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
If the car is coated with ice I let it run while I scrape though - why not have the heaters help a little.
Anyway it does use more gas and needs to be taken into account if gas mileage is low.
On a recent trip to Pittsburgh from NJ I got 29mpg. Rpms were 3k or higher most of the drive & cruise control was almost always on. Lots of hills didn't help. Got 34mpg coming back. Have managed 37mpg keeping it under 65.
Loren
The saleman did tell me that if I were to drive a new 4cyl with no miles, I would notice that the engine would feel weak to me, compared to my broken in 4cyl.
I drive about an estimated 30 miles a day and usually more, 6 days a week, and I can usually go about 2 weeks without filling up. Plus when the low fuel light comes on, I still have plenty in reserve.
I love my Accord!!
2007 SE 4-cyl stick shift.
Overall mileage for 2,200 miles is about 31 mpg.
My last tank of all city driving yielded 23.5 mpg. This is with maximum trip length of 3 miles and a maximum speed of about 40 (with one or two zips up to 50), and in some cold morning starts (20's and 30's). I think that is very good - better than my Integra, and just a little worse than my old Corolla (both also stick shift). It should also improve with a little more breaking in and synthetic oil.
Just took a highway trip and checked my mileage with my now calibrated scangauge II. 100 miles each way. Way there - 50 degrees at start, no wind 1,000 ft elevation gain. 37.2 mpg. Way back - 65 degrees 1,000 ft elevation loss. 38.9 mpg. Overall about 38 mpg. Average speed for the trip was 68 mph.
This is very encouraging. I am quite sure that I will gain about 1 mpg from further break in, 1 from using syntetic oil, and if I slow down to 65 mph another 1. This would put me at 41 - we will see.
For a car with as much room and power as the Accord these numbers amaze me.
Your experiences are really mirroring mine, with only a small difference. In my overall numbers and typical commute, I average between 29 and 30 MPG. This is probably due to me being in an automatic (24/34 EPA) and you in a manual (26/34). My highway numbers have actually topped 40 MPG twice (only twice though) in very strict highway conditions.
Enjoy your new Accord, the mileage will continue to be great. (By the way, let me know if you beat 40.92 MPG, that's my personal best!).
2007 SE 4 MT
Just got 43.8 mpg on an almost all highway trip. Keep in mind this was going slower than I ever have (cruise at 60 mph). I also dropped into neutral on the steep downhills, and gently slowed down on the uphill (driving like a semi), but was using cruise about 80% of the time.
This was recorded with a scangauge II which is quite accurate. Conditions were just about ideal. The temp was 55 and partly sunny, so no A/C or heat was neaded (warm engines are the most efficient and turning on the heat draws some heat from the engine). I also had a warm engine at start. Terrain was fairly hilly and curvy 2 lane roads along the Missouri river, but overall starting elevation was about the same as ending.
Love the scangauge so far. It gave me my max speed 74, Max water temp 195 F, Average speed 57 mph (part of the road was gravel so I went slow there), elapsed time, gallons per hour etc, etc. It even keeps track of 4 different trips - current, today, yesterday, and user progamable.
BTW just for kicks I checked the mpg while puttering through a town. It gets 52 mpg going 45 mph in 5th gear. I also must confess that I run 39 psi in my tires.
Can't wait for the first oil change - 0w20 mobil one will only help.
I'm wondering about accuracy though. My Navi system figures mileage (using the same technology, I assume) but it is always off from when I check the traditional way (fill tank, drive until almost empty, fill tank again, divide miles by number of gallons pumped.)
As for very short distances, any kind of measurement won't be very accurate because of level of road surface, coasting, etc.
I'm not questioning the ScanGauge at all, just curious more than anything. And yes, I do understand the inaccuracy that may occur by figuring mileage the traditional way too.
For things I can double check with my navi, the scangauge is spot on. For instance when I am going an indicated 65 the navi and scangauge both flutter around 63 or 64.
426 miles 13.1 gallons = 32.3 mpg.
The scangauge indicated 33.4 for the tank, so it is off by about 3% high - still need several more tanks to calibrate after all the next fillup it could be 3% low. Still, if I applied a 3% correction factor to my 43.8 it would be about 42.5. I will take that.
