Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Every other item on my '08 TSX (currently ~9K mi) is within a percent or two of what it should be (speedometer, odometer, outside temp, etc), but the computer is consistently 2-2.5 mpg high (varied from 35.5 indicated vs. 33.47 calculated to the more typical around-town 28.5 mpg indicated vs. ~25.8 actual). Since the computer works off the fuel injector pulse length & other parameters, I wouldn't expect the numbers to line up perfectly, but I would expect it to be low as often as it's high and to average out pretty close to reality. It's absolutely clear that that's not the case.
Sounds like it was real back in '06, but got "tweaked" for the '07 and subsequent model years.
I'm sure that extra 2 mpg is selling a few more TSXs via word-of-mouth. Either way, I'm quite pleased with my gas mileage, given the car's performance, even when it's calculated correctly.
As to the dealer being able to adjust/correct it, I'd be beyond stunned if such a thing were possible, or even desireable, given the number of times dealer service departments foul up things that had nothing to do with the initial "issue," while not fixing that either.
Now, this could be a cheat by Acura.......or it could be a systematic cheat by the pump gauges (doesn't take much at $4,00/G to greatly increase profit margins).
[Prompted by a recent fill-up at a BP station that put 18.3 G into a 18.5 G tank ('09) and I know I had more than a G left.]
That said, I've run into several (usually off the beaten path) stations that were keeping their thumb on the scale.
What I've seen on my TSX computer covers dozens of different pumps/stations in several states. It's very consistent. Jiggery-pokery for sure.
I have a 06 TSX Automatic, 25k.
cheers!
Anyway, here is my record on the highway: I drove from Oak Harbor, WA to Grants Pass, OR on one tank of gas, the distance of 512 miles, using 15 gallons of fuel. Was doing 65 and 75, tire pressure was 33F/31R, with my wife and my two-year old daughter, and full trunk of crap for camping at LAke Tahoe. I don't have a trip computer, so I have to calculate everything on my own... That's over 34 MPG; but on average I get around 32.5 MPG on the highway, an I have noticed gas mileage improving over time. City driving is very subjective - I get around 23 MPG where I live, but I don't live in Manhattan, so I might face a lot less traffic then some of you .
With numbers like these, I am strongly considering the TSX for my next car...even though I love the smoothness and power of having a V6.
By the way, which month was the CR article in?
It may not have always been like this. The New Jersey fan has given us to believe that her vehicle displays what she calculates.
Lately, I don't think that's the case -- sad. The car gets very good fuel mileage. Why cheat?
Either way, I'll be awaiting your follow-up. I'm sure you'll enjoy the car.
The marketing people screw things up more often than not.
The computer has no idea how much fuel is in your tank, and neither do you at any given moment. Even after you fill up and hit the reset button, you can't assume you have the EXACT same amount of fuel every time. Every pump at every gas station has a different sensitivity for the vapor return, and even the same pump will stop at a different point depending on a zillion factors.
I think economy estimates off by just a couple MPG are very good, considering all of the variables involved.
What you have described is normal vehicle operation. I've posted in the past on this board, so you may hve read what I've had to say. I'm a pinhead (hence my handle) and can tell you that in 2009 my TSX has read 9.004% higher than reality.
I think they call it marketing. I agree, though -- the actual hand-calculated MPG is quite acceptable.
DO YOU RECALL THE MONTH OF CU ARTICLE?
Season's best, ez....
On a trip to Colorado & back last summer the real average was 33.3 while the computer averaged 36.3.
All very acceptable numbers to me. Car went from 14,300 to 28,500 miles this year, so it's completely broken in.
Grad, you said it first. Two and a half years ahead of this sailor.
I've read this thread from end to end (+ the AcuraZine 40+ MPG experiment.).
I may just spring for the $1200 (plus or minus) needed for timing belt, water pump et al vice laying out circa $33k for a 4 cylinder that (at best) is marginally more fuel efficient that my rocket ship Accord V-6 6M.
Don't get me wrong: the TSX is a great car. Just not that great - granted IMHO - compared to my (pink slip intensive) 6M.
Hang in there, Grad (great post!!)
ez......
As for the Sammy Hagar comment, I must agree, simply inexcusable, for shame!
I have a saying about Sammy Hagar, "Sammy Hagar is as bad a song writer as Jack White is a good one."
Agree with all of your points.........in strait line acceleration (which is all I really do), the car is superb. Yes, the torque steer can be noticeable (I don't toss the car much), but the hard to believe fuel numbers provide a great boost for purchase revalidation.
I like the TSX - but the fuel numbers barely surpass the 6M Accord. (We won't even address the performance differential).
It's all good.
best, ez..
to early to tell if this is going to be that good or what, but I am light on the gas with all cars I drive.
Biker, who switched to regular to see what effects, if any, that has on mileage.
The TSX is designed to be "peppy" and somewhat "sporty". It does not mean it is geared toward "performance" and 0-60 times. Its purpose is economy. In that realm it is slighty lower than one would expect but still reasonable given the vehicle weight and the fact that they wanted to give the driver a feeling of some decent pedal action when pushing it. It is a rev-happy motor so no it won't get the insanely high numbers a smaller 4 cyl. would like a regular civic. It is a very nice mix of everything an economical driver would expect out of their vehicle while taking a small sacrifice on mpg.
