All other things being equal, his 2WD Pilot will get substantially better gas mileage than our 4WD Pilots. His Pilot is not only lighter without the 4WD system, but his Pilot also has a technology which makes it even more fuel efficient than ours on the highway (by shutting off 3 of the 6 cylinders when cruising).
His reported mpg of 19/20 mixed and 26.5 pure highway therefore strikes me as being good but nothing so out of the ordinary. When those same kind of numbers are reported for a 4WD Pilot, now that's remarkable. We envy you.
Eventual resale can be a consideration. In parts of the country having real winters it would be quite a challenge to sell a 2WD SUV.
I was toying with the idea of getting 2WD for better gas mileage, but decided against it after evaluating AHFC's leasing program for the Pilot at the time. What I found is that residual percentages were set higher for the 4WD models. The difference on the lease was such that 4WD was essentially a no-cost option. So I took it (since I could occassionally make use of 4WD where I live), and yes I'm paying more at the pump ALL YEAR ROUND for that decision.
But if you are buying and not leasing, it seems to me that 4WD is both a pay more now (higher MSRP) and pay more later (at the pump) situation. 4WD is a costly feature over the life of the vehicle as compared to the 2WD version of the same vehicle.
Totally agree. Fortunately, where I live only sees snow for less than 2 weeks anually so 2WD is justifiable. However, if you would like to have higher residual value especially in upper part of the states, you would consider 4WD instead. The higher cost paid at the pump most likely will be reimbursed at the time of resale.
I believe his 19/20 mixed and 26.5 pure highway is pretty good compared to what most are reporting and the mode he was driving.
That 26.5 mpg at 70-75 with the Cruise set and in hilly country is very good in my opinion. Cruise can and will burn more fuel in hilly terrain than using the throttle to the best advantage by the driver. That 70-75 mph burns extra fuel also.
Remember I reported a 10+/- MPG difference on a trip to Myrtle Beach, same load in both directions. Somewhere around 18 MPG going over at 80+ mph with the cruise set the whole time and AC running constantly. Somewhere around 28 coming back with the same load. Biggest difference is the return trip was a much more relaxed 60-70 mph. Did not use the cruise in hilly areas and only used the AC when necessary.
If people would break down and actually make sure the vehicle is up to date on TSB, the ILP has actually been done, proper air pressure in the tires, and be willing to make a game out of "HOW GOOD CAN THE MILEAGE BE", they would be amazed.
I agree with you, that 2wd with the technology to shut off 3 cylinders when cruising is capable of better mileage than my '03 4wd. With that 2wd I would strive for 30 and not be real surprised at 1 or 2 more. Our new friend (above) appeared to be doing nothing to accomplish great mileage. That is why I'm impressed with what he reported.
Most people simply don't have the patience or the "will" to really try to get the best mileage possible. They want to get in the car, drive it like they want to,"Feel the Power" and expect great mileage. It just doesn't work that way! It doesn't bother me at all to be running 5-15 mph slower than the rest on the express way. I stay in the RH lane and if/when I catch up to somebody I pass them. It is a game for me to get the best mileage I can while pretty much staying with most traffic and not being a danger or frustration to others.
I could probably get another mile or two per gallon if I ran at say 50-60 but I think that would be dangerous on expressways ar anywhere folks are running 70+.
I realize that "We envy you" was probably tongue in cheek. Just keep in mind that doing the mileage thing is what I truly enjoy doing. I have been doing it a long time and do it fairly well. The most frustrating part is sharing and telling folks how it is done and they seem to think I'm nuts or lying. :sick:
Meanwhile I get considerably better mileage and am having a great time doing it!
As far as I'm concerned 4wd is another form of insurance. I have it and hope I don't need it. Although it has been used on more than 1 occasion.
Even here in the Atlanta area a used 4wd will bring enough more than a 2wd to cover the cost of it new. The 2+/- mpg is not going to make a difference of whether or not we eat. I figure it cost us about $125 a year or about $2.40 a week, if there really is a 2 mpg difference.
I pretty much followed what Kip said except my speed was set higher. I also make sure the tire pressure is slightly higher than that factory recommends(32psi front and rear). I run with 36psi at the front (to compensate weight of the car and balance the handling) and 34 at the rear. You would be suprised what a slightly overinflated tire pressure can do.
However, I must raise the issue of whether your mpg is "real world mpg" given the extremes you go to in order to achieve your higher mpg.
I just drive the Pilot and get whatever mpg I get, which I believe is what most folks do. Seems that's more "real world." I do check and adjust the tire pressure periodically, but only becuase that's a safety issue. I wish I got better mpg, but it's not that big a deal that I would be willing to alter my driving style (become a right lane driver, etc.) in order to maximize mpg.
4WD is the reason I got Pilot. If gas mileage is the overriding concern, then I would get a minivan; more room, more aerodynamic and lighter (and hence better gas mileage).
