped the tank off really high, and the second fill up was on the low side, and I had a strong tailwind. Then, it might be possible
The 07 Pilot 2wd is rated at 18/24 and the 4wd is rated at 17/22. Hardly earthshaking or substantial difference.
You wrote: "When contributors to this forum report their mpg for higher revving newer Pilots with 4WD, it is not fair for you to tell them that their mpg is bad (must be something wrong) and throw your higher mpg in their faces".
Nice try! Good lawyer trick, but it just ain't gonna fly! I did not throw my mileage in his face. Show me where I even mentioned my mileage in my reply to his post !
I did say that 22 at 60, something is wrong. I stand by that.
I don't know if there are or are not any late model contributors getting in the upper 20s as you suggest. Those are your words, not mine.
Just for the record, as you seemed to miss the point. umkai got better mileage with his high revving 07 driving 70-75 than I do at 70. He did it in hilly conditions. I doubt if he was running on 3 cylinders a lot of the time. My understanding is that VCM only works when cruising and very little strain on the engine, such as flat ground. It would be interesting to see what he could do at a constant 70!
If you and I swapped cars, the 03 would probably average 20 or less on the road. I've already proven that by maintaining 80+ (your zone) for nearly 400 miles. 18 mpg! Gosh, that is worse than you get isn't it? Or course I've posted that more than once. If we swapped, your high revving late model would get better than it is getting now.
Speed and heavy feet burn extra fuel. Making all kind of excuses and reasons is not going to change that.
Two things hold true. Misery loves company, and People are quicker to complain than to compliment.
Kip
Don't forget the 50 PSI of Helium in the tires and seats to make it lighter. Of course the new and improved V wedge on the front doesn't hurt, or the 18 wheeler to draft behind!
Little thing make a big difference!
Kip
Most of our discussions can only ever end by agreeing to disagree. We can't seem to agree on much more than that.
When did I become an 80+mph driver? 80 is my top speed. I'll typically do 60 to 70 in a 55 speed zone, and 70 to 80 in a 65 speed zone, traffic permitting. Unfortunately, 65 is the highest speed zone in places where I drive.
I'm going to stop right there. Trying to set records straight with you has been an exercise in futility and I will resist the temptation to engage in it any further.
I've made my points and I likewise stand by them.
Until next time,
David
True!
"When did I become an 80+mph driver? 80 is my top speed".
Don't know that you have ever said you are an 80+ mph driver. However statements like:
"I wish I got better mpg, but it's not that big a deal that I would be willing to alter my driving style (become a right lane driver, etc.) in order to maximize mpg."
Indicate you prefer and tend to drive faster than average traffic. Todays average traffic tends to run at or above the posted speed limits.
"Typically exceed speed limits by 10 to 25 mpg. Get up to speed quickly."
As posted most 4 lane speed limits are generally 55-70 and possibly higher, adding "Typically" 10-25 mph to them would put you at a low of 65 and a possible high of 95 mph. This is the first you have said that 80 is your top speed!
Thus the cause and result of the misunderstanding.
My apologies for apparently misreading your post!
BTW, we did agree that categories would be helpful.
"David,
I have no problem with categories. ie, 4wd,2WD etc..
I believe your suggestion for the sub categories could be a good one. Then those categories would need sub categories.
What is meant by city driving, can be different to different folks. Is that highway mileage in the mountains or in relatively flat areas such as Florida and Kansas."
Kip
Yes, we did at least agree that categories and sub-categories would be helpful to distinguish between mpg postings.
This is why I was surprised by (and then reacted to) your comment that 22mpg @ 60mph in a new higher revving 4WD Pilot is not good and something must be wrong. Srikes me as being pretty much par for the course for the type of Pilot the owner reported on. I do not recall reading ANY posts in this forum reporting upper 20s mpg in the case of a new higher revving 4WD Pilot. My memory is that 22mpg is about as good as it gets in the case of this particular kind of Pilot.
David
David
First, by your own admission you are a fairly aggressive driver. You don't care to be in the RH lane, drive 10-25 mph over the speed limits and like to get up to speed fast.
In spite of that you managed 21.48 on a trip.
You stated: "130 miles each way, about 115 of it highway" and you were driving "between 60 and 80"
So it wasn't all highway and you had some 80mph mixed in. And you made some pit stops. You still managed 21.48 mph. In hilly terrain. From your description I don't know that the 03 would have done any better.
On the other hand nvdriver stated "I have managed to actually hit the 22 mpg highway mark, but only on a straight out, flat run at 60 mph, station to station."
