Bravenrace

'07 EX-L V-6 coupe. My first tank of primarily feather footed freeway driving produced slightly less than 25 mpg. My TL-S routinely gets 31 mpg under the same circumstances. Thats a heavier car with a larger, more powerful engine. I've owned many Honda's and they've always exceeded their rated highway mileage, which on this car is 29 mpg. Based on all of this, I really expected around 33-34 mpg out of this car. What are those of you with similar cars getting?

George Knighton

I have a 2006 6-6.

It's very common for me to get 30 mpg, and I've got as high as 32, but your projected 33-34 mpg is probably a little ambitious.

Something to remember when shifting gears is that the secondary intake opens at 4000 RPM, and the car goes on the cam at 5000.

You can get pretty good mpg and still accelerate fairly briskly, provided you are remembering this and shifting below 4000.

Your mpg will also improve as your mileage increases and the motor wears in. With about 60,000 miles on my Coupe and about 70,000 miles on the 6-6 Sedan that was bought at the same time, both performance and mileage are very predictable and entirely manageable by the driver. At this stage in their lives, if you get a tank that's only 24 mpg, you *know* why it's like that!

Bravenrace

Thanks. I think one other thing that made me think I'd do better is that Consumer Reports got 34 mpg on the highway with an '05 or '06 V-6 sedan, so I thought I should do better than 25! Mine's an automatic, so I can't short shift like you mentioned, but I'll tell you I've really been babying this car. In 725 miles I've gotten above 4k rpm's maybe 4 or 5 times, and I have yet to run it to redline even once. I'm pretty sure it's not my driving style that's killing the mileage. I guess I was spoiled with my old '90 Civic si, getting 35-37 mpg while drivning it any way I wanted to. I drive 80 miles a day, so the mileage is important. If I can get it to meet or exceed 30 mpg I'll be happy. The worst part about this is that I got the V-6 for the added performance, but I can't enjoy it because I'm always trying to stay off the gas!

Perfectionist

Another fuel economy killer is cold weather, as I'm sure you're aware. My RSX-S delivers 33mpg in summer, and can drop as low as 24mpg in temps near zero.

pos_cd5

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Perfectionist &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Another fuel economy killer is cold weather, as I'm sure you're aware. My RSX-S delivers 33mpg in summer, and can drop as low as 24mpg in temps near zero.</TD></TR></TABLE>

hell yeah! since winter started, my MPG has gone completely to shyt, especially since all my commutes are verys hort distances, only about a mile. my work and girlfreinds house are both within a mile of my house. and my school is within about 3. so i make about 6-8 short, 10 minute or less drives a day, with several hours in between. the car has barely even warmed up to normal temp by the time i get to where i need. i should really ride a bike but its way too cold and rainy.

someone else

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bravenrace &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">'07 EX-L V-6 coupe. My first tank of primarily feather footed freeway driving produced slightly less than 25 mpg. My TL-S routinely gets 31 mpg under the same circumstances. Thats a heavier car with a larger, more powerful engine. I've owned many Honda's and they've always exceeded their rated highway mileage, which on this car is 29 mpg. Based on all of this, I really expected around 33-34 mpg out of this car. What are those of you with similar cars getting?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

From http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">2007 Honda Accord V-6 Auto

Estimated New EPA MPG

MPG ratings for this vehicle have been revised More information.

Regular Gasoline
18
City

26
Hwy

21
Combined



Official EPA Window Sticker MPG

Regular Gasoline
20
City

29
Hwy

23
Combined


MPG Estimates from Drivers Like You
Average based on 9 vehicles.

23.7

Lo
18

Hi
29
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Looks like your not far off the new estimates.

pos_cd5

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by someone else &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

From http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm



</TD></TR></TABLE>

great websites. it reassures me that my average 20-22mpg is normal for my 95 accord. i never could understand how some people claimed to get 30-35mpg in the same car as mine. best i ever got was about 30-31mpg and that was from portland to cananda non-stop freeway doing about 80MPH 80% of the time and 4 people in the car and probably about 100 pounds or so worth of luggage.

