I realize that modern engines don't care to be lugged at low RPM. However I was under the impression that the folks that engineer the automatic transmissions take that into consideration.
Consider the fact that the car idles at near 1000 RPM. The tranny starts "PULLING" at just slightly above that.
My question is: If HIGH RPM is necessary, why doesn't the tranny wait until say 2000 RPM to start pulling, and "Driving" speeds be much higher RPM than they are?
I will occasionally floor our CR-V in 2nd and let it run up and shift on it's own. My reason for that is to encourage the rods to stretch and keep from getting a wear ring at the top of the cylinder. Other than that I can't think of a good reason to red line and engine except in an emergency situation.
blueiedgod, can you expand more on this statement? When you say high RPMs, how high?
thx.
Honda engines are designed to produce most of the rated power in the high RPM range, above 5000 RPM and probably 500 RPM bellow the red line.
The air to fuel ratio changes from normal to rather lean as the engine goes through the stages of VTEC and VTC (i-VTEC=VTEC+VTC). So, by having your engine running rich more of the time you are more likeley end up with deposits.
My question is: If HIGH RPM is necessary, why doesn't the tranny wait until say 2000 RPM to start pulling, and "Driving" speeds be much higher RPM than they are?
Automatic in a Honda is an afterthought to please the masses. Honda engines are primarily tuned to be run with manual transmissions.
Automatic in a Honda is an afterthought to please the masses.
That is a ridiculous statement. You really think Honda considers 92% of the car buying population in this market an "afterthought"? If that was the case they'd still have 3 speed auto transmissions.
That is a ridiculous statement. You really think Honda considers 92% of the car buying population in this market an "afterthought"? If that was the case they'd still have 3 speed auto transmissions.
There are drivers, and there are drones...
Honda does not offer automatic on its exciting car line up because they know that first, auto will kill the excitement, and two, people who prefer automatics don't really care about vehicle dynamics. They may say they do, but in reality they just want to put it in drive, stomp on the gas and jerk the steering wheel left and right.
If you open your horizons, you would realize that majority of the world drives manuals. Assume that everyone drives, out of 4,000,000,000 a country with 250,000,000 is only 6.25%. A 92% of that is 5.75% if everyone drove. Since not everyone drives, the pool is much smaller, but the ratio remains the same.
Granted that CR-Vs aren't part of the "exciting" portion of Honda's menu, but I have to question the implication that CR-V engine life will be reduced if it isn't driven near red line. Mine (auto) has briefly nudged over 4,000 rpm a few times, but speed limits and traffic don't let it stay there long. The Owner's Manual is silent on the issue of driving at high rpms. Also, I don't see anything in the manual about a need to blow out carbon deposits built from low rpm driving.
Some time ago there was an entry on a Saab 9-5 thread from a driver who took the advice that the Saab 4-banger thrived at red line and said he made it a point to wind 'er up all the time and leave it in a lower gear rather than shift up. As I remember, he complained that after a short period of this kind of operation his engine was shot. He was surprised by this.
My manual 9-5 has an annoying "shift now" light on the cluster that comes on just beyond the point the engine would lug, about 4,000 rpm below redline. My normal shift point is only a couple beats above the "shift now" point, but, after seven years and with 120K on the odometer, I've never had a problem with sludge or carboning up. Yes, I wind it up in third getting on the highway, and it likes to do this.
I can understand the need to give any engine an occasional chance to stretch its legs, but I just doubt that there's a need to operate continuously (frequently?) (often?) at high rpm.
It's a Comfy Runabout Vehicle, not an F1 rocket.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever even seen a CR-V being driven at high rpms, though puh-lenty of their stable mates go howling by with their Chock Full O' Nuts exhaust tips. It's hard to believe that the howlers are going to wind up with higher odometer readings than the CR-Vs.
blueiedgod may very well know something I don't, so please don't take this as being disrespectful!
In my early driving years automatics were often 2 speed or 3 speed with the occasional GM 4 speed. Buick and Packard even sported single speed autos.
They did not perform well and got terrible mileage. But the autos got better and better over the years.
Chrysler introduced a 3 speed auto that used "Push Button" shifting. The local drag strip heroes began to put those Chrysler trannies behind all types of engines and improved their quarter mile times.
Then along came locking torque convertors and overdrive autos.
I think that today manual shifts are mostly sold to driving enthusiast who like to "Heel and Toe" and to those that just can't believe that automatics "ARRIVED". Old Habits are hard to break!
At our house we try to combine trips so as to not start up the car from cold just to go get a gallon of milk. Kind of make a circle and do whatever needs to be done in one trip, instead of several.
I have noticed that with my very conservative driving the CR-V will begin to "SURGE" a little when lightly accelerating, after a long period of "PUTTING" around.
The cure seems to be to step down and let it wind tight until the tranny shifts at near red line. In days of yore that would have indicated that a spark plug was beginning to foul from carbon build up or just getting tired.. Don't know what it means today.
Good quality synthetic or synthetic blended oils along with unleaded gas is supposed to have pretty much eliminated carbon build up.
I am a firm believer that everything that moves or is moved upon has a "LIFE". The engine is going to turn a certain number of rpm before wear gets to a point of being a problem. So, it makes sense to this OLD MIND that with 2 equal engines and everything else being equal, the one that turns the most RPM to accomplish the same job is going to wear out first!
Manual shifts are more fun to drive (except in heavy traffic).. However, real world driving indicates that today's auto trannys will yield equal or better mileage in most cases. The auto just tries to keep the engine where it needs to be.
I can understand the need to give any engine an occasional chance to stretch its legs, but I just doubt that there's a need to operate continuously (frequently?) (often?) at high rpm.
All I said is to take her to red line once in a while. I never said to red line her every time, did I? That would just burn a hole in anyone's pocket. But, some people are just deathly affraid to go past that magical 3000 RPM that has been hammered into their heads by the domestics.
I have noticed that with my very conservative driving the CR-V will begin to "SURGE" a little when lightly accelerating, after a long period of "PUTTING" around.
That is because the auto is keeping the engine at or about 2000 RPM, which is the VTEC change over point from 12 valve to 16 valves. The 16 valve mode is "perfomance" mode, and thus you get the surge.
I am a firm believer that everything that moves or is moved upon has a "LIFE". The engine is going to turn a certain number of rpm before wear gets to a point of being a problem. So, it makes sense to this OLD MIND that with 2 equal engines and everything else being equal, the one that turns the most RPM to accomplish the same job is going to wear out first!
Honda has a long history of high revving engines that are over engineered. Many of the Hondas at junk yards are there because of other problems (body, automatic tranny, suspension, electronics...) almost rarely you see an engine problem with a Honda. That is what Honda does, they build engines, they build darn good engines.
