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
For what it's worth, the MID "instant mileage" reading on the freeway is always about 28.
Worst 22 MPG
Average mixed driving 26.5 MPG
Steve, Host
In reviewing my log for gas fill-ups I have noticed the major difference between the Accord and the vans is the Accord has a much tighter band of MPG per fill-up vs. the average gas mileage.
Simply put, If I get caught for an hour or two in slow traffic or leave cruise control off on a long trip the Van MPG falls at a faster rate from the vans average MPG than the Accord does.
Just an observation sorry if off topic.
Pretty much you gain nothing on mileage for that extra 1300 lbs., but you pay to change its inertia every time you accelerate the minivan.
In addition, it will naturally take more gasoline (close to half-again as much most likely?) to idle 6 cylinders than it will to idle 4.
The point is that the comparison to an Accord, provides no new nor unexpected insights. I would also say that the comparison to older model Odysseys provides little insight.
Like the "muscle cars" of old, the thing that started out pretty "lean and mean" has bloated with the comforts the public demands. Alas, "lean and mean" implies sparsity, efficiency, physicality, and activity; each the very antithesis of "creature comfort."
If we want to haul around a mass of safety, comfortable, luxurious, and technological excess; then we should not be surprised to have to pay a price for it.
But you may say, "Yes, but durn-burn-it (this is a family forum afterall!) they promised me all that and great gas mileage too!" Oh my! Merchants have stretched the limits of truth! When did that ever happen before?!? (Or should we ask: When didn't it happen?)
Sorry, but you'll just have to justify your choice on the benefits it provides you, realizing that fuel efficiency isn't one of them.
Part of the issue here is people (including me) have high expectations of Honda which they meet for the most part. The HO is now merely on par with the competition when it comes to MPG.
To put this all in perspective getting 28 MPG vs. 24 MPG over 150,000 miles @ $2 per gallon costs an additional $1,786 or @ 20,000 miles per year $19.84 per month. 22 mpg vs. 18 mpg is $3,030 over life & $33.66 per month. The savings on better gas mileage is $2,126 and $3,624 when throwing in investment returns @ 3.65%
As for the comparison's I posted your summary of the data I provided was well written.
One question you state
"In addition, it will naturally take more gasoline (close to half-again as much most likely?) to idle 6 cylinders than it will to idle 4."
Does this mean in stop dead traffic the VCM is feeding gas to all 6 cyc, vs. 3?
Having said all that, I will (very cautiously!) try to add that the weight of the 2005 Odysseys vary considerably (LX 4378 lbs. EX 4475, EX-L 4537, and Touring 4634). This does not include the highly-variable bulk of those of us who might be driving these things. ;-)
We all acknowledge that driving habits are a major reason for varying gas mileage results. The newly-bulked up Odyssey (the 2004 EX weighed in at 4375 lbs.) adds just a bit more mass that must be accelerated each time a lead-foot like me goes at it.
What's more, I could not agree more with the points you make. We would all like the better gas mileage, but the Odyssey is an excellent choice for many folks in many (most?) other ways regardless.
As for VCM, I don't know whether it kicks in at idle. But I do know it is only on the EX-L and Touring.
I guess the short and sweet of it ("AT LAST!" you might say) is addressed to those who just can't seem to get over the relative lack of gas mileage they are seeing:
Get over it!
If you can't then take xfactor's figures into account and decide whether you can get all the other features that you want in some other product and still not have to pay more than the two to not-quite-four thousand dollars that the mileage difference might cost you over 150,000 miles.
1st tank (city): 20 l/100km -> 11.8 mpg
2nd tank (highway): 12 l/100km -> 19.6 mpg
I don't know if my maths are ok, but it seems like it takes a lot of gaz to run this van. The other tanks should improve mpg, I hope.
The city mileage seems especially low -- might be due to using winterized fuel / driving a cold engine?
ETA
Previous four tanks average 22 mpg.
