This must be the case SAMIAM_68, where Acura managed tune the car for maximum possible MPG for the EPA test to get inflated #'s. Obviously I'd expect my 2009 TSX with a 200hp inline 4 manual transmission to get better mileage than a 280hp V-6 even if the EPA estimates were pretty much the exact same. Very disappointing that I'd see such a drastic difference between the two cars though, shame on the EPA! '
Does anyone know of any non-government companies that test fuel economy for various car manufacturers that release this info to the public?
prprt33... Your 2005 TL real world mileage and my 2009 TSX real world mileage solidify the fact that the EPA's #'s underrated older cars while new 2012 cars are overrated in terms of fuel economy.
I'm in the very same boat. I went from a 2004 TSX 6MT (21/29mpg under old ratings) to a 2012 TL (20/29mpg new). I too was surprised that a car 400 lbs heavier could get very nearly the same mpg.
As I read the ratings, the 04 TSX would have been 19/27 under the new ratings. According to all that, the TL is rated better than the old TSX. Still, hard to believe, but I'd hoped that eight years of efficiency improvements had actually made that difference.
My driving is primarily city and I was consistently at 22-23 mpg in the TSX. I just filled up my TL for the first time and got about 18.5mpg. Disappointing, and I hope it'll improve as it breaks in.
I have put on a quick 2400 miles over the last month due to a few 600 miles trips. I THINK the fuel economy is improving. The wind does play a big factor in this car I have found. Going against the wind averaging 70mph I got about 26.5 mpg but going with the wind over 300 miles at just about the same speed I got 32 mpg which I was very very happy with. It seems to be averaging 29 on the highway now, I'm hoping that means the city numbers have improved as well.
The car will definitely get better as it gets past 5000 miles. The automatic will cost you in city driving but the overdrive coupled with the higher torque of the v-6 makes the Tl get better mpg on the highway. Since the most important measures of fuel economy on the highway are wind resistance, tire friction and rpm/engine load, the TL has the potential to equal or better the smaller engine. In acceleration though, the automatic and the greater mass conspire against the TL. Also, if you are driving gingerly with respect to acceleration, it will hurt the TL, as the transmission will shift sooner and put more load on the engine. Again, all acceleration kills mileage, so might as well minimize the time doing it while maximizing cruise time.
Thanks.. good info, chirocat. I may give that a try.. I've been watching the MPG readout and trying to go easy on the gas, though maybe that's the wrong idea. On this current tank, I'm around 16mpg reported (after only 25 miles of purely city driving). On a stretch including mostly interstate driving, it reported around 25mpg, though my average is more like 18mpg.
Also, my tires may be slightly under-inflated. I filled them up to 33 PSI when slightly warm, but then on a cold morning they're reporting as 30 PSI. I was a little disappointed that it came from the dealer under-inflated. (I've only had it a month now.. just started my 3rd tank of gas).
we picked up our new acura TL about 2 weeks ago and have noticed the dashboard display showing that mileage is 13.2 mpg. we've driven only about 150 miles (all local suburban driving) but this still seems alarmingly inefficient. is there a problem. the car is advertised at 20 mpg city and even brand new we expected something close to that.
Wait until your 3rd tank to start calculating MPG correctly. Make sure to reset the meter after every fill-up and also do a manual method - Miles driven / Gallons to fill.
FWIW. Recently took a trip to Rhode Island, about 850 miles RT. Averaged 31.5 mpg on mostly highway driving at 65+. Amazing to me, the on-board mpg guide was quite accurate as it stated the average mpg to be 31.3. With a mix of rural (no highway) and city driving, with an admitted bit of lightness to the pedal, I seem to average about 26 mpg.
I was in Hawaii last week and a small sign at the pump stated 10 to 20% better fuel economy if you choose Non Ethanol gas. They had available 3 levels of Non-E and one handle for Ethanol. There is a higher percentage of Ethanol added to regular opposed to premium in the states BTW. If non ethanol is used in testing and we use ethanol there will be a substantial difference in our comparisons. In Texas you will be hard pressed to find Non Ethanol fuel in the DFW area. I've looked, drive 30 miles one way to fill my tank is not acceptable. Lexus and BMW had roughly 100,000 cars each with fuel system recalls. The few dealers that checked the Ethanol content found as much as 18% ethanol content in the fuel. It is very corrosive and manufacturerers are working to make their cars conform. I doubt we can seriously compare MPG from coast to coast with the ethanol content variations considered. It will be tough anyway. The Gov was sold a bill of goods that ethanol had the same BTU's as gasoline. After a year study in the real world. The gov was trying to understand why John Doe traveling the same distance from one year to the next was consuming more fuel. Another example, if you want to scrw something up, get the gov involved. Please forgive my personal opinion right here.
I drive 2012 TL FWD(for last 2 months) with tech and clock 52 miles( round trip) every day to work with 15 miles of internal roads/signal stops etc...even highways are not non-stop drives( constructions, slow traffic and what not).. I get a good 28 mpg which is really good...i am sure it will do much better on long drives. I love it. I am sure i will enjoy the brand for its looks, feel, comfort and its mpg which is best value for money on long run. I prefer the 2012 model for its increased mpg and less aggressive styling(i agree i do like some areas of the older TLs).. i wish they can increase the mpg on AWD to attract people like me.
Comments
Does anyone know of any non-government companies that test fuel economy for various car manufacturers that release this info to the public?
As I read the ratings, the 04 TSX would have been 19/27 under the new ratings. According to all that, the TL is rated better than the old TSX. Still, hard to believe, but I'd hoped that eight years of efficiency improvements had actually made that difference.
My driving is primarily city and I was consistently at 22-23 mpg in the TSX. I just filled up my TL for the first time and got about 18.5mpg. Disappointing, and I hope it'll improve as it breaks in.
Also, my tires may be slightly under-inflated. I filled them up to 33 PSI when slightly warm, but then on a cold morning they're reporting as 30 PSI. I was a little disappointed that it came from the dealer under-inflated. (I've only had it a month now.. just started my 3rd tank of gas).
thanks for any input.
If non ethanol is used in testing and we use ethanol there will be a substantial difference in our comparisons. In Texas you will be hard pressed to find Non Ethanol fuel in the DFW area. I've looked, drive 30 miles one way to fill my tank is not acceptable.
Lexus and BMW had roughly 100,000 cars each with fuel system recalls. The few dealers that checked the Ethanol content found as much as 18% ethanol content in the fuel. It is very corrosive and manufacturerers are working to make their cars conform. I doubt we can seriously compare MPG from coast to coast with the ethanol content variations considered. It will be tough anyway.
The Gov was sold a bill of goods that ethanol had the same BTU's as gasoline. After a year study in the real world. The gov was trying to understand why John Doe traveling the same distance from one year to the next was consuming more fuel. Another example, if you want to scrw something up, get the gov involved. Please forgive my personal opinion right here.