I agree with Minivan being more efficient space and aerodynamic wise except it is not necessarily lighter. The weight of Honda odyssey EX-L is about 200 pounds more than that of Pilot EX-L 2WD.
You are right. But that's probably because Odyssey is also 13" longer than Pilot. Take a minivan that is comparable to Pilot's length (Chrysler's short hull version, for instance), it will be lighter.
Regardless, Odysseys still delivers better EPA estimates (19/26) than 2WD Pilot (18/24).
It happens that my 2007 Pilot EXL 4WD replaced a 2004 Odyssey EXL-RES. My own personal experience is that the Odyssey is only marginally more fuel efficient than the Pilot. Not nearly enough so to be a major factor in a purchasing/leasing decision.
So is the mileage difference between Pilot 2WD and 4WD.i>
Absolutely, which is why it is important for contributors to this forum to tell us which Pilot they have, 2WD or 4WD. Also, I think there is an important distinction to be made between 2WD Pilots. My understanding is that only some of them (higher trim levels) have the technology which uses only 3 cylinders while cruising on the highway.
I don't know why, but Honda's SUV/minivan seems to be heavier than others. Pilot is more than 100 lbs heavier than 4Runer while Odyssey is more than 200 lbs heavier than Sienna.
The mileage you get is real world for you, and the mileage I get is real world for me!
If gas mileage didn't really matter we would not be having these conversations. People would simply post their mileage and that would be the end if it.
You hit the nail on the head when you wrote: "I wish I got better mpg, but it's not that big a deal that I would be willing to alter my driving style, become a right lane driver, etc.) in order to maximize mpg."
That is the major difference in you and me.
Truth be known, most people probably think the way you do! However there are some that would actually like to get better mileage. If I can help, I'm a happy camper!
Then maybe aside from having categories for (1) 4WD, (2) 2WD, and (3) 2WD with VCM technology, we ought to breakdown each of the 3 categories into two subcategories. One subcategory would be for people like you who go out of their way to maximize their mpg. The other subcategory would be for people like me who just drive the vehicle without any special regard for mpg.
If we could break it down on this forum as specifically as that, we'd all have more useful information and have a better sense of how our respective Pilot's mpg compares to other people who are the closest fit to our respective situations. But many mpg posts, even my own I am afraid, are not specific enough to be most useful to readers. I will try to be more specific when posting my mpg in the future.
I have no problem with categories. ie, 4wd,2WD etc..
I believe your suggestion for the sub categories could be a good one. Then those categories would need sub categories.
What is meant by city driving, can be different to different folks. Is that highway mileage in the mountains or in relatively flat areas such as Florida and Kansas.
That's why we can only go so far with it. At some point it becomes too complicated, perhaps if we go down the path of making subcategories for variances in what people mean when they use the expressions "highway" and "mixed" and "city." But my feeling is that mpg posters could be more helpful to others by providing more detailed information than is generally provided, especially what kind of Pilot they have, what kind of driving they do, and their driving style. I, for one, will try to more helpful by providing greater detail in my future mpg posts.
Here's another perspective on the 2WD v. 4WD issue.
Aside from my Pilot, I also have an Accord and a BMW 3-Series. The BMW is RWD. AWD is optional, but I did not opt for it because on this type of performance vehicle I did not want the added weight. Due to the weight of 4WD systems, as compared to their FWD or RWD counterparts, these vehicles do not accelerate as quickly, take longer to stop, and of course use more gas. For half the money of the AWD option, I instead invested in a set of winter rims/tires. So equipped this RWD vehicle can be driven confidently in the snow. Amazing the difference snow tires can make. I haven't driven the AWD version of my car to have a basis for comparison, but I do not believe that I could have a more secure feeling in winter driving than I already have with my RWD BMW equipped with snow tires.
Makes me wonder how a FWD Pilot equipped with a good set of snow tires would compare to a 4WD Pilot equipped with the OEM all-season tires. Actually the Pilot's OEM all-season tires are very poorly rated/reviewed for winter driving. Check it out at tirerack.com. It is downright disturbing that Honda chose this particular tire for the Pilot. :mad:
Anyway, my point is that 2WD Pilot owners could have their cake (lower purchase price and better gas mileage all year round) and eat it too (put snow tires on it and it would probably be fine in winter, quite possibly as good as or better than the 4WD Pilot equipped with the OEM all-season tires).
"City" can mean 30-45 minutes for a 3 mile commute to work, or in my case 6-7 miles in 15 minutes. Or in my wifes case, 12 miles in 20 minutes. How much idle time, how many stops? There may be only a couple of traffic lights, but if we have to sit through them several times.....
Is that "Road" portion a more relaxing blacktop back road at 50-60 mph, or is it an aggressive 4-8 lane, where if you are not running at least 80, you may get rear-ended by a loaded school bus? Or a cop will pull you over for obstructing traffic flow!
