Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Fuel Economy Update for March - More Miles, Same MPG - 2016 Honda Pilot Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,059
edited May 2016 in Honda
image
Fuel Economy Update for March - More Miles, Same MPG - 2016 Honda Pilot Long-Term Road Test

Here is a fuel economy recap for the first 12,000 miles of our test of the 2016 Honda Pilot.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • wislausonwislauson Posts: 3
    Nine is clearly not enough...maybe they should try an 18 speed transmission. I'm sure that would pay off in the MPG department.
  • schen72schen72 Posts: 433
    I'm sure there is some point of diminishing returns when it comes to number of gears in the transmission.
  • reminderreminder Posts: 383
    More gears can't cancel the weight and shape of such a vehicle.
    A large mass shaped like a brick equals elevated fuel consumption.
  • wislausonwislauson Posts: 3
    My sarcasm about the 18 gears seems to have flown wide of the mark.
  • prndlolprndlol Posts: 140
    The caveman minifig is pretty sure you're his Uber and passing him by...
  • ctpaulctpaul Posts: 46
    our 2005 Pilot averaged about maybe 17 to 18 so this is an improvement (I think that was a 5 speed). But if I bought this brand new I would be disappointed, is equal to the CX9 we currently own which is a known gas guzzler.
  • wislausonwislauson Posts: 3
    Our 2015 CX9 matches these numbers too. Since pretty much all of the SUVs in this class do also I really think the CX9's rep as a "gas guzzler" is undeserved. We regularly hit 23-24 MPGs on the freeway loaded up with stuff.
  • guy1974guy1974 Posts: 119
    The new CX9 is 15% better at 22/28 with a 25 combined.
  • papanatepapanate Posts: 1
    I have a 2016 Honda Pilot Touring AWD - and I am getting 23.5 mpg in the city and
    27 mpg on the Highway. I used to own a 2012 Pilot EXL and was getting only 20 mpg
    in the city and maybe 24 mpg on the Highway. In both case I have used Premium 92
    Octane gas. I have observed that the few times I used regular 88 octane gas my mileage
    on the 2012 Pilot went down - 19 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the Highway. I also have
    a gas station near the house that has non Ethanol Premium - and on my 2012 Pilot using
    that gas I would easily get 25 mpg on the Highway and 22 mpg in the city.

    I think that is significant data (at least with my Pilot) to support using the highest octane
    gas available.
  • dougnutsdougnuts Posts: 26
    So if a turbo 4 gets 2.3mpg lower than EPA estimates, the comments are full of "here's another DI turbo that doesn't get expected mileage", but if a V6 does it, the comments are silent. Interesting.
  • kirkhilles1kirkhilles1 Posts: 862
    papanate said:

    I have a 2016 Honda Pilot Touring AWD - and I am getting 23.5 mpg in the city and
    27 mpg on the Highway. I used to own a 2012 Pilot EXL and was getting only 20 mpg
    in the city and maybe 24 mpg on the Highway. In both case I have used Premium 92
    Octane gas. I have observed that the few times I used regular 88 octane gas my mileage
    on the 2012 Pilot went down - 19 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the Highway. I also have
    a gas station near the house that has non Ethanol Premium - and on my 2012 Pilot using
    that gas I would easily get 25 mpg on the Highway and 22 mpg in the city.

    I think that is significant data (at least with my Pilot) to support using the highest octane
    gas available.

    I have a 13 Pilot and I've never heard of this data nor does it make any sense to me. Have other Piloteers had similar data? I'm already paying a ton to drive that monster around and getting 19 MPG. Not really interested in paying an additional premium, but might be interested if results are worth it.
  • metalmaniametalmania Posts: 167
    dougnuts said:

    So if a turbo 4 gets 2.3mpg lower than EPA estimates, the comments are full of "here's another DI turbo that doesn't get expected mileage", but if a V6 does it, the comments are silent. Interesting.

    Generally I pay attention to anything that gets significantly worse than EPA estimates, however there's a lot more hype out there about turbo 4's - the whole point behind them is supposed to be better fuel economy than a V6. I think there's more comments about them because almost none of them measure up to what is supposed to be their primary reason for existence in the first place. I also blame the EPA test for not being a realistic representation of how people drive, as well as manufacturers for tuning their drivetrains to do well on the test rather than real world application. I still think many of them are just too small for use in bigger, heavier vehicles - requiring the driver to push the engine harder which in turn uses more fuel. Sure, they can deliver the power of a larger engine and (somewhat) better fuel economy - just not both at the same time.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited July 2016

    papanate said:

    I have a 2016 Honda Pilot Touring AWD - and I am getting 23.5 mpg in the city and
    27 mpg on the Highway. I used to own a 2012 Pilot EXL and was getting only 20 mpg
    in the city and maybe 24 mpg on the Highway. In both case I have used Premium 92
    Octane gas. I have observed that the few times I used regular 88 octane gas my mileage
    on the 2012 Pilot went down - 19 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the Highway. I also have
    a gas station near the house that has non Ethanol Premium - and on my 2012 Pilot using
    that gas I would easily get 25 mpg on the Highway and 22 mpg in the city.

    I think that is significant data (at least with my Pilot) to support using the highest octane
    gas available.

    I have a 13 Pilot and I've never heard of this data nor does it make any sense to me. Have other Piloteers had similar data? I'm already paying a ton to drive that monster around and getting 19 MPG. Not really interested in paying an additional premium, but might be interested if results are worth it.
    This Pure-Gas site keeps a list of ethanol free gas stations. (I tried one tank of regular a few years back and saw no difference - YMMV).
Sign In or Register to comment.