This was a tank with probably 60% highway and the rest litte jogs around the city.
2,600 miles and lifetime calculated average is just under 31 mpg.
You can easily validate odometer accuracy by a GPS unit, or by interstate mileage markers over a considerable distance. As I understand it, a manufacturer can be plus or minus 5%. When I recently checked my vehicle w/GPS is was high by about 3%, as clocked over a 1K+ mile trip with a number of intermediate waypoints.
Seems reasonable to me that if a manufacturer was going to build in some inaccuracy (aka....take advantage of the situation), that they would want to error on the high side showing the vehicle going faster than it really is (boy, isn't my car quiet and smooth at 65!), and get better gas mileage than it really does. Also note that as tires wear their circumference gets smaller, thereby spinning slightly more for a given real distance....highlighting yet more error over time.
So if you use a scangauge to look at some of the detailed numbers, it would be worth understanding how much odometer error you are working with for your vehicle and tires.
While no computer may be perfect - it has the potential to be better than filling it up and measuring (at least in a modern car).
The other nice thing about the computer is that it is repeatable and will show relative numbers quite accurately, as well as trends.
Now my 1980 Scirocco could be filled up exactly (within a few cc) the same every time. The temp of the fuel probably played a larger role in gallons than the fillup error. There was just a tube going into the tank, and you could see and hear the tube filling up, and could stop it right at the brim every time.
I think one of the major reasons speedos are always a little optomistic is safety. If a speedo reads too low and a person judged a turn by the speed limit sign and the speedo - and wrecked!!
The name T-100 brings back some bad memories for me. I bought a 97 SR5 new and it was very reliable, but had the worst ride of any vehicle I ever owned. On the highway it never stopped bouncing, and it was very difficult to balance tires on those skinny wheels. After 6 years of bouncing, I finally traded it for the 03 Accord. My brother-in-law had a 96 T-100 and his was not as bad, but still not a good highway truck.
If Honda were to really manufacture trucks I would be interested in buying one. While the Ridgeline is a very nice multipurpose vehicle, it is NOT a truck. Nor is the versatile Element a truck. Honda should not boast that it has a truck line when in fact they don't, but they should!
Pickup trucks are some of the biggest sellers in the USA. It does not appear that this fact will change anytime soon.
On to the subject: I will be monitoring the mpg our new '07 Accord SE l4 auto with great expectation. The car currently has 285 miles on it so I am still in the early breaking it in stages. Of course I am taking it easy on the gas pedal and anticipating stops with a gentle brake pressure. A coming vacation trip to Branson Mo soon should finish off the 'break-in' period with all of the hills and valleys that the highway offers. Glad to see that Honda quality is evident in our new car. Why wouldn't it be?? It is a Honda!
I have been futzing around with that issue a little though. My understanding is that the fuel actually shuts off while coasting in gear, so theoretically that will provide better mileage. The problem is that you obviously do not coast as far, and modern engines use hardly any gas while idleing under no load.
While coasting down a real steep hill at 85 mph (real steep - and a different route) the instant mpg indicates well over 200 mpg, of course going up the other side it goes into the low teens (single digits if I step on it).
I am sure my mpg would go down on the trip without the coasting especially maintaing speed up the steep hills - I bled speed going up a few of the steeper hills. I will knnow if a few weeks - or course if the temp, or wind is much different it will mess things up.
If you are constantly doing things like coasting down hills, and driving slower than you normally would, I would not consider that "Real World" mileage. Seems to me the mileage you get while driving your normal everyday routes, in the normal everyday driving style, would be more important than special occasion trips. Of course, if you actually like driving this way, go ahead and enjoy the ride.
This is off my little rant, but my car seems to get better mileage with the A/C on. I was wondering if my car is just weird, but maybe is it possible for somebody to try and go on a trip with all the windows open maybe somebody with a sunroof, and then do the identical trip with the windows closed and the A/C on. If someone could do that it would be great. I just want to see if my car is weird or if I'm imagining things.
Thanks.