Bravenrace

Thanks for the information, although I wonder how both Consumer Reports and Road and Track got 34 mpg out of theirs.
I also have to wonder what the difference is between this car and my '03 TL-S. Like I said before, I routinely get 31 mpg out of that car, loaded with 4 people, trunk full, a/c on and traveling about 72 mph. It's a heavier, more powerful car with a bigger engine, and is 4 years older than the Accord. I really didn't thing I'd get worse mileage out of the Accord than the TL. Anybody care to take a stab at why I do?

someone else

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by pos_cd5 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

great websites. it reassures me that my average 20-22mpg is normal for my 95 accord. i never could understand how some people claimed to get 30-35mpg in the same car as mine. best i ever got was about 30-31mpg and that was from portland to cananda non-stop freeway doing about 80MPH 80% of the time and 4 people in the car and probably about 100 pounds or so worth of luggage.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Going from Olympia to the Tri Cities I averaged mid 30's setting the cruise between 75-80. It was consistent over many trips. I normally do a lot of in town driving and get low 20's. Car is a 97 lx 5sp sedan.

I point people to fuel economy.gov all the time. What is really aggravating for me as a service writer is people don't understand that the numbers on the side sticker don't come from the manufacturer but from the epa. And of course a salesman is never going to tell someone the sticker may be somewhat skewed.

I print this page for people all the time.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Your MPG Will Vary

EPA has improved its methods for estimating fuel economy, but your mileage will still vary.

EPA tests are designed reflect "typical" driving conditions and driver behavior, but several factors can affect MPG significantly:

* How & Where You Drive
* Vehicle Condition & Maintenance
* Fuel Variations
* Vehicle Variations
* Engine Break-In

Therefore, the EPA ratings are a useful tool for comparing the fuel economies of different vehicles but may not accurately predict the average MPG you will get.

To find out what you can do to improve the fuel economy of your car, see Driving More Efficiently and Keeping Your Car in Shape.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Bravenrace

Yeah, I'm aware of the EPA ratings and where they come from and how they've changed. However, I'm not dealing with that, I'm dealing with 2 cars I own that are driven the same way over the same roads at the same time of day by the same driver. Before doing that I would have guessed that the TL would surely use more gas than the Accord, but not only didn't it, the Accord got 6 mpg worse than the TL, and that doesn't make sense to me.
It's the threoreticall nature of the EPA ratings that is why I asked here about what others are getting from their Accord. While I can't take one or two and make any conclusion from it, if there were enough responses I could take an average and get some idea. I've also owned at least a dozen Honda's, and every one of them up until this one exceeded their EPA ratings, so I didn't think it was unreasonable to expect that from this one also. George mentioned that he commonly gets 30mpg, so there is more evidence that at least this model of car has the potential to do that. I do appreciate your imput, but EPA ratings, new or old, don't really explain this apparent low mileage compared to every real reference I have.
I"m going to take it on a 300 mile all highway trip this weekend and will see what it does there, but I'm not expecting much different, since I'll be driving it the same as I did when I got the 25mpg.

pos_cd5

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by someone else &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
What is really aggravating for me as a service writer

</TD></TR></TABLE>

aw man, i have a friend whos a tech at a lincoln/mercury (old senior citizens) dealership, and some of the stories he tells me of what the service writers has to put up with is hillarious and sad at the same time.

mrscotty

accord's are heavy cars

George Knighton

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bravenrace &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> George mentioned that he commonly gets 30mpg, so there is more evidence that at least this model of car has the potential to do that.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I was at the Majestic Honda site looking at other things, so I dropped in on the parts site for the J30 motors. It looks like my 6-6 has an entirely different intake manifold than you have. Not sure how much of the better fuel mileage is because of the dual stage intake on the 6-6's, but I wanted you to know that there was at least that one big difference.

You're right that Honda gasoline and Diesel engines will very often get better MPG than the rating, although their hybrid cars usually get less than the sticker MPG rating.

aries331

Is this brand new accord? I know the gas mileage gets better on new cars after a few thousand miles. Some do, some don't, I know every car is differnt and not every one drives under the same conditions. Cold weathers are a killer!!