And the big question! How do you get people to read, understand, and adhere to the rules? :confuse:
"Anyway, my point is that 2WD Pilot owners could have their cake (lower purchase price and better gas mileage all year round) and eat it too (put snow tires on it and it would probably be fine in winter, quite possibly as good as or better than the 4WD Pilot equipped with the OEM all-season tires)".
Possibly so, IF the FWD had a good traction control system.
A recent 200 mile trip, with the cruise set at 60mph and cautious driving, netted me 23.92 mpg. My best highway mpg was 24.9 mpg.
Winter driving reduces this to 15-17 city and 20-22 highway.
I am very, very pleased with the Pilot. It is just a good-working machine and is flawlessly reliable. My first Pilot was driven 100,000 miles in 2.5 years and it never saw a Honda bay. I changed oil and did fluids and brakes outside a Honda dealership and never had one problem. My new 2006 Pilot already has 25,000 and has been as flawless in its reliability and performance.
3 drivers on this Pilot. Most rides in the range of 5 to 10 miles, some highway, some local stop and go. Occassional rides of 100 to 200 miles roundtrip, mostly highway. Typically exceed speed limits by 10 to 25 mpg. Get up to speed quickly.
I have had my Pilot for about 6 weeks now and am averaging a little over 19 MPG in a mix of city and highway miles. However, I just took my first extended trip, 400 miles over the Sierra Nevada mountains and averaged 23.26 MPG. I was very impressed with that. Contrary to what someone stated in an earlier post, all 2wd (atleast 2007 models) come with VCM technology. I have the lowest model 2wd pilot and mine has it.
Contrary to what someone stated in an earlier post, all 2wd (atleast 2007 models) come with VCM technology. I have the lowest model 2wd pilot and mine has it.
I went to Honda's website and confirmed that such is the case for the 2007 models. But if memory serves, I do not think that it was always that way. I believe that there was a time when lower trim levels of the 2WD did not come with VCM technology.
Noway, Pacer2 !!!! 19 MPG mix driving??? If I am very careful, I would get 15 mix driving and I have the same car as you !!! Are you calculating your MPG correctly ?
Yes, VCM is the technology that shuts off 3 cylinders while cruising. I think it is an acronym standing for variable cylinder management, or something like that.
I'd have to research when Honda first introduced it on the Pilot. But I think it was 2006. I recall looking at a brochure for the 2006 (though I ended up waiting for a 2007)and my takeaway was that VCM existed but was only available on higher trim lines of the 2WD model. I think it was included at the EXL level, but not below. I'll try to research it later and report back if I got it wrong.
I recently noted, in this forum, that I received 24.9 mpg on a recent 200+ mile trip. On this trip I was extremely cautious setting the cruise between 55-60mph.
Here is something interesting to note of a trip I took this past weekend. On this 200+ mile trip, I occasionally used the cruise control but set it at 65-70 mph and occasionally exceeded 70 mph. I was not cautious with the throttle as before. Upon calculation of my fuel mileage, I was shocked to see that I still rec'd 23.6 mpg. That is only 1.3 mpg less when I was very cautious on the pedal. It should be noted that there were no factors, that I am aware of, such as weather or terrain because it was the same route and similar weather. It seems that backing off on the throttle didn't make a whole lot of difference.
Dang, I go away for a week and miss all this conversation. It was my understanding that 2007 was the first year for VCM and only on 2WD Pilot models. It was available on the 2005 Odyssey on the top of the line model.
Depending on the amount of elevation change, keeping a constant speed is the most efficient. Something to do with Fig Newtons, "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction."
I researched the 2006 Pilot on edmunds and found the following info, which confirms my recollection that 2006 was the model year that Honda introduced a FWD Pilot with VCM technology. However, my recollection was incorrect about VCM only being available on higher trim levels of the FWD Pilot. I now believe that I am confusing the Pilot with the Odyssey in this regard. The Odyssey was also on my shopping list, though I ended up with a Pilot this time.
What's New for 2006 Changes to the 2006 Honda Pilot SUV include standard side curtain airbags for all three rows and freshened headlight, taillight and wheel designs. A maintenance minder system has also been added to all Pilots. The optional navigation system now has a 7-inch screen and a reverse-parking assist camera. The EX trim level now has standard foglights this year, and EXs with leather seating get standard XM Satellite Radio. Also new this year is a front-wheel-drive Pilot with Honda's fuel-saving Variable Cylinder Management (VCM) feature for its V6 engine. Finally, stated power output for the Pilot's V6 engine has dropped slightly due to Honda's adoption of a new SAE horsepower-rating procedure.
Don't know anything about your trip, the terrain or load.
I do know that the cruise control can cost you mpg on hilly terrain.
