Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I suspect that in the real world the extra weight will hurt city economy more than the EPA test shows (or doesn't show).
The old Toyota Tundras had weak engines that couldn't carry the loads full sized pickup owners expected and Toyota fixed them with with bigger engines at the redesign. There wasn't really any power shortage to fix with Honda engines.
It doesn't hurt to have more power, but they could have increased mileage more instead if they didn't add the weight and then needed bigger engines to pull the excess weight.
The next redesign may be even larger with bigger engines required to pull around the increased weight and more technology required to attempt to maintain the current MPG in EPA tests. Not much progress.
I'm not even seeing reviews saying the new engines make the car quicker than before.
Things are just getting bigger with higher HP numbers just for the sake of getting bigger.
In a couple generations, the Civic will be as big as the 2008 Accord, the Fit will be as big as a Civic and there will have to be a new vehicle smaller than the Fit to be the "small car" for Honda.
.....in the real world the extra weight will hurt city economy more than the EPA test shows (or doesn't show)........
.....speaking of the EPA, fuel efficiency, ad infinitum:
..EPA indicates (old standard) 20/30 and (new std) 18/27 for me.
The September fuel receipts:
33.7 (100% Interstate)Baker-Sacramento
29.0 (70/30 mix)
25.7 (40/60 mix)
31.3 (80/20 mix)
31.8 (95/05 mix) Sacramento-Reno/rtn (Air Races)
AV6 6M
best, ez....
Case 1:
Honda puts 3.2/V6, rated 260 HP @ 6200 rpm and 235 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm, at least 90% of peak torque is available at 2500 rpm. Estimated overall mileage is 23-24 mpg.
Case 2:
Honda puts 3.5/V6, rated 268 HP @ 6200 rpm and 248 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm, at least 90% of peak torque is available at 2000 rpm. Estimated overall mileage is 22-23 mpg.
Case 3:
Honda puts 3.5/V6, rated 268 HP @ 6200 rpm and 248 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm. This engine is tuned to perform like 3.2/V6 under 3500 rpm (low speed driving/acceleration) but not by design but due to design, and like a 3.5/V6 above that (high speed acceleration). Estimated overall mileage is 25-26 mpg.
Honda went with #3. You seem to want #2. I have been arguing with a few who apparently would have been happier with #1 (all they talk about is getting “only” 268 HP from 3.5 is not technological improvement since 2003 Accord got 240 HP from only 3.0-liters, or 80 HP/liter). I see #3 as offering best of both worlds.
If you are going to be happy with a diesel, I don’t see why you would complain about limited acceleration (which will be far superior than the diesel). Since when was 220 lb-ft or so at 3000 rpm “not enough”?
Have you driven an Acura TL? It weighs as much as the new Accord, and has similar power characteristics in low-mid range, but gives up to Accord at higher rpm. I would be the last person to complain that TL is slow, or can’t get the job done. I have long considered it having more power than is necessary. Fortunately, it still gets me 25-26 mpg in mixed driving (and I expect the Accord V6 to do better in my hands).
Apparently, you have missed it. People are complaining about Accord V6 as lacking mid range, when it is comparable to (or slightly better than) the 3.2/V6 in Acura TL. The new V6 (with VCM) is actually developing more torque at 2000 rpm than the old did at its peak (5000 rpm).
People have also complained about Accord’s interior size. Now that Honda has addressed that, I have already seen people complaining about small trunk. What Honda has delivered is a car whose exterior dimensions are similar to early 90s Legend and TL from a decade ago, except that the interior packaging is far superior (TL was a compact sedan despite of being within an inch or two in overall length). But somehow, the new Accord is “huge”. It is in the nomenclature far more than in reality.
It doesn't hurt to have more power, but they could have increased mileage more instead if they didn't add the weight and then needed bigger engines to pull the excess weight.
Could you list cars that have lost weight with recent redesigns. For each you list, I will list two that gained weight.
The way it all sounds, is Accord an aberration to a trend where cars are getting lighter? It is a sad thing, really, but the reality is, safety and features do come at a cost. And bigger engine is not purely for the sake of going bigger. See my explanation above. The idea IS to improve fuel economy. Honda managed to do something with the 3.5 they couldn’t have accomplished with 3.0. And while we can argue all we want, reality still exists that it is not easy to go bonkers trying to improve fuel economy, while still trying to stay within limits on costs.