That is their primary business, making engines, be it small lawnmower/snowblower, generator, powerwasher, engines or F1 or Jet engines, they build them. To expand their sales in engines they started making cars...
Good quality synthetic or synthetic blended oils along with unleaded gas is supposed to have pretty much eliminated carbon build up.
That is because the auto is keeping the engine at or about 2000 RPM, which is the VTEC change over point from 12 valve to 16 valves. The 16 valve mode is "performance" mode, and thus you get the surge.
I'm not sure how the VTEC change takes place. Some say the cam shafts actually shift to put the valves on a different lobe. Others say it is simply the type of hydraulic lifter that is used. At lower RPM it opens the valves a certain amount and at higher RPM the higher oil pressure causes the lifters to become much stiffer and open the valves more. Now you are saying that an extra valve comes into play at 2000 RPM and above? That is news to me, but as earlier stated I want to learn. Where did you get your info?
On both our CR-V and Pilot the VETC Kicking in with that "Growl" is more like above 4000 RPM with the pedal to the metal. In days of yore we called that sensation "Hitting the Cam", Or with 2 Strokes, "Coming up on the pipe".
The surge I was speaking of earlier is more like the engine is beginning to miss from something fouling or an extremely lean mixture.
Honda has a long history of high revving engines that are over engineered.
No argument there. However I still believe that everything that moves has a certain lifespan. The less it is required to move to perform a task, the longer it will last. Everything else being equal, oil changes, oil, fuel etc., the engine that turns the least rpm to perform that task will last longer. That is why we have transmissions with things that require great changes in operation speed.
That being said, I feel that an engine that is constantly stressed or "LUGGED" will probably not last as long as one that is slightly "Over-revved". With cars, trucks, motorcycles and such, lugging and/or over-revving will usually happen with manual shifts. :sick:
You get carbon build up from the unburned fuel.
True, but most or all of that is in the exhaust system behind the catalytic converter. Very little to none within the modern engine using synthetic oils and unleaded gas.
Many moons ago, in my racing days, I told a friend there was no way in the world that the new oil that comes from plants (Synthetic) can lubricate as well as petroleum. He proved me wrong!
Not only did the synthetic lubricate very well (less wear on rings, and bearings), it stayed clean and virtually eliminated carbon build up on top of the pistons. He further demonstrated the virtues of synthetics by getting an old frying pan red hot and putting a few drops of synthetic and a few drops of petroleum oils on the hot surface. The synthetic virtually smoked away while the petroleum did the same but with a much darker smoke, and it left a residue. Chances are good that modern petroleum oils have additives to help eliminate carbon. I just stick with what I know works.
I'm not sure how the VTEC change takes place. Some say the cam shafts actually shift to put the valves on a different lobe. Others say it is simply the type of hydraulic lifter that is used. At lower RPM it opens the valves a certain amount and at higher RPM the higher oil pressure causes the lifters to become much stiffer and open the valves more. Now you are saying that an extra valve comes into play at 2000 RPM and above? That is news to me, but as earlier stated I want to learn. Where did you get your info?
On both our CR-V and Pilot the VETC Kicking in with that "Growl" is more like above 4000 RPM with the pedal to the metal. In days of yore we called that sensation "Hitting the Cam", Or with 2 Strokes, "Coming up on the pipe".
The surge I was speaking of earlier is more like the engine is beginning to miss from something fouling or an extremely lean mixture
The VTEC is indeed actuated by a hydraulic system the is pressurized by the engine oil and it is operated by engine oil, but it is controlled by the computer, not just mechanical oil pressure actuation. This why sticking with light weight oils is essential for VTEC solenoid operation. Some, using the old habits, put 40+ weight oils in the cars thinking that it is good, only to find that VTEC solenoid fails pretty soon.
The camshaft has extra lobes, depending on the model it may have 3 lobes (12V, 16V, high RPM 16V), which are activated at pre determined RPMs.
In the old days of VTEC, the activation was at 5000 RPM, but with the i-VTEC on the CR-V it is closer to the old VTEC-e from the 1991 Civic VX with an addition of continuosly variable timing control (VTC). The engine runs in 12 valve mode from idle to 2250 in lean air to fuel ratio, then switches over to 16 mode with enrichment in air to fuel ratio. The 12 valve design (1972) allows for more stratified fuel charge and more air that stoichemically required. The offset valving creates the swirl in the combustion chamber. This is what folks selling Tornado device are trying to achieve.
The more perfomance oriented K-series engines, such as the ones in Acura TSX and Civic Type R, have another lobe that is activated at around 4500-5000 RPM, and changes the duration and lift to accomodate high RPM performance, similar to the original VTEC from 1991 Acura NSX. Plus it adds VTEC operation on the exhaust valves as well. While the rest only use VTEC on the intake.
It is confusing because both the Accord/Element/CR-V/Civic have iVTEC and the TSX/CTR have iVTEC, but those two are very different.
I posted all this info with pictures from Honda press pack on the "other site but I can't link it. So, if you happen to stumble upon a website dedicated to HondaSUV search for iVTEC operation.
WOW! That certainly is a lot to absorb! Maybe to much info.!
Am I understanding correctly that on the '03 CR-V the cam shaft actually shifts position laterally to enable it to engage and operate another (4th) valve? This shifting is physically done by engine oil pressure created by higher engine rpm. However this is contingent on input from the computer which operates electric solenoids which uncover orifices? Oil pressure thru the orifices force the cam to shift positions? With a drop in oil pressure or the orifices closing, the cam , under some type of tension, will shift back to its rest position?
Is that close or am I off in another world with this?
Do the lifters get stiffer/weaker, depending on oil pressure, and open the valves more or less during all the above?
WOW! That certainly is a lot to absorb! Maybe to much info.!
Am I understanding correctly that on the '03 CR-V the cam shaft actually shifts position laterally to enable it to engage and operate another (4th) valve? This shifting is physically done by engine oil pressure created by higher engine rpm. However this is contingent on input from the computer which operates electric solenoids which uncover orifices? Oil pressure thru the orifices force the cam to shift positions? With a drop in oil pressure or the orifices closing, the cam , under some type of tension, will shift back to its rest position?
Is that close or am I off in another world with this?
Do the lifters get stiffer/weaker, depending on oil pressure, and open the valves more or less during all the above?
Thanks,
Kip
Oil pressure is only used to activate the cam, the control is through the valve on the oil line (VTEC Actuator). The drop in pressure is minimal. However, the first symptom of low oil condition is "limp mode" when VTEC is not activated at all and car runs in 12 valve mode until more oil is added.
When the RPM's drop, the pressure is released and the cam is moved back.
Lifters are not involved in the VTEC operation, only the camshaft.
The lift and duration change is achieved with, yet another lobe on the cam.