Here is why. Say the CC is set at 60 mph. On flat ground the CC works great keeping the speed constant. Very even inputs. However going down a hill the CC backs off the throttle to keep that constant speed. And yes that saves some fuel. As soon as the car levels at the bottom the CC begins to apply throttle again to maintain a set speed.
Now as soon as the car reaches the bottom of one hill it starts up another hill. The CC gives more and more throttle to maintain that speed. The cars computer recognizes the "Strain" and downshifts. Now the car is in 4th gear and turning more RPM to maintain the speed that was once obtainable with very little throttle on flat ground in 5th gear.
On hilly terrain with the CC disconnected , we will burn about the same amount of fuel if we strive to maintain that 60MPH by letting off the throttle going down hill and immediately pressing down again at the bottom.
HOWEVER, and I'm speaking strictly for my self, If the CC is disconnected and we are riding along as happy campers I find that I end up going faster toward the bottom of a hill. Gravity was helping. Keeping that same throttle allows me to get farther up the next, than CC would have allowed before extra throttle is needed. Car may not downshift. Even if it does it may not be for as long a period of time.
Next time you are in hilly terrain with the CC on, notice as the car tops a hill it will often times feel as though the break was lightly tapped. Of course it wasn't, but the throttle is let off and you can feel it. The help gravity could have been with that light throttle is being fought with by the CC.
On hilly terrain, In effect, the CC is constantly either increasing or decreasing the throttle, sometimes quite abruptly. As another poster pointed out, the best way to get the best fuel mileage is to keep as steady of a throttle as possible.
People have said that 5 miles of down hill and five miles of equal up hills will yield the same mileage as 10 miles on flat ground. NOT TRUE!
You said that on your first trip you used the CC set at 55-60. On the 2nd trip you occasionally used the CC but it was set 10 mph faster. The time the CC was disabled, you may have been gaining a little speed going down hills and maybe even loosing a little before topping the next, without even realizing it. Come on, it is possible!
Something else to keep in mind is the way a tank is filled. For easy numbers, Say a 24.9 MPG average over 200 miles used 8.03 gallons of gas. At the end of an identical trip the tank was not filled quite as much due to the way the car was sitting, being in a hurry or whatever. It took a quart less (7.78 gal), The MPG would calculate to be 25.71. Or if we managed to squeeze in that extra quart, (8.28 gal) the result would be 24.15 MPG. In the great scheme of things, a quart is not very much. However is can Seem like JUST BARELY 24 MPG or NEARLY 26 MPG.
Anyway, congratulations on owning and enjoying a Pilot!
2006 Pilot 4WD. Last week I took a trip that was 531 miles one way. Went from an elevation of 3,200' to an elevation of 1,100' averaging 70-75mph. I got 23.3 mpg. On the way back (uphill and against a good quartering headwind) I got 18.2 mpg. Go figure...
I think that what you are saying is that you are better that the CC at keeping the "object" in motion at a constant velocity because you can see the hills before the CC can feel them and you maintain inertia. All of the techniques that you describe in your earlier posts (timing the green lights, etc.) are illustrations of Newton's equations. The key to Sir Newton's laws is change in velocity. Thats where acceleration and F=ma uses the gas. That is why accelerating hard away from a stop requires so much Force and so much gas. If we didn't have friction (like air friction that increases proportional to the SQUARE of velocity), we could continually accerate with a small force on a level surface and our cars would "coast" forever if we shut-off the engine. If friction wasn't there we could coast down a hill and back up another hill to the same elevation regardless of the steepness. Gas is not required to keep the car moving, its required to accelerate and to overcome frictional forces.
So, this is just Newton's way of saying that the less you accelerate, the less Force you need, so the less that you have to push down on that skinny pedal on the right, and the better gas mileage you should get.
By the way, its $3.50 a gallon out here. :surprise: And Newton can help me get better than 19 mpg!
We took another trip last Friday/Saturday From Fayetteville Ga. to Conway SC., which is very near Myrtle beach.
Weather was near perfect for travel. Temperature ranged from 63 to 71 degrees according to the dash gauge. There was a light breeze noticeable when we got out of the car, but not noticeable when driving. AC was used only a couple of minutes after "Pit" stops to cool the interior down. Made a "PIT" stop every 1.5 to 2 hours of travel. for gas, to eat or "OTHER".
Sky was overcast both ways, and got some light fog and sprinkles of rain on the return trip. Forty or so miles in SC are relatively flat. The rest is rolling hills, some are 1/2-1 or so miles long.
Load was Four adults and luggage that filled the cargo area, including a medium size cooler full of drinks, water and ice.
Vehicle was 03 Pilot 4wd.
Tire pressure cold was 36 front, 35 rear.
Driving style for this trip , I decided to let the Cruise Control make all the decisions. Set at 65 MPH going. Set at 69 MPH for the return trip Saturday.