It was very easy to jam on the go pedal and get instant gratification while driving. You really have to work at it to refrain yourself.
1)breakin 50to160km = 330km
highway 120km = 330km
vicinity Toronto = 219km
total trip 879K 7.33K/L 16.75 M/USGal
2)Toronto to North Bay 764K 8.77K/L 20.1 M/USGal
combo 8.13K/L
Hwy 9.40K/L
3)NB to Sudbury 185K 5.96K/L 14.1 M/USGal
4)NB to Sudbury 369K 7.47K/L 17.0 M/USGal
5) 161K 5.99K/L 14.2 M/USGal
6)NB to Toronto 376K 9.93K/L 21.2 M/USGal
7)Toronto vicinity 588K 8.36K/L 14.9 M/USGal
8)TO. to NB & vic. 549K 7.84K/L 18.6 M/USGal
9)NB vin to TO. vic 581K 7.80K/L 18.5 M/G
10) vicinity 420K 5.46K/L 12.9 M/G
11)NB to TO. & vic 432K 6.64K/L 15.7 M/G
12)TO to NB & vic 465K 7.39K/L 17.5 M/G
13)NB to TO. & vic 513K 7.32K/L 17.3 M/G
14) 599K 6.65K/L 15.6 M/G
15)NB 418K 5.97K/L 14.2 M/G
16)NB to TO & vic 619K 6.65K/L 20.3 M/G
17)NB to TO 379K 7.1 K/L 18. M/G
18)NB to TO. 300K 9.2 K/L 22.1 M/G
19)NB 230K 6.75K/L 9.2 M/G
20) 574K 8.15K/L 17.7 M/G
21)To vic 145K 6.03K/L 7.14 M/G
22) 570K 8.15K/L 18.5 M/G
23)NB to TO. vic 469K 7.57K/L 16.4 M/G
24)TO vicinity 279K 5.6 K/L 13. M/G
25)NB to TO vic 796K 10.6K/L 19.8 M/G
26)TO. to NB 421K 6.29K/L 17.7 M/G
27) NB vicinity 258K 4.3 K/L 15.6 M/G
these numbers represent day 1 to present 23000K=
14375miles
for comparison 95 Aerostar all wheel drive
454km 6.98K/L 16.5 M/US Gal
422km 6.60K/L 15.6 M/USGal
"The city mileage seems especially low -- might be due to using winterized fuel / driving a cold engine?"
Yes, that's right, it was in cold winter, in winter we always have bad numbers, but spring is coming fast, so MPG should improve to better numbers, like numbers other persons posted here about there minivans. The Dodge Caravan 2005 is supposed to have numbers near those of Toyota Sienna 2005 and Honda Odyssey 2005, so I'll continue to check my numbers as the outside temp is raising.
2nd tank (highway): 12 l/100km -> 19.6 mpg"
WOW, 3rd tank (city): 15.5 mpg
Well, I won't do a party for 15.5 mpg, which I still consider a lot of gaz to run, but it's much better than 11.8 and it shows that the fist tanks are not good numbers after all, maybe due to engine break in.
I'll post more numbers after a couple more tanks.
I mentioned in an earlier post that for the first 13,500 miles on our '04 Sienna LE, we averaged 21.3 mpg, and I've been pleased with that. Best sustained mileage was a trip we took last year - 25.9 mpg.
In addition, I just had to make an unexpected trip to Tampa and back (from northern Virginia) - I did the 1,825 miles in three days. I did not employ the best gas-saving driving habits - quite the opposite! I would routinely travel at 10 to 15 mph over the speed limit (and was still passed frequently) and despite the speed, I averaged 25.1 mpg. I think that's darn good, especially considering that I had a passenger and a large number of bags and boxes in the back on the return trip.
IndyStar.com
Steve, Host
Got about 23.5 mpg overall, better by at least 10% over what our Quest got on the same drive. this is a combo of local highway, around town (not stop and go, more rural), and interstate. The interstate peice is on some hilly stretches, and included 80+ at times, and usually 70-75.