My '99 Cadillac Catera (worst car ever built) will get 27.8 mpg on the highway. Thats also a 3.0 V6 with 200~HP/ 210 ft/lbs tourque. Its rear drive. And it can be a blast to drive. But I wouldn't dare compare it to my 2010 TSX 4 cyl. They are two different cars designed for two different reasons.
And you are also talking about a 6MT for crying out loud. Compare that AT LEAST with the TSX 6MT (20city 28 highway) if you are going to compare tham at all. Not a manual against an auto.
Point being... Compare performance based vehicles with perfomance based vehicles. Compare economically based with... you guessed it, economically based vehicles. Otherwise the point of the argument is lost along with the control. The control is the reason we even compare to begin with, otherwise everyone would be driving a Prius.
And one last little tid-bit and this absolutely grinds my gears and it follows the same concept of this post. I was on another forum reading about Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution real-world MPG, because I was curious what these beastly little turbo-motors are getting for what they are putting out. I found people trying to give advice on how to get the best mpg out of that car and others say they feather the gas pedal all the time and never push the car. EXCUSE ME?!?!?! It's has 290HP!!! ITS A SPORTS CAR! It has AWD. IT WAS BUILT TO GO FAST!!! I still can't figure out why anyone would complain about it. And this sums up my entire post. If you gear for performance, expect less. Gearing for economy? Buy a Prius.
While I was delighted to peruse your somewhat unclear post, it's the title that gets all of my attention. What we have here is the age old performance/economy saw.
And that is my point, Taking real numbers, the HAV6 6M has both. The little 4 cylinder - ahead of the essentially identical 6M gearbox - has almost a mirror image of the Accord V-6 fuel numbers (on the highway; I will concede somewhat on in town stop and go). The gap really is visible when looking at performance. You almost need a calendar for the Acura four. My Honda coupe has really low numbers in comparison.
Before you shoot the messenger: Both are great cars; it's just (IMHO) the Acura ain't that great at 10 grand more than my Accord 6M.
Time for a Crown Royal, a fire et al (somewhere the sun is over the yardarm)
best, ez....
70% city, 30% highway. I'm disappointed in the gas mileage, even though I
use premium gas (91 octane). I now understand that in order for the car to
output high-horsepower at lower speeds, it means that gas mileage will
suffer. This is something they don't tell you when you buy the car.
I'm averaging 21.5 MPG.....this is the 4-cyl TSX reality.
Other than this, I love this car.
My previous car, the 2000 Accord 3 litre V6 returned a constant 25 MPG average.
I've taken one step backward !
I live in Montreal Canada.
Any feedback?
It's really a nice little car - sharing the same well engineered 6M with my J30A4. But the fuel efficiency over the V-6 seems marginal at best..........
it's getting difficult to find performance and economy as of late.
ez
I don't believe most people are seeing mpg's that low for your city to highway ratio. The TL (V-6) loaner was getting 21.6 (MID) under the same driving ratio. Perhaps a trip to the dealer is in order.
I have kept careful records since I purchased my 2010 4 cyl TSX on April 4, 2010.
It appears that my original conclusion that I was getting 21.5 MPG is incorrect.
I have gone over my records a number of times, and the facts simply do not lie:
I am actually getting 24.9 MPG, with 70% city driving, and 30% highway driving.
I have driven about 2000 miles to date.
My full faith in Acura has been restored!
I usually get around 27.5 mpg in the city (well, it's a 4 mile drive with 3 stoplights...so it's probably a little higher than most city driving) without shifting up. When I do try shifting up, I get around 25 or so. My hand calculated is pretty similar to the numbers aforementioned. I try driving the exact same way, I keep my acceleration less than 3500 rpm, didn't have to run the AC either time.
Also, does anyone else think their car's range calculator is screwed up? One minute it says my range is 400miles and 2 miles later, it'll say 325 miles. Then, the next time i start up the car, it says my range is 380 miles...this crap happens to me all the time - should I bother the acura dealer with it?
The car computer's mileage numbers change all the time depending on driving style. If you do steady 50 mph you could get 500mile per tank, but at 80 mph or a lot of city type driving that would drop to maybe 300. There's nothing wrong with the car.
Can someone give me their numbers under similar circumstances??
Well, if my conversions are correct, 12.5 litres/100km equates to ~18.8 mpg. You didn't say whether your TSX is 4 or 6 cyliner. Mine's a 4 and I am lucky enough to be able to drive to work about 75% on freeways running at 50-70 mph, with the balance on arterial city streets with lights about every mile, at 45 mph. I average ~27.5 mpg in the winter & ~26.5 in the summer. I live in Phoenix where the summer high temps are between 105 & 115 deg F (40 - 46 deg C). Those numbers are real mpg calculated at each fill. The computer always reads high, between 5 & 8%, something I've complained about earlier on this board.
You're definitely low, but perhaps not so bad if you mostly drive in stop-and-go city traffic with lights every few blocks, and you're driving the 6. On the highway you should do much better, and you'll also do significantly better once the engine is completely broken in.
Hope you enjoy your car as much as I do mine.
Those of you getting lower numbers... 1. you probably have an automatic (manuals typically put up much better numbers)
2. you need to learn to do some mild hyper milling. google it.
Now my avg. is about 31 mpg (on the display). My guess is the actual mileage measured at the pump would be closer to 30mpg.