Total trip was 766 miles. MPG going, at 65mph, was 26.1 MPG. Return trip at 69 mph and some foggy conditions was 25.9 MPG. Tach was resting at about 1800+/- RPM on flat ground.
I watched the tach climb to about 2500 RPM as the torque converter unlocked on up hill grades, and sometimes the tranny would downshift and RPM climb to near 3000 close to the top of the longer hills.
For comparison: {With the same 4 people and luggage)The last time we made that trip it was raining going over and the cruise and AC were used most of the time. Speed was 80+, sometimes near 90. MPG was 18.4.
On the return, it was cloudy, MPG was 28.7. Cruise and air were used very little, speed was in the 60-65 range most of the time and I did my mileage enhancing driving style when safe to do so.
Now, on a 800 mile trip the difference in 26 mpg and 28.7 mpg would be 2.89 gallons of gas. Somewhere around $9-$10. Time difference between 65 mph and 70 mph is about 1 hour for the 800 mile trip.
It is all about priorities. Most folks with limited vacation time will say their time is worth more than $9 an hour. I'm retired, and I enjoy the "Travel" part of the trip. I also enjoy "Beating the averages"! It is all about priorities!
"One thing that's important to note: if you are in a mountainous area you should turn off cruise. It will try to keep you up to the speed you've set and will use a lot of extra gas downshifting to lower gears to accomplish this." (We Test the Tips What Really Saves Gas? And How Much?)
Ok, now for your next test, try a round trip to your north Georgia mountains on all those curvy roads - the theory would say that your mpg variation would be greater than your coastal cruising results. Have lunch at the Dillard House up in Rabun County for me. :-)
Steve the Dillard house is something I have to prepare for. Like not eat for a few days prior to the trip. Don't know if it is the mountain air, or expectations. Whatever it is, the food is about as good as it gets.
Gas mileage pretty much goes out the window when the roads get curvey and the "KID" kicks in!
Comments
All other things being equal, his 2WD Pilot will get substantially better gas mileage than our 4WD Pilots. His Pilot is not only lighter without the 4WD system, but his Pilot also has a technology which makes it even more fuel efficient than ours on the highway (by shutting off 3 of the 6 cylinders when cruising).
His reported mpg of 19/20 mixed and 26.5 pure highway therefore strikes me as being good but nothing so out of the ordinary. When those same kind of numbers are reported for a 4WD Pilot, now that's remarkable. We envy you.
David
I was toying with the idea of getting 2WD for better gas mileage, but decided against it after evaluating AHFC's leasing program for the Pilot at the time. What I found is that residual percentages were set higher for the 4WD models. The difference on the lease was such that 4WD was essentially a no-cost option. So I took it (since I could occassionally make use of 4WD where I live), and yes I'm paying more at the pump ALL YEAR ROUND for that decision.
But if you are buying and not leasing, it seems to me that 4WD is both a pay more now (higher MSRP) and pay more later (at the pump) situation. 4WD is a costly feature over the life of the vehicle as compared to the 2WD version of the same vehicle.
I believe his 19/20 mixed and 26.5 pure highway is pretty good compared to what most are reporting and the mode he was driving.
That 26.5 mpg at 70-75 with the Cruise set and in hilly country is very good in my opinion. Cruise can and will burn more fuel in hilly terrain than using the throttle to the best advantage by the driver. That 70-75 mph burns extra fuel also.
Remember I reported a 10+/- MPG difference on a trip to Myrtle Beach, same load in both directions. Somewhere around 18 MPG going over at 80+ mph with the cruise set the whole time and AC running constantly. Somewhere around 28 coming back with the same load. Biggest difference is the return trip was a much more relaxed 60-70 mph. Did not use the cruise in hilly areas and only used the AC when necessary.
If people would break down and actually make sure the vehicle is up to date on TSB, the ILP has actually been done, proper air pressure in the tires, and be willing to make a game out of "HOW GOOD CAN THE MILEAGE BE", they would be amazed.
I agree with you, that 2wd with the technology to shut off 3 cylinders when cruising is capable of better mileage than my '03 4wd. With that 2wd I would strive for 30 and not be real surprised at 1 or 2 more. Our new friend (above) appeared to be doing nothing to accomplish great mileage. That is why I'm impressed with what he reported.
Most people simply don't have the patience or the "will" to really try to get the best mileage possible. They want to get in the car, drive it like they want to,"Feel the Power" and expect great mileage. It just doesn't work that way! It doesn't bother me at all to be running 5-15 mph slower than the rest on the express way. I stay in the RH lane and if/when I catch up to somebody I pass them. It is a game for me to get the best mileage I can while pretty much staying with most traffic and not being a danger or frustration to others.
I could probably get another mile or two per gallon if I ran at say 50-60 but I think that would be dangerous on expressways ar anywhere folks are running 70+.