Going up, I got 24.5, and about 22.5 coming home today. But, most of the trip was in a torrential rain (with the defrost cranking), and a long stretch stopped on the NJ Turnpike. I usually got better mileage on the return leg with the old van.
So, averaging almost 24mpg on this drive was pretty impressive to me. I have no doubt that I could pull close to 28 on a open highway stretch with the cruise set near 70 (and without the hills and rain).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Mixed driving with 70-80 mph on the freeway and 30% around-town driving.
The Toyota highlander that we previously owned (2001 V6 2wd) got pretty much the same milage over its lifetime.
That is surprising to me since the Ody is heavier, has a bigger engine and more horsies....
We returned Sunday from a 2500 mile roundtrip to Florida with 3 people and lots of luggage aboard. Our Touring had 639 miles on it when we left. Got 27 mpg on I-95 in Georgia and Florida doing 70 mph going down. Running closer to 80 dropped the mileage by 3-4 mpg.
Coming back, got about 26 mpg in the hilly terrain of Virginia and West Virginia.
The on-board computer registered about 1 mpg less than actual useage.
I have a little over 2K miles on my Odyssey and the best mpg I have had is ~15mpg. This is combined city and Highway.
Given that the mpg played a major factor in my decision to purchase the 2005 Honda Odyssey EX-L I am gravely disappointed to say the least.
Eric
It has not been difficult for me to exceed the 24 MPG highway estimate for my 2002 T&C LX and it has exceeded 30 MPG on a round trip. However, I have had less than the 18 MPG city rating...especially in the winter. Overall average mileage is now 22.4 MPG.
Umm, doesn't a cruise control do this? :confuse:
I was not aware that one could apply a range of pressures on the gas pedal and still maintain constant speed? If I'm going down a level interstate at 70 mph, there is only ONE pressure to apply to maintain 70; the 'minimum' pressure needed to maintain 70 just happens to be the same as the 'maximum' pressure. Likewise, it I start up a hill, and want to maintain a constant speed, I'll have to increase the pressure. Again, to maintain that 70mph, the 'minimum' pressure just happens to be the same as the 'maximum' pressure.
Edmunds needs to add a "sarcasm" emoticon.....unfortunately, I'd probably overuse it.
Usually there is some sort of wind (tail, cross, or head), traffic flow to some degree, and terrain variations to be negotiated. The only reasonably useful comparison is to average (as most do) over some common (for each of us) driving conditions. Within that then it might prove useful to vary your driving habits (practicing patience and restraint on the starts, for instance) -- for a period covering more than one tank of gas -- to see what effect that will have on you gas mileage. Otherwise, a mileage improvement might simply have been a fortunate wind, particularly pure tank of gas, lighter traffic, or even optimal temperature --- and not really teach you anything that will translate into any long-term difference in your results.
In other words, minimize the effect of variations to test one (or, at most, a couple) of changes in driving habits, machine adjustments, or fuel source; to see if that change has any significant effect on the results.
Maybe he meant find the pedal position needed to drive at the set constant speed on level terrain, and then hold that same constant pedal position (minimum pressure) as one goes up and down hills, letting the vehicle speed vary with the terrain. Kinda the OPPOSITE of cruise control (throttle opening changes to maintain set speed) but more of a "gas pedal" control (vehicle speed changes while in hilly terrain to maintain set pedal position).
Actually, I'm just pulling guesses out of......thin air. Perhaps rgb2 will chime in again one of these days to clarrify just what the heck he meant.
That is a perfect description of what my driver's ed teacher (35 years ago!) said would produce the best gas mileage. And we all know that he is certainly a preeminently reliable source of such information! ;-)
Although, truth be told, I certainly know what type of driving behaviour I can use to get really BAD mileage...
I was about to reply that we must've had the same driver's ed teacher, but then realized that I would have had to take D.E. when I was 7......