Just letting people know what the car is capable of and I post my speed so everybody knows, not trying to hide anything. I have also posted mileage going faster. The whole point is to give a range of mpg under different conditions.
My state is different than most - most of you live in a county that has more people than my state (SD). On my last couple of trips I can count on one hand the vehicles I met in either direction and was not passed by one vehicle (nor did I pass any).
Coasting in neutral may be bad for an automatic, but it is no problem with a manual - just one of many advantages for a manual
80 degrees - yikes. There is only one real steep hill that gets me to 85, and it is perfectly straight and you can see 3 miles ahead (up the other side) if anybody is coming.
BTW re the same trip with cruise the whole way. I did that on the way there, but had cruise set at 65 not 60, also the car was cold at the start and I had the heat on, and I did a little bit more in town driving at the beginning. That trip was 37.3 mpg.
As far as better mpg with the A/C on goes. Heat plays a huge role in mpg. I notice it more and more with every trip. All my low mpg (33 on one trip at < 20 degrees) has been in cold temps. Cold engines are not as efficient, cold oil is thicker, cold grease in the CV joints does not roll as easily, cold tires have less air pressure, cold air is denser and has more resistance.
You will always get better mpg with the A/C off, but the heat may offset this when comparing to non A/C.
You will get your best mileage at the highest temp you can stand without turning on the A/C. Cloudy days are good because the temp can be higher without a need for A/C.
Yes, I think A/C off only helps if you can keep the windows up. With all the windows down, the wind resistance would slow you down more than the A/C compressor will. I read that somewhere, but don't remember exactly where.
So if I'm doing 70mph on the interstate, I will burn more gas with the windows up, and A/C on, than with A/C off, and windows down.
do you see evidence of the transmission shifting up through all the gears and going into torque convertor lockup?
have you looked to see there is no obstruction in the engine air filter?
does it idle properly?
ask them to check your MAF sensor, O2 sensor, and fuel injectors. perhaps they need to install a new cat convertor.
merging, going stoplight to stoplight,
?
With me, a conservative driver (merging rarely tops 4,000 RPM, stoplight to stoplight driving stays under 3,000 RPM), I've NEVER had a tank under 26 MPG, and on trips, average between 36 and 40 MPG.
How long is your daily (city?) commute mileagewise, and timewise? If you are going 3 miles in 30 minutes, you won't see better mileage. If you are going 14 miles in 25 minutes (like I do daily) you should see at least mid 20s. My average mileage is just under 30 MPG.
Something is wrong with the car or the definition of highway. What was the previous V-6 car and what mpg did it get? Were the conditions the same or have driving patterns changed?
Yup... according to that show and other things I've read.
I had heard what you heard a long time ago and it made sense to me. Actually, it was said that not using AC in the city and rolling widows down was better but using AC with windows up on highway was better (wind resistance was greater). But the Mythbusters boys did significantly better with no AC and windows down on a race track using SUVs, I think. It was pretty funny because the one using AC was all bundled up because it got so cold.
You can find part of the old discussion here by searching this thread for "Mythbusters". I was thinking there was an even better discussion somewhere but not sure where.
Well said. I'd also add that something may be wrong with the driver. Not picking on anyone but 22 mpg on the highway means something is very wrong. To be honest, I think I could only do that if I were going up a steep hill the entire trip... or varying my speed greatly.
Yes and did you see the recent episode about getting out of a car that is sinking in water?? You'd drown before the pressure equalized enough to open the door. I'm going to buy one of those little hammers. :surprise:
I also wonder if the results had been different if the A/C was not all the way up (did not see that show, but if they were wearing coats!). A/C is most efficient on the coolest temp at the lowest fan speed.
Maybe what he means is this:
With the fan on the lowest setting, the air coming out is the coldest. Maybe, I dunno what he meant to be honest. My compressor runs the same with it set on low, high, vent or defrost, etc...
Also the compressor cycles according to the fan speed since the highest speed will demand the most cooling (even with the temp up because of the mixing).
This means the most efficient way to use the a/c is with the temp all the way down and the fan on the lowest setting. Obviously if you need more cooling, turn it up.
If is inneficient to have the fan up high and the temp in the middle.