I realize that "We envy you" was probably tongue in cheek. Just keep in mind that doing the mileage thing is what I truly enjoy doing. I have been doing it a long time and do it fairly well. The most frustrating part is sharing and telling folks how it is done and they seem to think I'm nuts or lying. :sick:
Meanwhile I get considerably better mileage and am having a great time doing it!
Kip
Even here in the Atlanta area a used 4wd will bring enough more than a 2wd to cover the cost of it new. The 2+/- mpg is not going to make a difference of whether or not we eat.
I figure it cost us about $125 a year or about $2.40 a week, if there really is a 2 mpg difference.
Kip
I pretty much followed what Kip said except my speed was set higher. I also make sure the tire pressure is slightly higher than that factory recommends(32psi front and rear). I run with 36psi at the front (to compensate weight of the car and balance the handling) and 34 at the rear. You would be suprised what a slightly overinflated tire pressure can do.
Kai
Not tongue in cheek at all.
However, I must raise the issue of whether your mpg is "real world mpg" given the extremes you go to in order to achieve your higher mpg.
I just drive the Pilot and get whatever mpg I get, which I believe is what most folks do. Seems that's more "real world." I do check and adjust the tire pressure periodically, but only becuase that's a safety issue. I wish I got better mpg, but it's not that big a deal that I would be willing to alter my driving style (become a right lane driver, etc.) in order to maximize mpg.
David
Regardless, Odysseys still delivers better EPA estimates (19/26) than 2WD Pilot (18/24).
It happens that my 2007 Pilot EXL 4WD replaced a 2004 Odyssey EXL-RES. My own personal experience is that the Odyssey is only marginally more fuel efficient than the Pilot. Not nearly enough so to be a major factor in a purchasing/leasing decision.
Absolutely, which is why it is important for contributors to this forum to tell us which Pilot they have, 2WD or 4WD. Also, I think there is an important distinction to be made between 2WD Pilots. My understanding is that only some of them (higher trim levels) have the technology which uses only 3 cylinders while cruising on the highway.
The mileage you get is real world for you, and the mileage I get is real world for me!
If gas mileage didn't really matter we would not be having these conversations. People would simply post their mileage and that would be the end if it.
You hit the nail on the head when you wrote: "I wish I got better mpg, but it's not that big a deal that I would be willing to alter my driving style, become a right lane driver, etc.) in order to maximize mpg."
That is the major difference in you and me.
Truth be known, most people probably think the way you do! However there are some that would actually like to get better mileage. If I can help, I'm a happy camper!
Different strokes for different folks. :P
Kip
Then we are both happy!
Kip
Then maybe aside from having categories for (1) 4WD, (2) 2WD, and (3) 2WD with VCM technology, we ought to breakdown each of the 3 categories into two subcategories. One subcategory would be for people like you who go out of their way to maximize their mpg. The other subcategory would be for people like me who just drive the vehicle without any special regard for mpg.
If we could break it down on this forum as specifically as that, we'd all have more useful information and have a better sense of how our respective Pilot's mpg compares to other people who are the closest fit to our respective situations. But many mpg posts, even my own I am afraid, are not specific enough to be most useful to readers. I will try to be more specific when posting my mpg in the future.
David
I have no problem with categories. ie, 4wd,2WD etc..
I believe your suggestion for the sub categories could be a good one. Then those categories would need sub categories.
What is meant by city driving, can be different to different folks. Is that highway mileage in the mountains or in relatively flat areas such as Florida and Kansas.
Might get a bit complicated for most!
Kip
That's why we can only go so far with it. At some point it becomes too complicated, perhaps if we go down the path of making subcategories for variances in what people mean when they use the expressions "highway" and "mixed" and "city." But my feeling is that mpg posters could be more helpful to others by providing more detailed information than is generally provided, especially what kind of Pilot they have, what kind of driving they do, and their driving style. I, for one, will try to more helpful by providing greater detail in my future mpg posts.
David
Aside from my Pilot, I also have an Accord and a BMW 3-Series. The BMW is RWD. AWD is optional, but I did not opt for it because on this type of performance vehicle I did not want the added weight. Due to the weight of 4WD systems, as compared to their FWD or RWD counterparts, these vehicles do not accelerate as quickly, take longer to stop, and of course use more gas. For half the money of the AWD option, I instead invested in a set of winter rims/tires. So equipped this RWD vehicle can be driven confidently in the snow. Amazing the difference snow tires can make. I haven't driven the AWD version of my car to have a basis for comparison, but I do not believe that I could have a more secure feeling in winter driving than I already have with my RWD BMW equipped with snow tires.
Makes me wonder how a FWD Pilot equipped with a good set of snow tires would compare to a 4WD Pilot equipped with the OEM all-season tires. Actually the Pilot's OEM all-season tires are very poorly rated/reviewed for winter driving. Check it out at tirerack.com. It is downright disturbing that Honda chose this particular tire for the Pilot. :mad:
Anyway, my point is that 2WD Pilot owners could have their cake (lower purchase price and better gas mileage all year round) and eat it too (put snow tires on it and it would probably be fine in winter, quite possibly as good as or better than the 4WD Pilot equipped with the OEM all-season tires).