VTEC is pure genious. Some have tried and were not able to make it work reliably until Honda got their hands on it. Now everyone and their mother has a variation of VTEC, whether it is VANOS, VVTLi, or what not, it is still a copy of VTEC that Honda developed back in the late 80's and put in production in 1991.
With VTEC you are able to have a motor that is equally comfortable at low RPMs as it is at high RPMs. And with iVTEC it added that needed torque that early VTEC engines were lacking at low RPMs.
What is that "GROWL" and apparent jump in power that kicks in from the engine compartment at higher RPM , somewhere around 4000 RPM, when the pedal is on or near the floor?? It happens on both our CR-V and the Pilot. This is an RPM considerably higher than the 2250 you described. (I think)
When the RPM is near the red line and the tranny shifts the GROWL goes away momentarily even though the pedal is still on the floor. Power seems to have dropped off. The GROWL and power surge reappear within a couple of seconds when RPM again rise above that 4K or whatever.
For clarification: When this "Shift under full POWER" takes place the RPM naturally drops and in the next gear there is still some acceleration but a few moments before the Growl and strong acceleration kick in again. The RPM did not drop anywhere near the 2250 area. What is that all about?
I don't believe it is a problem with our cars because both do it as well as the Hondas we test drove before buying ours!
In the US the percentage of manual transmission buyers is in the single digits. You may think of the vast majority of the car buying public in the US as "drones" but that's whose driving on the roads (I'm sure that even includes some of your family members).
I was really speaking about the fact that Honda's ATs are not just thrown together as an "afterthought". They engineer them as well as any other part of the vehicle. Many times the AT gets better mileage than the manual and the performance is certainly on par. Unless of course you're racing. Which most Honda drivers aren't doing.
The air to fuel ratio changes from normal to rather lean as the engine goes through the stages of VTEC and VTC (i-VTEC=VTEC+VTC). So, by having your engine running rich more of the time you are more likely end up with deposits.
I reckon my brain is still stuck inside a carburetor.
You are describing the fuel requirements of the modern fuel injected engine as opposite that of carburated ones.
It is just hard for me to understand that todays engines run richer at lower rpm which would include most highway and secondary roads, as cruising would generally be 2500 RPM or less.
Even harder to understand that as more power is required and Higher RPM needed to make that power, the fuel mixture is leaned out! :confuse:
What is that "GROWL" and apparent jump in power that kicks in from the engine compartment at higher RPM , somewhere around 4000 RPM, when the pedal is on or near the floor??
The growl is probably form the VTC making adjustments on the fly. As far as I know the VTEC in CR-V has no high RPM lobes, like TSX does.
Even harder to understand that as more power is required and Higher RPM needed to make that power, the fuel mixture is leaned out!
I learned from running nitromethanol powered Radio controlled models that leaner mixture at high RPM's give you better throttle response and more power.
Honda engines run leaner than other cars, but the charge is stratified.
I am not a Honda engineer and can not explain it. Maybe someone who works for Honda can.
Well, your message is now a year old so you may never see this reply but The mileage you are getting is, for city driving stop/go not bad. Are you using your AC? I've had my 2005 SE CRV for 10 months now and it I average 23mpg overall for suburb driving - mostly light to light with some boulevard spreads and mostly no AC. The AC uses about 2mpg in my drives. Another thing that cuts our mileage in FL is that the nation's refineries change the formula during the winter for cold weather and we do not have cold weather. Nonetheless, the above is my average for the CRV. My parents have a new Civic EX and they have 4 tankfulls of gas indicating 24,26,22,24 MPG at their tankfuls for city driving. Both cars use gas from Sam's.
After catching up on posts to this forum, I decided to jump in and try some of the MPG-improving techniques for my 2004 CR-V LX (auto tranny). My last calculation was last summer and it was 21.75 MPG. That was consistent with random samplings over the year before that point.
By just doing slow acceleration, I got 26.41 MPG using Exxon gas and 24.19 MPG using grocery store gas from Krogers. I run with AC on all of the time. Tire pressure...well, I haven't checked lately but I don't keep the tires inflated above the PSI recommended by Honda.
The only difficulty I've encountered is that my city's lights seemed timed to stop a car that's been travelling the speed limit. But that may be a subjective bias on my part.
The only difficulty I've encountered is that my city's lights seemed timed to stop a car that's been travelling the speed limit.
I wonder how much gasoline could be saved in this country if traffic signals were synchronized a bit better. Many municipalities claim they do it but I've never experienced a system that works very well. Where I drive my mantra is "red light to red light".
There is a stretch of 4 lane road near us that is about 8 miles long and ending at I75 North. It is a main road and usually busy. Seems there are 8-10 traffic lights on that stretch. A few times I have run the entire length with 0-2 stops. Generally it is more like most or all of them.
When there is little or no traffic, the light I'm starting from turns green and near half way to the next, that one turns green and so forth. Clear sailing!
The problem occurs when there is the usual medium to heavy traffic. When I get to that half way point there may be cars still sitting there waiting for their green. From that point on it is all down hill.
During rush hour the lights do stay green a bit longer. Also the next light turns green about the same time or even earlier than mine to allow those cars to move before I get there. Problem is that it turns red again about the time I arrive. :sick:
Then there is the problem of major roads crossing that one. They have to keep moving also.
I really believe that the traffic circles, as in Europe, may be a better way. But that is something that has to be "PLANNED" and built ahead of time, before buildings are erected. Some forward thinking rural towns with the typical courthouse square have gone with the "Traffic Circle" idea by making the streets around the court house one way. As traffic is moving either clockwise or counter clockwise the cars in the outside lane can exit at "APPROVED streets that won't interfere with the flow. This allows thru traffic to keep moving and those wishing to make left or right turns to do it somewhere else instead of where the heavy traffic is converging.:shades:
They say it works very well. I've read that since there are so many manual transmissions in the UK that the roads are set up more for yields and rolling stops than we are in North American and that also benefits their mpg.
Being as they drive in the left lane I can understand the clockwise circle. What I don't understand is the counter clockwise inner circle.
It appears that after crossing traffic you would be "STUCK" in the middle, and the only way out would be to join the clockwise crowd that you had just crossed. :sick:
Wasn't there a song a few years back with the words "Stuck in the Middle with you" ?
Wonder if it was written while sitting in that thing!!
We've got about 850 miles on our new 2006 CR-V (2WD, auto). The EPA-estimated MPG for this model is 23/29.
So far we've been getting 20 MPG, mostly light highway miles. Disappointed by this, I spoke with the service manager at the local Honda dealer, who said that until the CR-V has about 7000 miles, we can expect sub-par mileage.
I could believe that a small dip in mileage could be expected from a brand new engine, but this is a significant difference -- we're only getting 69% of the advertised mileage. That's not acceptable.