More technology required to attempt to maintain the current MPG in EPA tests. Not much progress.
Well, I don’t think Honda puts too much emphasis on EPA estimates which puts literally no emphasis on performance (that is why I always end up arguing against associating power rating to EPA rating that virtually everybody has a tendency to). To give you an example, the worst fuel tank I have ever had on my 2006 TL (now over 30K miles) is 23 mpg. With current tank, I am at 22 mpg due to 95% city driving and excessive idling. In fact, it was at 21 mpg this morning, and I saw it jump to 22 mpg when I least expected it.
The car has made me realize that there is life beyond EPA ratings. There is a car that seems to put everything in driver’s hands. And with all that experience, I’m really curious to see how the new Accord V6 will respond (I don’t expect much improvement with I-4, if at all). I won’t be surprised getting 27-28 mpg in it, when I get 25-26 mpg in my 98 Accord I-4 and the TL, which is far better than I manage in other (comparable) cars.
I'm not even seeing reviews saying the new engines make the car quicker than before.
Which review might that be? Perhaps you should tell me, what expectations do you have from, say, an Accord V6 in terms of performance and fuel economy. Let us start there.
Seems like pretty poor use of space to me. Heck my Fit is 37" shorter, yet has 21CuFt of cargo space behind the 2nd row, 90CuFt of passenger volume, and F/R legroom is 41.9"/33.7" EPA is 28/34 mpg. Granted the Accord is wider, which accounts for the extra passenger CuFt, but if you're only carrying 4 passengers, then there's no additional benefit there. It just means that the people have a smaller gap between them.
My Freestyle is only 5" longer than the new Accord yet has 3 rows and the cargo space behind the 3rd row is bigger then the Accord's trunk! The Honda Pilot is actually shorter then the Accord, holds 8 people, and has more luggage space behind the 3rd row as compared to the Accord's trunk.
Of course this is a MPG forum, so on the plus side, for a car of it's size it gets pretty good MPG.
As the owner of a 2006 Accord, I'll say I'm disappointed that they didn't offer more legroom for the driver (very few vehicles are a perfect fit for my 34/35 inseam). But then again, not everybody is 6'4."
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
"Sedans" are not as space efficient as wagons/hatchback, if that is the point you're trying to make. Besides, a car can be longer for a lot of reasons. For similar reasons that a Chrysler 300 can be shorter... just take the front bumper off and you shave off 2-3 inches. Punch the face so it is just (up)right instead of sloping, and you might have another 2-3 inches there. So, if you designed the Accord, it would have those attributes, and be about 188-189 inch long.
I hope you get something for the extra $10K
And what are the slalom speeds of the Accord vs the Fit :P
MPG for trip 1: 37.29 MPG
Return trip from San Jose, CA to Oxnard, CA on 10/3, temps 60s to high 80s
Cruise set on 55 MPH with AC use >50% of trip.
Total miles: 334.6
Gallons used: 7.750
MPG for trip 2: 43.17 MPG!!!
I was utterly surprise of the MPG for the second trip!
Model: 2006 Accord V6 6SPEED 4 door
PS: Fiancee was bored to death to say the least!
...best, ez..
My goal was to see if I can just meet the numbers you posted.
Again I am still amaze at the numbers I achieved.
kind of disappointed since i was expecting atleast 21-22
I hope you're not on the interstate :P
I've been calculating my mpg for the last few months and I haven't really gone above about 27 mpg. I have the 03 Accord LX I4 auto. I'm not unhappy with this. Just wondering how people crack 32 at all. Anywho, not important I guess. Just thought I'd make a post.
In the south (Alabama) I have to struggle to FIND a station with that much ethanol. Things are different outside of the corn belt I guess.
Where and how you drive makes all the difference in the world. I'm able to "crack 32" all the time.
My Accord isn’t equipped with a trip computer that calculates average speed and indicates average mileage but my TL does (and it is quite accurate when compared to my calculated mileage). The following is my observation for more than a year (Average speed versus observed mileage)
20 mph: 20 mpg
25 mph: 22 mpg
30 mph: 23 mpg
34 mph: 24 mpg
38 mph: 26 mpg
On the current tank, I’ve driven a little more on the highway, so the average speed is indicated as 41 mph and indicated mileage is 28 mpg, but only after 29 miles. I will report back about 350 miles later in a few days.
On freeway, steady state cruising on level ground with little to no wind has taught a few things.
60 mph: 35-36 mpg (light foot, just maintaining speed, instead of accelerating/decelerating regularly, no cruise control)
75 mph: 31-32 mpg
80 mph: 28-29 mpg
I expect 2003-2007 Accord V6 to return similar mileage as my 2006 TL. The I-4 should do a little better (especially in city).
My 1998 Accord (which was rated 23/30 mpg in its day, and under the new rating it has been re-rated 20/27 mpg) gets 32 mpg at 75 mph (calculated average speed on highway). The best (mixed driving) mileage in the Accord was actually just two tanks ago when I got 27.2 mpg and this car has 182K miles on it. The best combination of speed and mileage was observed on a 500+ mile trip from Dallas to Memphis a few years ago. My average speed was 76 mph and I did not have to stop for refueling anywhere. The fillup took 15.8 gallons after 507 miles and that turned out to be exactly 32 mpg. I have tried maximizing these two aspects in my TL too during road trips, and the best yet has been ~72 mph (average speed) and 32 mpg. My TL is auto as well.
May be your driving involves a lot of short trips (5 miles or less) or too many lights that require acceleration to speed (and staying under 40 mph) and having to brake again. Another helpful bit is that the best mileage shows up between 45-70 mph. Any slower or faster will reduce fuel economy.
Thank you for your help.
There was no A/C use, but I did use the moonroof once I got off the interstate and into the towns (where the speed limit drops to anywhere from 35-65 and there are several traffic lights). The temps were around 70 when I left, 60 when I arrived.
I have been trying to find out a sweet spot in my TL that maximizes average speed AND mileage. So far, 72 mph/32 mpg is it. I almost beat it a few days ago during another 200+ mile freeway driving but then got stuck in a traffic jam as one of the lanes was completely closed. Until that point, the trip computer was indicating 74 mph/32 mpg (I usually stay around 75 mph, with occasional instances when stuck behind overtaking semis, which I will try to compensate for by going around 80 mph).
By the time I got home, my average speed had dropped to 67 mph, and calculated mileage was 31.8 mpg.
Right now, I’m hoping to get 27 mpg on current tank in my TL (mixed driving). The trip computer is indicating that (and I’ve found it to be fairly accurate). 25-26 mpg has been the norm.
I’m also driving a 2008 RAV4 (FWD) extensively, so I’m curious to see how it stacks up. I’m averaging about 24 mpg right now, but the vehicle has less than a 1000 miles.
BTW, I got only 23.8 mpg (90-95% freeway, 70-75 mph) from a rental 2007 RAV4/AWD-Limited/I-4 on a road trip couple of weekends ago. It had 15K miles on the odometer. On the same stretch (and higher speeds), my cars get me 32 mpg. So it was not only disappointing, but scary since my GF had finalized a deal on a new RAV4 (the one I've been driving). And she drives 2000-2500 miles/month.
I simply could not sway her to buy a vehicle with better mileage. For her, even if the RAV4 got same mileage as her Jetta did, it would be a gain since the VW ran on premium (she was thinking 8-10% savings going from premium to regular, not 20-25% as I tend to).
Anyway, back to the Hondas at hand!
I hate to stray off-topic, but I was interested in your RAV experience as well.
My girlfriend also recently purchased a RAV4 (coming from a 2000 Honda Civic), against my advice for a more fuel efficient vehicle.
It is a 2007 RAV4 Sport 4WD V6 with less than 1000 miles. We have only had two fill-ups, but both have yielded just over 25 MPG in mostly suburban/highway driving. I'm hoping to see 30 MPG on the highway when it is fully broken-in.
I'm surprised that you're getting the same MPG with your girlfriend's FWD I-4.
On another note...
How do you figure a 20%-25% savings when switching to regular fuel? Premium is generally 20 cents higher than regular. So at $2.00/gallon for regular, the savings would only be 9%-10%. As gas prices increase, the % savings only gets smaller (since the gap between regular & premium stays at 20 cents).
20-25% improvement was based on savings on cost of premium as well as improved fuel economy. My GF's Jetta wasn't doing any better than 21-22 mpg and taking premium (could use regular but the 1.8T showed even worse lag/performance with regular than it did with premium). So, assuming 2100 miles/month, at $3/gallon, she was spending $300/month on gas.
If she were driving a vehicle that averaged 24-25 mpg on regular, the cost would be about $230, resulting in 20-25% savings at the gas pump.