It could, Indeed, get complicated !
"City" can mean 30-45 minutes for a 3 mile commute to work, or in my case 6-7 miles in 15 minutes. Or in my wifes case, 12 miles in 20 minutes. How much idle time, how many stops?
There may be only a couple of traffic lights, but if we have to sit through them several times.....
Is that "Road" portion a more relaxing blacktop back road at 50-60 mph, or is it an aggressive 4-8 lane, where if you are not running at least 80, you may get rear-ended by a loaded school bus? Or a cop will pull you over for obstructing traffic flow!
And the big question! How do you get people to read, understand, and adhere to the rules? :confuse:
Kip
Possibly so, IF the FWD had a good traction control system.
Kip
A recent 200 mile trip, with the cruise set at 60mph and cautious driving, netted me 23.92 mpg. My best highway mpg was 24.9 mpg.
Winter driving reduces this to 15-17 city and 20-22 highway.
I am very, very pleased with the Pilot. It is just a good-working machine and is flawlessly reliable. My first Pilot was driven 100,000 miles in 2.5 years and it never saw a Honda bay. I changed oil and did fluids and brakes outside a Honda dealership and never had one problem. My new 2006 Pilot already has 25,000 and has been as flawless in its reliability and performance.
Had it for 6 months and 6,000 miles.
Averaging 16.77 mpg.
3 drivers on this Pilot. Most rides in the range of 5 to 10 miles, some highway, some local stop and go. Occassional rides of 100 to 200 miles roundtrip, mostly highway. Typically exceed speed limits by 10 to 25 mpg. Get up to speed quickly.
I went to Honda's website and confirmed that such is the case for the 2007 models. But if memory serves, I do not think that it was always that way. I believe that there was a time when lower trim levels of the 2WD did not come with VCM technology.
If so, I was thinking 2007 the first year for its use on the Pilot. Is that not correct?
Thanks,
Kip
I'd have to research when Honda first introduced it on the Pilot. But I think it was 2006. I recall looking at a brochure for the 2006 (though I ended up waiting for a 2007)and my takeaway was that VCM existed but was only available on higher trim lines of the 2WD model. I think it was included at the EXL level, but not below. I'll try to research it later and report back if I got it wrong.
Here is something interesting to note of a trip I took this past weekend. On this 200+ mile trip, I occasionally used the cruise control but set it at 65-70 mph and occasionally exceeded 70 mph. I was not cautious with the throttle as before. Upon calculation of my fuel mileage, I was shocked to see that I still rec'd 23.6 mpg. That is only 1.3 mpg less when I was very cautious on the pedal. It should be noted that there were no factors, that I am aware of, such as weather or terrain because it was the same route and similar weather. It seems that backing off on the throttle didn't make a whole lot of difference.
What's New for 2006
Changes to the 2006 Honda Pilot SUV include standard side curtain airbags for all three rows and freshened headlight, taillight and wheel designs. A maintenance minder system has also been added to all Pilots. The optional navigation system now has a 7-inch screen and a reverse-parking assist camera. The EX trim level now has standard foglights this year, and EXs with leather seating get standard XM Satellite Radio. Also new this year is a front-wheel-drive Pilot with Honda's fuel-saving Variable Cylinder Management (VCM) feature for its V6 engine. Finally, stated power output for the Pilot's V6 engine has dropped slightly due to Honda's adoption of a new SAE horsepower-rating procedure.
I do know that the cruise control can cost you mpg on hilly terrain.
Here is why. Say the CC is set at 60 mph. On flat ground the CC works great keeping the speed constant. Very even inputs. However going down a hill the CC backs off the throttle to keep that constant speed. And yes that saves some fuel. As soon as the car levels at the bottom the CC begins to apply throttle again to maintain a set speed.
Now as soon as the car reaches the bottom of one hill it starts up another hill. The CC gives more and more throttle to maintain that speed. The cars computer recognizes the "Strain" and downshifts. Now the car is in 4th gear and turning more RPM to maintain the speed that was once obtainable with very little throttle on flat ground in 5th gear.
On hilly terrain with the CC disconnected , we will burn about the same amount of fuel if we strive to maintain that 60MPH by letting off the throttle going down hill and immediately pressing down again at the bottom.
HOWEVER, and I'm speaking strictly for my self, If the CC is disconnected and we are riding along as happy campers I find that I end up going faster toward the bottom of a hill. Gravity was helping. Keeping that same throttle allows me to get farther up the next, than CC would have allowed before extra throttle is needed. Car may not downshift. Even if it does it may not be for as long a period of time.