I'd like to find out from you if this has been your experience -- that the MPG improves significantly after several thousand miles. And is it reasonable to expect that at some point we should be averaging the 29 MPG highway?
Firstly, the EPA numbers are the government's numbers, not Honda's. There are very strict testing procedures to arrive at those estimates, so you have to keep that in mind.
That being said, yes, your mileage should go up after the break-in period. Also, other factors are included, such as the terrain in your area and whether or not you have ethanol in your gas. Here in Minnesota ethanol is required to be in our gasoline by law, and we suffer a mileage penalty because of it. Summer and winter blends will change your mileage as well.
Right now, we are getting about 25 MPG with our 2005 CR-V (SE, 4WD) with 11000 miles on the highway between 60-70 MPH, and the EPA estimate is 27 MPG, just for reference.
As you are waiting for replies to your posts, you can benefit by reading the existing posts.
All kinds of tips on what to expect, as well as things you can do to get your best mileage.
Keep in mind that the CR-V is not an economy car. It is a utility vehicle that can carry a goodly amount of stuff and sit the occupants high enough to be able to see over economy cars. It weighs more than the average car of today and the shape is not conducive to achieving great mileage, especially on the highway where wind resistance rears it's ugly head. Considering it's shape and what it can do, it will achieve mileage better than most in the same category.
My wife's foot is a bit heavier than mine and she will generally average 2-5 miles per gallon less than I do.
The pressures you apply to the throttle and brake, air pressure in the tires, the type of terrain, the type of fuel, type of trips, A/C on or off, windows open or closed, how you check your mileage, when you fill up, and how you fill up will all contribute to your mileage numbers.
Recently we were going to take a road trip of about 200 miles total. The morning we left she had driven about 20 miles since she had filled it up. I wanted to top the tank off to get an accurate MPG reading for the trip.
It took 2.2 gallons to top it off. Therefore we could say that it took 2.2 gallons for her to drive that 20 miles. So she got 8.6 miles per gallon for that "TANK".
(Obviously I pack a bit more into a tank than she does.)
When the trip ended we refilled at the same pump, facing the same direction and the outside temperature was about the same. It took 7.1 gallons to drive the 219 miles. That is approaching 31 mpg for a 4 speed auto with 4wd.
When we take that trip again, the yield may be 1-2 mpg more or 3-4 mpg less under similar conditions.
Don't dismiss anything you read of these nearly 200 posts, until you give them your full consideration. Also remember that averages are the result of extremes.
We are in Florida, where the terrain is totally flat, and the CR-V spends most of its time on "light" highway roads, meaning 45-55 MPH speed limits. The AC is being used of course, and I know that will dip the MPG. There is no ethanol in the gas in our area.
We will drive until the gas gauge is on "E" and then fill up. I take the number of miles we drove on that tank and divide it by the number of gallons it took to fill up. That's where I came up with the 20 MPG. For example, we filled up at 245 miles, and it took 12 gallons.
Based on our usage and the other conditions, I had been expecting to get 25-26 MPG, which is why at 20 I am not very pleased.
After driving (accelerating) conservatively and getting 26 and 24 MPG in city driving, I spent a tankful of gas driving like an idiot. Hard acceleration, running the gas all the way up to the stop light, etc.
Today's fillup netted me 23 MPG. I ended up using 1/3rd of a gallon of gas more. (231.4 miles divided by 9,956 gallons.)
I'm back to driving conservatively. It's a pleasant habit. For the next fullup, I'll use the Exxon station whose gas got me the 26 MPG (if not Exxon, something got me the 26 MPG).
I love putting on the miles to run my experiment in saving gasoline. Fun!
The results of your experiment do not suggest that rough driving is a major cause of someone getting poor gas mileage, which is contrary to popular belief. In your case it only costed you 1/3 of gallon per tank. Which is a small fraction.
Sorry, but it is a bit hard to understand or believe how you can drive conservatively on one tank and then do everything possible to get poor mileage on the next, with a result of 1/3 gallon difference over 231 miles.
One explanation could be the way you filled the tank each time.
I have a 2005 FWD LX that I bought in May of '05. City mileage is not going to be good 20-21. You can expect your HWY mileage to improve, though not dramatically. I am averaging about 25 to 26 overall on the highway. But it really depends on the highway. In the upstate of SC where I live, there is not much flat highway, hills everywhere. I always run the A/C. So mileage is not as good. However, we are a family of road warriors and have taken the CRV on some great road trips this year. Up to Maine and then down to Texas. I have only had a handful of tanks that gave the 29 MPG HWY the EPA promised. But a milestone occurred when I finally hit 30 MPG driving through Louisiana and Texas at about 75 MPH w/A/C and where it is pancake flat. On the HWY A/C has not affected mileage much - I have taken summer and winter trips and checked the mileage both ways. Bottom line, if you have a nice flat stretch of highway and keep a consistent speed, you can milk 28-30 MPG at 65-75 MPH. But overall I am so happy with the versatility, reliability and performance of the CRV that I can overlook its MPG shortcomings. Also the CRV sits up nice and high so you do get some aerodymanic drag and this will adversely your MPG. Bottom line its a little truck and not a civic on stilts.
I'm surprised, too. I was lucky that the last three fillups were driven off in the same 10-mile radius, with no highway or interstate travel. I used the same pump for each fillup, allowing it to shut off automatically. That's as empiracle as I can get with my current equipment and level of experience.
Maybe I'm not acclerating as fast as possible. I'm letting the RPMs get up between 3500 and 4000 for my more aggressive driving. In conservative mode, I'm around 2000 to 2500 RPMs.
I'm likely to end the experiments soon and just be happy with the 24-26 MPG city mileage, and peace and quiet of a leisurely acceleration.
On the HWY A/C has not affected mileage much - I have taken summer and winter trips and checked the mileage both ways.
Based on the reports of compressors failing maybe it's not working .
But a milestone occurred when I finally hit 30 MPG driving through Louisiana and Texas at about 75 MPH
Recently read that for every 10 mph you drive over 55 it's like adding 10 cents/gal to the cost of gas. People compain about gas prices but they don't seem to have a problem with excessively burning it. I know in many places the limit is over 55, one state just raised it to 75. Our government in action. No wonder we're slaves to the oil companies.
"People compain about gas prices but they don't seem to have a problem with excessively burning it. I know in many places the limit is over 55, one state just raised it to 75."
People complain about gas prices but they don't seem to have a problem with excessively burning it.
There ya go! You hit the nail on the head!!!
Problem is that if we actually try driving at say 55 MPH we can become a traffic hazard. Even staying in the RH lane on X-ways we take the chance of being run over by an 18 wheeler or rear ended by a school bus!
Drafting at a safe distance behind 18 wheelers, busses, and motor homes can save a bit of fuel. Motor homes seem to work best as they often use cruise control and will maintain a more constant speed. Also a less chance of their tires throwing stuff at your car or a tire coming to pieces.
The State Patrols as well as local Police need to start enforcing the speed limits. Posted speed limit signs should mean that posted number is the upper limit.
Make the roads safer for those of us that are trying to burn less fuel! Let those that wish to burn the extra fuel pay for it in more ways than one!
Ours has about 5500 miles on it - still on the original oil. City (or suburbs is more like it) we're getting about 24. Highway - best yet has been 28. I think my EPA ratings are 21/26.
That's consistent with my experience I can usually beat the EPA numbers by a little bit. So I'm hoping our new civic (can I mention another car here?) will get over 40. I'm thinking if its rated 30/38 I should be able to to 35/42. We'll see the darn thing is taking a long time to arrive.
While all cars are different, I've got to believe it's the way people drive. I wish all cars came with instantaneous mpg gauges. I drove an acura with one and it REALLY trains you to save gas if you are so inclined.
I just filled gas tank of my 2 weeks old 2006 LX 2WD Auto. On my very first tank (11.6 g) I got around 300 miles, which is around 25.5 mpg. I mainly drove it on busy state hwys and county roads with 5-6 red lights.
"Montana has speed limits now. That "reasonable" speed limit didn't last long."
I don't drive up there and hadn't heard. People who suggest lower speed limits probably don't drive in the Southwest. I drove from Albuquerque to LA at 60 miles per hour - 15 hours. I have also driven tje same route at current speed limits (either 70 or 75 MPH) - 11 hours.
That is a lot of extra time with the kids in the back seat.
I got 26 MPG at 80 MPH on my 2003 CR-V EX (on the way to Albuquerque).
I got over 31 once, when all my driving was on secondary roads at about 60 MPH, and also at high altitude (above 4000 feet). I found that my CR-V always gave better MPG at high altitude in my experience.
Montana dropped reasonable and prudent in 1974 or so, and then brought it back in 1995. Some guy cruising 85 mph in a Camaro was busted for speeding and he fought the ticket. The court said the reasonable and prudent law was too vague so they threw it out in 1998.
One group has claimed that Montana highway fatality rates were lower when they didn't have posted speed limits. (link)
I didn't see a study about mpg usage before and after the recent R&P experiment. :shades:
Comments
Average of 21 MPG.
blueiedgod, can you expand more on this statement? When you say high RPMs, how high?
thx.
I realize that modern engines don't care to be lugged at low RPM. However I was under the impression that the folks that engineer the automatic transmissions take that into consideration.
Consider the fact that the car idles at near 1000 RPM. The tranny starts "PULLING" at just slightly above that.
My question is: If HIGH RPM is necessary, why doesn't the tranny wait until say 2000 RPM to start pulling, and "Driving" speeds be much higher RPM than they are?
I will occasionally floor our CR-V in 2nd and let it run up and shift on it's own. My reason for that is to encourage the rods to stretch and keep from getting a wear ring at the top of the cylinder. Other than that I can't think of a good reason to red line and engine except in an emergency situation.
However, I'm willing to learn.
Thanks,
Kip
thx.
Honda engines are designed to produce most of the rated power in the high RPM range, above 5000 RPM and probably 500 RPM bellow the red line.
The air to fuel ratio changes from normal to rather lean as the engine goes through the stages of VTEC and VTC (i-VTEC=VTEC+VTC). So, by having your engine running rich more of the time you are more likeley end up with deposits.
Automatic in a Honda is an afterthought to please the masses. Honda engines are primarily tuned to be run with manual transmissions.
That is a ridiculous statement. You really think Honda considers 92% of the car buying population in this market an "afterthought"? If that was the case they'd still have 3 speed auto transmissions.
There are drivers, and there are drones...
Honda does not offer automatic on its exciting car line up because they know that first, auto will kill the excitement, and two, people who prefer automatics don't really care about vehicle dynamics. They may say they do, but in reality they just want to put it in drive, stomp on the gas and jerk the steering wheel left and right.
If you open your horizons, you would realize that majority of the world drives manuals. Assume that everyone drives, out of 4,000,000,000 a country with 250,000,000 is only 6.25%. A 92% of that is 5.75% if everyone drove. Since not everyone drives, the pool is much smaller, but the ratio remains the same.
There are about 500,000,000 cars worldwide and about 25% of those are in the U.S. (reference)
tidester, host
Some time ago there was an entry on a Saab 9-5 thread from a driver who took the advice that the Saab 4-banger thrived at red line and said he made it a point to wind 'er up all the time and leave it in a lower gear rather than shift up. As I remember, he complained that after a short period of this kind of operation his engine was shot. He was surprised by this.
My manual 9-5 has an annoying "shift now" light on the cluster that comes on just beyond the point the engine would lug, about 4,000 rpm below redline. My normal shift point is only a couple beats above the "shift now" point, but, after seven years and with 120K on the odometer, I've never had a problem with sludge or carboning up. Yes, I wind it up in third getting on the highway, and it likes to do this.
I can understand the need to give any engine an occasional chance to stretch its legs, but I just doubt that there's a need to operate continuously (frequently?) (often?) at high rpm.
It's a Comfy Runabout Vehicle, not an F1 rocket.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever even seen a CR-V being driven at high rpms, though puh-lenty of their stable mates go howling by with their Chock Full O' Nuts exhaust tips. It's hard to believe that the howlers are going to wind up with higher odometer readings than the CR-Vs.
Just my observation FWIW...
In my early driving years automatics were often 2 speed or 3 speed with the occasional GM 4 speed. Buick and Packard even sported single speed autos.
They did not perform well and got terrible mileage. But the autos got better and better over the years.
Chrysler introduced a 3 speed auto that used "Push Button" shifting. The local drag strip heroes began to put those Chrysler trannies behind all types of engines and improved their quarter mile times.
Then along came locking torque convertors and overdrive autos.
I think that today manual shifts are mostly sold to driving enthusiast who like to "Heel and Toe" and to those that just can't believe that automatics "ARRIVED".
At our house we try to combine trips so as to not start up the car from cold just to go get a gallon of milk. Kind of make a circle and do whatever needs to be done in one trip, instead of several.
I have noticed that with my very conservative driving the CR-V will begin to "SURGE" a little when lightly accelerating, after a long period of "PUTTING" around.
The cure seems to be to step down and let it wind tight until the tranny shifts at near red line. In days of yore that would have indicated that a spark plug was beginning to foul from carbon build up or just getting tired.. Don't know what it means today.
Good quality synthetic or synthetic blended oils along with unleaded gas is supposed to have pretty much eliminated carbon build up.