Going strictly by what was stated by you and him:
You were driving faster than him. Your conditions were hilly where his were flat. You made some pit stops, he did not. Yours was not all highway, his was.
So judging by statements from each of you, I don't feel his mileage was good, especially compared to yours. And you say yours is the Fattest of the fat girls!
umkai got 26 or so at 70-75. His 2wd is rated at 2mpg higher than a 4wd. Going by that, a 4wd should get 24 or so MPG at that 70-75. Should be even better at 60.
I don't expect you to agree with my reasoning. Just wanted to explain it. I didn't throw my mileage in his face. I simply think 22mpg at 60mph on flat ground with no stops is not good. Based on what you got with a half hearted try, and umkai's post.
Regards,
Kip
Thanks. Based on the detailed context you provided, I can better appreciate the perspective from which you made your comments.
David
Thanks.
FWIW: While lower gear ratios do result in the engine revving higher, they can also be a good thing for fuel mileage on the road under hilly conditions.
Example; on the highway my 03 gets halfway up a long hill and the torque converter may unlock, resulting in a 400-500 RPM increase. It did this because the engine horse power at the original RPM was not enough to maintain the speed without excessive throttle. The computer made a decision. The extra 400-500 rpm resulted in enough extra HP to make the grade. If not, the computer may decide to "DOWNSHIFT" a gear, resulting in even more RPM for more power.
An 06/07 may not unlock the TQ because the engine is riding at enough RPM/HP to get up the grade without having to unlock or downshift.
Without being exact it seems the 03 is right about 2000 RPM at 70mph. At that speed when the TQ unlocks the tach jumps to about 2500 rpm. If it downshifts one time the RPM goes to about 3000.
On relatively flat highway the higher RPM of the 06/07 can hurt mileage, especially at higher speeds.
Around town/suburbs the lower gear ratios can actually help move the bulk of the Pilot easier. Gears may shift a little sooner and so forth. This can result in better "City" mileage.
Kip
City is also worse mpg for newer Pilots, I believe. It is unbelievable how high this vehicle revs from a stop to coming up to speed. And that's what we do again and again in city driving.
David
I read somewhere that the transmission/computer reads and adapts to different driving styles.
I can't speak of the newer transmissions, but I know that, with the 03, a light foot will result in 2200-2500 rpm shifts. That might increase to higher RPM if I had a heavier foot!
Kip
With the newer transmission, from a stop I hit 4,000rpm multiple times before coming up to speed. I do not think that it can avoided with a light foot alone. Even when I baby it and purposely try to keep it below 3,000rpm, I find that I have to ease off the accelerator at certain points where rpm is rising. Improves gas mileage but so slow to come up to speed that I'm looking behind me to see if there's another driver that may become agitated. Not wanting to become a victim of road rage, I'll pick my spots for being a slowpoke. But at $65 per fill up, . . .
Bottom line, don't trade your 03 in on an 07, because you will be disappointed.
David
"Bottom line, don't trade your 03 in on an 07, because you will be disappointed."
Sure is seeming that way! :sick:
On the way to work yesterday, I picked a few flat stretched of road to find the RPM shift points with a really light foot. Turns out to be 1800-1900 rpm. It was pretty slow acceleration, would not wish to do it in traffic. With most of my local driving the shifts take place at 2400-2800. Yesterday and most of the time these shift points are done with a steady foot without letting up the pressure on the throttle.
Simply do not understand why HONDA would deliberately do anything to lessen the mileage on one of their vehicles. They claim to be THE super efficient, fuel sipping company!
A drive in an 07 is definitely in order. Shift points and speed in the gears at given RPMs are of interest!
Thanks,
Kip
Hopefully someone will post those "Numbers".
I would like to see them also. Would seem to me that the folks that rely on them for their poor mileage would have access to them.
The Pilot is a fairly good performer for it's size and shape. However it has never been marketed as a ZOOM-ZOOM or any type of "SPORT" SUV.
Therefore, I can't imagine why Honda would change their overall gear ratio for better performance at the cost of mileage. Contrary to what some/most wish to believe, often times a slightly lower gear ratio can/will result in better efficiency and better mileage. This is especially true in city and hilly highway driving. As MPG seem to be the "BUZZ" today, it would make no sense for the "MILEAGE FOLKS" at Honda to lower the mileage on a Non-performance vehicle to gain more performance.
You can visit the Honda "Fit" and the "Civic" forums and find folks complaining about their 30/38 MPG cars are only getting 22 to 32 MPG and others are rejoicing that they are getting 32 to 42 MPG. Same as the spread with the Pilot forum.