Next time you are in hilly terrain with the CC on, notice as the car tops a hill it will often times feel as though the break was lightly tapped. Of course it wasn't, but the throttle is let off and you can feel it. The help gravity could have been with that light throttle is being fought with by the CC.
On hilly terrain, In effect, the CC is constantly either increasing or decreasing the throttle, sometimes quite abruptly. As another poster pointed out, the best way to get the best fuel mileage is to keep as steady of a throttle as possible.
People have said that 5 miles of down hill and five miles of equal up hills will yield the same mileage as 10 miles on flat ground. NOT TRUE!
You said that on your first trip you used the CC set at 55-60. On the 2nd trip you occasionally used the CC but it was set 10 mph faster. The time the CC was disabled, you may have been gaining a little speed going down hills and maybe even loosing a little before topping the next, without even realizing it. Come on, it is possible!
Something else to keep in mind is the way a tank is filled. For easy numbers, Say a 24.9 MPG average over 200 miles used 8.03 gallons of gas. At the end of an identical trip the tank was not filled quite as much due to the way the car was sitting, being in a hurry or whatever. It took a quart less (7.78 gal), The MPG would calculate to be 25.71. Or if we managed to squeeze in that extra quart, (8.28 gal) the result would be 24.15 MPG. In the great scheme of things, a quart is not very much. However is can Seem like JUST BARELY 24 MPG
Anyway, congratulations on owning and enjoying a Pilot!
Kip
2703.9 miles,(Massachusetts to Georgia)
90% in highway, speed 65-80, mostly 70-80, sometimes 90
500 miles with A/C on,
2 hours stuck in highway, road was closed due to accident, moved 10 miles then took a detour, A/C was on
10% in city, including 2 hours stuck in New York heavy traffic jam( moved 20 miles)
total gas 123.023
MPG 21.978
So, this is just Newton's way of saying that the less you accelerate, the less Force you need, so the less that you have to push down on that skinny pedal on the right, and the better gas mileage you should get.
By the way, its $3.50 a gallon out here. :surprise: And Newton can help me get better than 19 mpg!
If friction weren't there this entire discussion would be moot because your tires would just spin and you wouldn't go anywhwere.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
We took another trip last Friday/Saturday From Fayetteville Ga. to Conway SC., which is very near Myrtle beach.
Weather was near perfect for travel. Temperature ranged from 63 to 71 degrees according to the dash gauge. There was a light breeze noticeable when we got out of the car, but not noticeable when driving. AC was used only a couple of minutes after "Pit" stops to cool the interior down. Made a "PIT" stop every 1.5 to 2 hours of travel. for gas, to eat or "OTHER".
Sky was overcast both ways, and got some light fog and sprinkles of rain on the return trip. Forty or so miles in SC are relatively flat. The rest is rolling hills, some are 1/2-1 or so miles long.
Load was Four adults and luggage that filled the cargo area, including a medium size cooler full of drinks, water and ice.
Vehicle was 03 Pilot 4wd.
Tire pressure cold was 36 front, 35 rear.
Driving style for this trip , I decided to let the Cruise Control make all the decisions. Set at 65 MPH going. Set at 69 MPH for the return trip Saturday.
Total trip was 766 miles. MPG going, at 65mph, was 26.1 MPG. Return trip at 69 mph and some foggy conditions was 25.9 MPG. Tach was resting at about 1800+/- RPM on flat ground.
I watched the tach climb to about 2500 RPM as the torque converter unlocked on up hill grades, and sometimes the tranny would downshift and RPM climb to near 3000 close to the top of the longer hills.
For comparison: {With the same 4 people and luggage)The last time we made that trip it was raining going over and the cruise and AC were used most of the time. Speed was 80+, sometimes near 90. MPG was 18.4.
On the return, it was cloudy, MPG was 28.7. Cruise and air were used very little, speed was in the 60-65 range most of the time and I did my mileage enhancing driving style when safe to do so.
Now, on a 800 mile trip the difference in 26 mpg and 28.7 mpg would be 2.89 gallons of gas. Somewhere around $9-$10. Time difference between 65 mph and 70 mph is about 1 hour for the 800 mile trip.
It is all about priorities. Most folks with limited vacation time will say their time is worth more than $9 an hour. I'm retired, and I enjoy the "Travel" part of the trip. I also enjoy "Beating the averages"! It is all about priorities!
Kip
What Really Saves Gas? And How Much?)
Ok, now for your next test, try a round trip to your north Georgia mountains on all those curvy roads - the theory would say that your mpg variation would be greater than your coastal cruising results. Have lunch at the Dillard House up in Rabun County for me. :-)
Like not eat for a few days prior to the trip. Don't know if it is the mountain air, or expectations. Whatever it is, the food is about as good as it gets.
Gas mileage pretty much goes out the window when the roads get curvey and the "KID" kicks in!
Kip