I am a firm believer that everything that moves or is moved upon has a "LIFE". The engine is going to turn a certain number of rpm before wear gets to a point of being a problem. So, it makes sense to this OLD MIND that with 2 equal engines and everything else being equal, the one that turns the most RPM to accomplish the same job is going to wear out first!
Manual shifts are more fun to drive (except in heavy traffic).. However, real world driving indicates that today's auto trannys will yield equal or better mileage in most cases. The auto just tries to keep the engine where it needs to be.
:
Kip
There are about 500,000,000 cars worldwide and about 25% of those are in the U.S. (reference)
tidester, host
Still significantly less than 92% figure I was riduculed with.
All I said is to take her to red line once in a while. I never said to red line her every time, did I? That would just burn a hole in anyone's pocket. But, some people are just deathly affraid to go past that magical 3000 RPM that has been hammered into their heads by the domestics.
That is because the auto is keeping the engine at or about 2000 RPM, which is the VTEC change over point from 12 valve to 16 valves. The 16 valve mode is "perfomance" mode, and thus you get the surge.
I am a firm believer that everything that moves or is moved upon has a "LIFE". The engine is going to turn a certain number of rpm before wear gets to a point of being a problem. So, it makes sense to this OLD MIND that with 2 equal engines and everything else being equal, the one that turns the most RPM to accomplish the same job is going to wear out first!
Honda has a long history of high revving engines that are over engineered. Many of the Hondas at junk yards are there because of other problems (body, automatic tranny, suspension, electronics...) almost rarely you see an engine problem with a Honda. That is what Honda does, they build engines, they build darn good engines.
That is their primary business, making engines, be it small lawnmower/snowblower, generator, powerwasher, engines or F1 or Jet engines, they build them. To expand their sales in engines they started making cars...
Good quality synthetic or synthetic blended oils along with unleaded gas is supposed to have pretty much eliminated carbon build up.
You get cabon build up from the unburned fuel.
I'm not sure how the VTEC change takes place. Some say the cam shafts actually shift to put the valves on a different lobe. Others say it is simply the type of hydraulic lifter that is used. At lower RPM it opens the valves a certain amount and at higher RPM the higher oil pressure causes the lifters to become much stiffer and open the valves more. Now you are saying that an extra valve comes into play at 2000 RPM and above? That is news to me, but as earlier stated I want to learn. Where did you get your info?
On both our CR-V and Pilot the VETC Kicking in with that "Growl" is more like above 4000 RPM with the pedal to the metal. In days of yore we called that sensation "Hitting the Cam", Or with 2 Strokes, "Coming up on the pipe".
The surge I was speaking of earlier is more like the engine is beginning to miss from something fouling or an extremely lean mixture.
Honda has a long history of high revving engines that are over engineered.
No argument there. However I still believe that everything that moves has a certain lifespan. The less it is required to move to perform a task, the longer it will last. Everything else being equal, oil changes, oil, fuel etc., the engine that turns the least rpm to perform that task will last longer. That is why we have transmissions with things that require great changes in operation speed.
That being said, I feel that an engine that is constantly stressed or "LUGGED" will probably not last as long as one that is slightly "Over-revved". With cars, trucks, motorcycles and such, lugging and/or over-revving will usually happen with manual shifts. :sick:
You get carbon build up from the unburned fuel.
True, but most or all of that is in the exhaust system behind the catalytic converter. Very little to none within the modern engine using synthetic oils and unleaded gas.
Many moons ago, in my racing days, I told a friend there was no way in the world that the new oil that comes from plants (Synthetic) can lubricate as well as petroleum. He proved me wrong!
Not only did the synthetic lubricate very well (less wear on rings, and bearings), it stayed clean and virtually eliminated carbon build up on top of the pistons. He further demonstrated the virtues of synthetics by getting an old frying pan red hot and putting a few drops of synthetic and a few drops of petroleum oils on the hot surface. The synthetic virtually smoked away while the petroleum did the same but with a much darker smoke, and it left a residue. Chances are good that modern petroleum oils have additives to help eliminate carbon. I just stick with what I know works.
Kip
On both our CR-V and Pilot the VETC Kicking in with that "Growl" is more like above 4000 RPM with the pedal to the metal. In days of yore we called that sensation "Hitting the Cam", Or with 2 Strokes, "Coming up on the pipe".
The surge I was speaking of earlier is more like the engine is beginning to miss from something fouling or an extremely lean mixture
The VTEC is indeed actuated by a hydraulic system the is pressurized by the engine oil and it is operated by engine oil, but it is controlled by the computer, not just mechanical oil pressure actuation. This why sticking with light weight oils is essential for VTEC solenoid operation. Some, using the old habits, put 40+ weight oils in the cars thinking that it is good, only to find that VTEC solenoid fails pretty soon.
The camshaft has extra lobes, depending on the model it may have 3 lobes (12V, 16V, high RPM 16V), which are activated at pre determined RPMs.
In the old days of VTEC, the activation was at 5000 RPM, but with the i-VTEC on the CR-V it is closer to the old VTEC-e from the 1991 Civic VX with an addition of continuosly variable timing control (VTC). The engine runs in 12 valve mode from idle to 2250 in lean air to fuel ratio, then switches over to 16 mode with enrichment in air to fuel ratio. The 12 valve design (1972) allows for more stratified fuel charge and more air that stoichemically required. The offset valving creates the swirl in the combustion chamber. This is what folks selling Tornado device are trying to achieve.
The more perfomance oriented K-series engines, such as the ones in Acura TSX and Civic Type R, have another lobe that is activated at around 4500-5000 RPM, and changes the duration and lift to accomodate high RPM performance, similar to the original VTEC from 1991 Acura NSX. Plus it adds VTEC operation on the exhaust valves as well. While the rest only use VTEC on the intake.
It is confusing because both the Accord/Element/CR-V/Civic have iVTEC and the TSX/CTR have iVTEC, but those two are very different.
I posted all this info with pictures from Honda press pack on the "other site but I can't link it. So, if you happen to stumble upon a website dedicated to HondaSUV search for iVTEC operation.
Set up your own carspace right here and you'll have a home for all your pictures, info and comments.
tidester, host
Maybe to much info.!
Am I understanding correctly that on the '03 CR-V the cam shaft actually shifts position laterally to enable it to engage and operate another (4th) valve? This shifting is physically done by engine oil pressure created by higher engine rpm. However this is contingent on input from the computer which operates electric solenoids which uncover orifices? Oil pressure thru the orifices force the cam to shift positions? With a drop in oil pressure or the orifices closing, the cam , under some type of tension, will shift back to its rest position?
Is that close or am I off in another world with this?
Do the lifters get stiffer/weaker, depending on oil pressure, and open the valves more or less during all the above?
Thanks,
Kip
Maybe to much info.!
Am I understanding correctly that on the '03 CR-V the cam shaft actually shifts position laterally to enable it to engage and operate another (4th) valve? This shifting is physically done by engine oil pressure created by higher engine rpm. However this is contingent on input from the computer which operates electric solenoids which uncover orifices? Oil pressure thru the orifices force the cam to shift positions? With a drop in oil pressure or the orifices closing, the cam , under some type of tension, will shift back to its rest position?
Is that close or am I off in another world with this?
Do the lifters get stiffer/weaker, depending on oil pressure, and open the valves more or less during all the above?
Thanks,
Kip
Oil pressure is only used to activate the cam, the control is through the valve on the oil line (VTEC Actuator). The drop in pressure is minimal. However, the first symptom of low oil condition is "limp mode" when VTEC is not activated at all and car runs in 12 valve mode until more oil is added.
When the RPM's drop, the pressure is released and the cam is moved back.
Lifters are not involved in the VTEC operation, only the camshaft.
The lift and duration change is achieved with, yet another lobe on the cam.
VTEC is pure genious. Some have tried and were not able to make it work reliably until Honda got their hands on it. Now everyone and their mother has a variation of VTEC, whether it is VANOS, VVTLi, or what not, it is still a copy of VTEC that Honda developed back in the late 80's and put in production in 1991.
With VTEC you are able to have a motor that is equally comfortable at low RPMs as it is at high RPMs. And with iVTEC it added that needed torque that early VTEC engines were lacking at low RPMs.
So another question.
What is that "GROWL" and apparent jump in power that kicks in from the engine compartment at higher RPM , somewhere around 4000 RPM, when the pedal is on or near the floor?? It happens on both our CR-V and the Pilot. This is an RPM considerably higher than the 2250 you described. (I think)
When the RPM is near the red line and the tranny shifts the GROWL goes away momentarily even though the pedal is still on the floor. Power seems to have dropped off. The GROWL and power surge reappear within a couple of seconds when RPM again rise above that 4K or whatever.
For clarification: When this "Shift under full POWER" takes place the RPM naturally drops and in the next gear there is still some acceleration but a few moments before the Growl and strong acceleration kick in again. The RPM did not drop anywhere near the 2250 area. What is that all about?
I don't believe it is a problem with our cars because both do it as well as the Hondas we test drove before buying ours!
Thanks,
Kip.
A little dramatic don't you think?
In the US the percentage of manual transmission buyers is in the single digits. You may think of the vast majority of the car buying public in the US as "drones" but that's whose driving on the roads (I'm sure that even includes some of your family members).
I was really speaking about the fact that Honda's ATs are not just thrown together as an "afterthought". They engineer them as well as any other part of the vehicle. Many times the AT gets better mileage than the manual and the performance is certainly on par. Unless of course you're racing. Which most Honda drivers aren't doing.
I reckon my brain is still stuck inside a carburetor.
You are describing the fuel requirements of the modern fuel injected engine as opposite that of carburated ones.
It is just hard for me to understand that todays engines run richer at lower rpm which would include most highway and secondary roads, as cruising would generally be 2500 RPM or less.
Even harder to understand that as more power is required and Higher RPM needed to make that power, the fuel mixture is leaned out! :confuse:
Thanks,
Kip
The growl is probably form the VTC making adjustments on the fly. As far as I know the VTEC in CR-V has no high RPM lobes, like TSX does.
I learned from running nitromethanol powered Radio controlled models that leaner mixture at high RPM's give you better throttle response and more power.
Honda engines run leaner than other cars, but the charge is stratified.
I am not a Honda engineer and can not explain it. Maybe someone who works for Honda can.
By just doing slow acceleration, I got 26.41 MPG using Exxon gas and 24.19 MPG using grocery store gas from Krogers. I run with AC on all of the time. Tire pressure...well, I haven't checked lately but I don't keep the tires inflated above the PSI recommended by Honda.
The only difficulty I've encountered is that my city's lights seemed timed to stop a car that's been travelling the speed limit. But that may be a subjective bias on my part.
I wonder how much gasoline could be saved in this country if traffic signals were synchronized a bit better. Many municipalities claim they do it but I've never experienced a system that works very well. Where I drive my mantra is "red light to red light".
When there is little or no traffic, the light I'm starting from turns green and near half way to the next, that one turns green and so forth. Clear sailing!
The problem occurs when there is the usual medium to heavy traffic. When I get to that half way point there may be cars still sitting there waiting for their green. From that point on it is all down hill.
During rush hour the lights do stay green a bit longer. Also the next light turns green about the same time or even earlier than mine to allow those cars to move before I get there. Problem is that it turns red again about the time I arrive. :sick:
Then there is the problem of major roads crossing that one. They have to keep moving also.
I really believe that the traffic circles, as in Europe, may be a better way. But that is something that has to be "PLANNED" and built ahead of time, before buildings are erected. Some forward thinking rural towns with the typical courthouse square have gone with the "Traffic Circle" idea by making the streets around the court house one way. As traffic is moving either clockwise or counter clockwise the cars in the outside lane can exit at "APPROVED streets that won't interfere with the flow. This allows thru traffic to keep moving and those wishing to make left or right turns to do it somewhere else instead of where the heavy traffic is converging.:shades:
Kip
They say it works very well. I've read that since there are so many manual transmissions in the UK that the roads are set up more for yields and rolling stops than we are in North American and that also benefits their mpg.
Steve, Host
Being as they drive in the left lane I can understand the clockwise circle. What I don't understand is the counter clockwise inner circle.
It appears that after crossing traffic you would be
"STUCK" in the middle, and the only way out would be to join the clockwise crowd that you had just crossed. :sick:
Wasn't there a song a few years back with the words "Stuck in the Middle with you" ?
Wonder if it was written while sitting in that thing!!
Kip
270 miles
12.8 gallons
21 MPG
I suppose that isn't bad, but I hope it does improve somewhat.
We've got about 850 miles on our new 2006 CR-V (2WD, auto). The EPA-estimated MPG for this model is 23/29.
So far we've been getting 20 MPG, mostly light highway miles. Disappointed by this, I spoke with the service manager at the local Honda dealer, who said that until the CR-V has about 7000 miles, we can expect sub-par mileage.
I could believe that a small dip in mileage could be expected from a brand new engine, but this is a significant difference -- we're only getting 69% of the advertised mileage. That's not acceptable.
I'd like to find out from you if this has been your experience -- that the MPG improves significantly after several thousand miles. And is it reasonable to expect that at some point we should be averaging the 29 MPG highway?
Thanks,
Derek
Firstly, the EPA numbers are the government's numbers, not Honda's. There are very strict testing procedures to arrive at those estimates, so you have to keep that in mind.