In heavy city driving where a trip of 5-10 miles may take 30 minutes or more, or a number of short trips with a cold engine is the norm, any car will suffer MPG. On the road where speeds in excess of 65 is the norm the mileage will suffer. My '03 with that magical "Higher Ratio" returned 18 mpg with CC set at at 80 and some driving at 80+ MPH. That is actually worse than the later models are reporting. Yet with the same load and near same conditions the '03 returns on a regular basis 26+ mpg at 65-70 mph. In reality the older Pilots don't get any better mileage than the newer ones when driven the same way.
Go back and start at Post one of this Forum and you will find good and poor reports, just like you do today. With few "REAL" exceptions, the milesge you get will depend on driving style and driving conditions.
Visit forums with similar size/powered SUVs and you will likely see worse reports than here.
Kip
David,
Where did this info come from? Do you have a URL?
Thanks,
Kip
Sorry, but that just aint true. The majority of the posters on this board report far, far less. For those who report consistent and somewhat acceptable mpg, 20-21 on the fwy on a regular basis is much more realistic. I have gone though this board throughly and other than yourself, only one other poster reported getting anything close, and that was reported as an isolated, not regular instance.
It is very misleading and discouraging to keep insisting that something like 26-28 can be achieved on a regular basis, when that is simply not true based on most peoples experience.
Thank you. My point exactly. Kip's spectacularly high mpg is real world for Kip only and nothing but a fantasy for most folks. It therefore aggravates me when he declares as being not good posts which report what is actually very mainstream mpg for this vehicle.
I was not the contributor who brought this issue to light. Someone else did, and if memory serves, that someone else posted the technical data. Trace it back if you are interested to get to the bottom of it.
However, as a practical matter, through discussions you have had with me and other contributors with newer Pilots, you have come to know that out Pilots rev higher than your Pilot at various speeds which we compared.
David
It ain't? How many times have you ridden with me or put fuel in my car?
"It is very misleading and discouraging to keep insisting that something like 26-28 can be achieved on a regular basis, when that is simply not true based on most peoples experience."
I said the the "03 returns on a regular basis 26+ mpg at 65-70 mph." I stand by that. The 03 refers to my car with my driving habits. I have posted exactly how it was done and the conditions. Since you have gone through this board thoroughly please point out the post where I said I get 28 on a regular basis. I will be glad to post a retraction.
To say "when that is simply not true based on most peoples experience."
What others get has nothing to do with what I get. What "MOST" people experience is not the experience of everyone.
Keep on doing what you do and be a happy camper. So will I!
Now I offer you and David a challenge. Come on down to Atlanta. The 3 of us will take a trip to Myrtle beach in my car or one of yours. I drive!
Kip
It was a simple question!
I didn't say you were the contributor. I hoped you might have a URL for the data, because you refer to revs a great deal.
Of course we have had those discussions. That doesn't stop me from asking if you had the URL available. It would be quicker than going through the posts looking.
Thought you might be able to help. Guess not!
BTW you wrote: "It therefore aggravates me when he declares as being not good posts which report what is actually very mainstream mpg for this vehicle".
Which post have I said were bad?
Kip
Only if the challenge includes golf and you getting high 20 mpgs by driving the 3 of us in my Pilot, the caveat being whether I can afford to drive my Pilot down to Atlanta in the first place.
David
And mine was a simple answer. Someone else posted that info. I don't have it. So if you want it find it, you can look it up yourself.
To answer your latest question (how could you ask this?), most recently you told some new Pilot owner who reported getting 22mpg at 60mpg that his mpg was either "bad" or "not good" (I'm not sure which way you put it and I won't take time to find your post and play the quote game - the meaning is the same either way). And then we had a long discussion about why you would say such a thing. And you explained . . .
David
My TV is broken and I find myself with time to fill. So I went back to look for the post with the gear ratios. Justaveragejoe was the poster and it was in response to one of my posts. #367 on May 14. I'm quoted it here for ease of reference.
David
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. With time on my hands, now I am going to read it for myself.
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
I explained why I felt that way and you seemed to agree or understand, the rational.
Pretty sure the Myrtle beach trip in your car will get over 25 MPG even this time of year. Can't guarantee the HIGH 20s in your car or mine. Keep in mind my last MB trip yielded 25.9 one way and 26.1 the other. Reasonably cool (70ish) and overcast. Speed 65-70 I think! From what you have said, it seems your car gets better mileage than mine at 80 so I have no reason to believe it won't also do better at a lower speed.
Be glad to drop you off at one of the many Golf courses.
Never did develop an interest in golf.
Thanks for the URLs.
Kip
Keep in mind that the extra weight will reduce gas mileage.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper