By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Happy driving.
I can assure you it was not transmission shifts - I know I know the difference(as do the others who had issue too I am sure), and at 65-70 MPH there should be no transmission shifts with the cruise control on. No, there was a definite "surging" sensation when the ECO light went on and off. In my case, after about 2000 miles, it has disappeared - so I can speak of VCM from two perspectives. It WAS horribly unacceptable before - surging, jerky, "torque on/torque off" sensation as if I was pushing on and off the accelerator pedal - and I was not - it was set on cruise on a level road! NOW? I cannot notice a thing. Something happened - maybe the active engine mounts are now working and weren't before and had to gert broken in? I don't know - but I do know VCM from BOTH perspectives. You should consider yourself among the lucky who never had problems. Believe me - if you had, you too would have been thinking about getting rid of the car.
You can report VCM engine fuel economy here or there - or both - but let's not get sidetracked on the VCM itself in this topic.
Thanks!
My Gen 7 V6 gets 29mpg on with 85% highway (mostly under 65mph) with 6k on the odo. I am expecting to see 32mpg+ after 20k. Since 6MT could get over 40mpg (full highway), i think 35mpg+ is obtainable on gen7 V6 auto.
....Since 6MT could get over 40mpg (full highway), i think 35mpg+ is obtainable on gen7 V6 auto.
...I have tried my dead level best to break 40 with my 6M. I have not (yet) been able to get past 39, Where is the dude that got 40 miles per gallon? I will buy the Crown Royal.
Seriously, 40 is hard to accomplish. I have really tried.
best, ez....
55mph yields over 40mpg
I'd like to know how they accomplished that as the frontal area does appear to be more substantial than the gen 7's. "
Keep in mind that the frontal area is seperate from the drag. To get total wind resistance you multiply the two together.
I also thought the gen 7 was .30.
EZ - you will get 40 eventually. That sixth gear is your secret weapon. Have you tried 0w-20 synthetic yet? Have you tried 40 psi (or the max sidewall - should be 44). Choose the warmest day you can stand without A/C. Check the weather channel to make sure there won't be wind (or you could cheat and look for a tailwind) and I think you can make it.
Malmousa - I am very suprised to see a hypermiler getting 25 mpg in the new Accord - what mileage were you getting in previous cars.
"That sixth gear is your secret weapon"
The real issue is the final drive ratio. The final drive in the V6 6 speed coupe is 3.55, and the automatic V6, 4.31. Very strange actually - usually just the opposite because the AT has the advantage of the torque converter multiplier effect and usually has the lower final drive.
http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=4102
The 6 speed coupe V6 versus the AT V6 VCM SHOULD give better MPG, unless the VCM really does what it is touted to do. I have my doubts.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0802_midsize_sedan_comparison/
They claimed the Cd numbers I quoted. I believe that I've seen .30 for the gen 7 Accord as well. One of the thoughts I have every day as I walk down my driveway after getting the mail and I look at my 08 is Wow! big car! Lots of frontal area, must displace a lot of air moving at hwy speeds. Mileage holding steady @ 21mpg over 6,000 miles and 90% city bal hwy(08 EXL-V6). I've got a trip to the White Mts of New Hampshire planned next week and I've already warned my wife that I'm interested in true hwy mileage so I'll be tanking up entering and exiting the interstate to see what I get, will post results.
Don't even bother checking it until you have 4-5000 miles on it. It will get better milege as it breaks in.
Even then , why even bother? It'll get whatever it gets!
Thats what my friends with SUV's used to say. Now it is hysterical to watch them line up for 20 minutes to save less than 3% ($.10 per gallon) on their gas costs. Maybe if they were aware of their mileage and checked more often they would have bought more sensible vehicles.
MPG is also a good indicator of the cars overall health.
If my car did not get what I wanted I would sell it in a heartbeat.
Once in a great while, I'll check my mileage but doing so isn't something I really care about that much. If the car isn't running up to snuff, I'll know it without having to check my mileage.
I know people (mostly older people) who keep a detailed log in their glove boxes. They keep track of EVERYTHING.
That's not me but, hey, if that makes them happy...
http://www.trackyourgasmileage.com
I'm turning 20 in a little over a month. I'm "old" I guess.
Nothing is "wrong" with checking gas mileage constantly or keeping a detailed log book or an excel spreadsheet.
If that is important to you, go for it.
Me, I don't care. It's going to get whatever it gets and I have better things to do than agonize over it.
"Older" drivers also hate space saver spares!
...appreciate the feedback, Senor D.
..certainly agree the 6th gear OD and 3.28 final drive are big time aids to 40 MPG club membership.
I'll forego the lite-weight synthetic and the 40+ tire pressure for now, (but I am planning to use GM SynchroMesh FM for the 6M soon).
It's a great car (well, that clutch............) for the $23.4 I laid out brand new!
thanks again, ez....
374 miles on 12.90 gallons
424 miles on 13.61 gallons
200 miles on 6.70 gallons
The results: 41.7 mpg, the best ever in my 06 Accord EX-L I4 manual.
The 08 I4 numbers continue to interest me. I wonder how well I'd do. In over 44,000 miles in my 06, I've only had 8 tanks below 30 mpg, all in the winter. 29.5, 29.9, 28.0, 29.8, 28.4, 29.7, 29.8, 29.9.
This past week we put on 200 miles of urban/suburban stop and go driving and 245 miles of highway driving at 70-75 MPH with occasional bursts of speed to pass trucks where I really put my foot into it and called on all 268 horses. I had filled it, then stopped in PA and put $10.00 in it (3 gallons) to get enough gas to get us back to NJ where the gas is about $.30- .40 LESS per gallon than in PA or NY state. Once in NJ and the gas $3.05/gallon, I filled it and it took another 16 gallons, for a total of 19 gallons for 445 miles. About 23.4 MPG. Altogether not that bad considering the almost 50/50 mix, and how hard I got on it for bursts of acceleration on occasion. Seems your all around mileage and mine are supporting that achieved by Edmunds' drivers in their long term test - 24 MPG +/- .5-1 MPG.
I wonder about something - with older carbureted cars there were adjustements that could and had to be made for altitude - e.g a car in Denver would be set up differently than a car in Miami Beach. What happend now? Do the computer programs in the ECMs automatically calculate altitude and change the fuel mix as necessary? I am running our car primarily near sea level - up the Hudson Valley, with occasional running probably in the 1000-2000 ft above sea level territory. And in comparing our MPG here on this forum, perhaps we should also mention our driving conditions? Someone out in the Rockies is going to be calling on more power more often than someone in Iowa!
With regard to the engine's adjustment to elevation, from my limited understanding, the engine does not adjust the "mix." Rather, it adjusts the timing. The mix stays the same, but the timing is advanced or retarded to account for the different speeds at which combustion takes place at different elevations (i.e. different O2 levels). Of course, on all modern engines, this all takes place automatically.
I was under the impression too that the carburetor had to have different jets in it for different altitudes - either leaning out fuel/air mixture because of less oxygen at higher altitudes. Does the ECM do that automatically these days for the fuel injection?
Thanks
As for MPG - the difference is totally insignificant. 100/6 gallons = 16.66,, 97/6 = 16.66, 300/12 = 25, 291/12= 24.25
I know that when people start changing tire sizes they say that you need to have the car 'reset' to make up for the larger tires. I don't think that was what you did, but I tend to get side-tracked. Sorry about that.
You can read all about it here:
Accord Class Action Suit
Then I learned that they use the county pick up trucks to place those signs!
So, whose speedometer is off?
And who really cares? I sure don't! a 3% error if this is for real is nothing. I don't think a speedometer/odometer was ever meant to be a precision measuring devise.
On a 100,000 mile car, nobody would care anyway.
Thanks.
With about 70% hwy and 30% local/city I got 421.8 miles from 13.49 gallons for the last tank which equates to ~31.27 mpg.
Car is 06 LX 4 Cyl Auto.
The results: 41.7 mpg, the best ever in my 06 Accord EX-L I4 manual
:surprise: Question for you tallman: Did you use cruise control for the entire/majority of your trip?? That is amazing!!!
Your points are well taken by this beached sailorl
I've an '05 6M Coupe whose freeway MPG borders on fantasy. With fuel prices more and more at the forefront, I decided to pass on an '08 6M.
best, ez....
For goodness sakes a Crown Vic is 107 ft3 and a Lincoln Town Car is 109. A 98 ft3 Accord would slot right between an E class Mercedes (97) and a BMW 5 Series (99). The TSX is close, but still (91 ft3 - with sunroof so more like 94 or 95 without) expensive, heavy and thirsty.
For the sake of recapturing mpg, yet still offering some room, Honda need to fill the gap. I would move down to a Civic if it was just me, but it is a tad small with my 3 boys and does not work if my wife joins the mix.