That being said, yes, your mileage should go up after the break-in period. Also, other factors are included, such as the terrain in your area and whether or not you have ethanol in your gas. Here in Minnesota ethanol is required to be in our gasoline by law, and we suffer a mileage penalty because of it. Summer and winter blends will change your mileage as well.
Right now, we are getting about 25 MPG with our 2005 CR-V (SE, 4WD) with 11000 miles on the highway between 60-70 MPH, and the EPA estimate is 27 MPG, just for reference.
This entire thread is about the CR-V and mileage.
As you are waiting for replies to your posts, you can benefit by reading the existing posts.
All kinds of tips on what to expect, as well as things you can do to get your best mileage.
Keep in mind that the CR-V is not an economy car. It is a utility vehicle that can carry a goodly amount of stuff and sit the occupants high enough to be able to see over economy cars. It weighs more than the average car of today and the shape is not conducive to achieving great mileage, especially on the highway where wind resistance rears it's ugly head. Considering it's shape and what it can do, it will achieve mileage better than most in the same category.
My wife's foot is a bit heavier than mine and she will generally average 2-5 miles per gallon less than I do.
The pressures you apply to the throttle and brake, air pressure in the tires, the type of terrain, the type of fuel, type of trips, A/C on or off, windows open or closed, how you check your mileage, when you fill up, and how you fill up will all contribute to your mileage numbers.
Recently we were going to take a road trip of about 200 miles total. The morning we left she had driven about 20 miles since she had filled it up. I wanted to top the tank off to get an accurate MPG reading for the trip.
It took 2.2 gallons to top it off. Therefore we could say that it took 2.2 gallons for her to drive that 20 miles. So she got 8.6 miles per gallon for that "TANK".
(Obviously I pack a bit more into a tank than she does.)
When the trip ended we refilled at the same pump, facing the same direction and the outside temperature was about the same. It took 7.1 gallons to drive the 219 miles.
That is approaching 31 mpg for a 4 speed auto with 4wd.
When we take that trip again, the yield may be 1-2 mpg more or 3-4 mpg less under similar conditions.
Don't dismiss anything you read of these nearly 200 posts, until you give them your full consideration. Also remember that averages are the result of extremes.
Kip
We will drive until the gas gauge is on "E" and then fill up. I take the number of miles we drove on that tank and divide it by the number of gallons it took to fill up. That's where I came up with the 20 MPG. For example, we filled up at 245 miles, and it took 12 gallons.
Based on our usage and the other conditions, I had been expecting to get 25-26 MPG, which is why at 20 I am not very pleased.
Today's fillup netted me 23 MPG. I ended up using 1/3rd of a gallon of gas more. (231.4 miles divided by 9,956 gallons.)
I'm back to driving conservatively. It's a pleasant habit. For the next fullup, I'll use the Exxon station whose gas got me the 26 MPG (if not Exxon, something got me the 26 MPG).
I love putting on the miles to run my experiment in saving gasoline. Fun!
One explanation could be the way you filled the tank each time.
Another could be... well you get the picture!
However, we are a family of road warriors and have taken the CRV on some great road trips this year. Up to Maine and then down to Texas. I have only had a handful of tanks that gave the 29 MPG HWY the EPA promised. But a milestone occurred when I finally hit 30 MPG driving through Louisiana and Texas at about 75 MPH w/A/C and where it is pancake flat. On the HWY A/C has not affected mileage much - I have taken summer and winter trips and checked the mileage both ways.
Bottom line, if you have a nice flat stretch of highway and keep a consistent speed, you can milk 28-30 MPG at 65-75 MPH.
But overall I am so happy with the versatility, reliability and performance of the CRV that I can overlook its MPG shortcomings. Also the CRV sits up nice and high so you do get some aerodymanic drag and this will adversely your MPG. Bottom line its a little truck and not a civic on stilts.
Maybe I'm not acclerating as fast as possible. I'm letting the RPMs get up between 3500 and 4000 for my more aggressive driving. In conservative mode, I'm around 2000 to 2500 RPMs.
I'm likely to end the experiments soon and just be happy with the 24-26 MPG city mileage, and peace and quiet of a leisurely acceleration.
Based on the reports of compressors failing maybe it's not working
But a milestone occurred when I finally hit 30 MPG driving through Louisiana and Texas at about 75 MPH
Recently read that for every 10 mph you drive over 55 it's like adding 10 cents/gal to the cost of gas. People compain about gas prices but they don't seem to have a problem with excessively burning it. I know in many places the limit is over 55, one state just raised it to 75. Our government in action. No wonder we're slaves to the oil companies.
Or try Montana, no speed limits at all.
There ya go! You hit the nail on the head!!!
Problem is that if we actually try driving at say 55 MPH we can become a traffic hazard. Even staying in the RH lane on X-ways we take the chance of being run over by an 18 wheeler or rear ended by a school bus!
Drafting at a safe distance behind 18 wheelers, busses, and motor homes can save a bit of fuel. Motor homes seem to work best as they often use cruise control and will maintain a more constant speed. Also a less chance of their tires throwing stuff at your car or a tire coming to pieces.
The State Patrols as well as local Police need to start enforcing the speed limits. Posted speed limit signs should mean that posted number is the upper limit.
Make the roads safer for those of us that are trying to burn less fuel! Let those that wish to burn the extra fuel pay for it in more ways than one!
Kip
There may not be a safe distance in the free-ride zone!
tidester, host
That's consistent with my experience I can usually beat the EPA numbers by a little bit. So I'm hoping our new civic (can I mention another car here?) will get over 40. I'm thinking if its rated 30/38 I should be able to to 35/42. We'll see the darn thing is taking a long time to arrive.
While all cars are different, I've got to believe it's the way people drive. I wish all cars came with instantaneous mpg gauges. I drove an acura with one and it REALLY trains you to save gas if you are so inclined.
Mark
I just filled gas tank of my 2 weeks old 2006 LX 2WD Auto. On my very first tank (11.6 g) I got around 300 miles, which is around 25.5 mpg. I mainly drove it on busy state hwys and county roads with 5-6 red lights.
M
I don't drive up there and hadn't heard. People who suggest lower speed limits probably don't drive in the Southwest. I drove from Albuquerque to LA at 60 miles per hour - 15 hours. I have also driven tje same route at current speed limits (either 70 or 75 MPH) - 11 hours.
That is a lot of extra time with the kids in the back seat.
I got 26 MPG at 80 MPH on my 2003 CR-V EX (on the way to Albuquerque).
I got over 31 once, when all my driving was on secondary roads at about 60 MPH, and also at high altitude (above 4000 feet). I found that my CR-V always gave better MPG at high altitude in my experience.
One group has claimed that Montana highway fatality rates were lower when they didn't have posted speed limits. (link)
I didn't see a study about mpg usage before and after the recent R&P experiment. :shades:
Steve, Host