Bravenrace

That is interesting. Aren't the horsepower specs the same between them? If so, why the different intake? What about the sedan? Would an automatic sedan have the exact engine I have? I know of 3 magazines that got 34pmg out of a V-6 sedan. I know there's variability car to car and driver to driver, but 9 mpg seems a little extreme when I was driving as smoothly as possible.
I just took mine on a long trip (almost a full tank) of probably 95% highway driving. I haven't filled up yet, but will later today. I'll report back what I got. My last tank was right on 24 mpg, just like the one before. If this is the best it gets, I may have a really nice coupe for sale soon, as I can't give up that kind of mileage on my daily driver. Stay tuned.

George Knighton

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bravenrace &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">That is interesting. Aren't the horsepower specs the same between them? If so, why the different intake? What about the sedan? .</TD></TR></TABLE>

The 2006 and 2007 6-6 Sedans have the same motor that the 2006 and 2007 6-6 Coupes have. The automatics are different motors even though the HP rating is the same.

In 2008, the Coupe 6-6 motor is unique and <u>only</u> that motor now has the dual stage intake and old fashioned hard-on VTEC. The Sedan has no 6-6 variant for 2008 and the only motor available is super-eco friendly multi-cylinder configuration motor.

On a Dynojet, my 2006 6-6 put down a very high HP number that makes me wonder about Honda-s HP numbers. I think that the SAE Net figure for the 2006 6-6 Coupe should have been more like 260 HP instead of the published 244 HP.

The 2008 6-6 motor and the 2008 regular motor both have the same 268 HP rating, even though we all know that they are different motors.

There is a published dyno of the 2008 6-6 motor that would seem to indicate that the 268 HP rating is extremely conservative.

I don't know what they're thinking with these published HP numbers. I think they'd sell more cars (at Honda-Tech, anyway) if they published figures that were closer to the truth.

Nissan, for example, does not hesitate to inflate its figures.

On the same day in the same weather conditions, the 300 HP BMW motor and the 330 HP [sic] Infiniti G37 motor put down almost exactly the same HP. Either BMW's cutting the figure to keep from scaring people, or Nissan is blatantly exaggerating its figures.

Bravenrace

So the 6 speed has a dual stage intake and the auto doesn't? They look similar in the parts breakdown on the Majestic site, although the part numbers are different as you stated.
The question is, what is the difference in the '07 manual and auto engines?
I got 27.6 mpg on the trip I took saturday. Better, but still disappointing. I had my wife and kids with me (about 280 lbs total), but other than that I don't think I can drive any more efficiently than I did on that trip. The car now has 1100 miles on it. I plan to put synthetic oil in it soon, and at least with the oil I use (Redline), that's always resulted in a slight increase in mileage. Any other tips on how to improve the mileage of this car? Long term I'm not sure I can endure this kind of mileage loss compared with my last car.

aries331

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bravenrace &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I got 27.6 mpg on the trip I took saturday. Better, but still disappointing.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

The new EPA MPg for that model says you should be getting around 26mpg on the highway. YOu are already above that and I'm sure it'll get better after breakin in. But it all depends on different driving conditions. I dont know how accurate this EPa things are but if it is above what they are saying, that could not be bad at all.

George Knighton

32.6 mpg on this last tank.

93 octane no-ethanol BP.

WhiteBB2

iTrader: (1)

Bravenrace, What octane fuel are you using?

Bravenrace

87 octane. Why would I use anyting else?

WhiteBB2

iTrader: (1)

from my experience, the higher the octain...the better the car performs.

I tried a test one month used 87 for a tank, then i used 93 for a tank and ended up getting 40 extra miles to the tank.

Bravenrace

I've never seen any scientific evidence that using a higher octane gas then recommended aids at all in fuel economy. Octane is just a number that rates a fuel's resistance to burn. The higher the combustion pressures and temperatures the higher the octane needs to be. It doesn't make the higher octane fuel any better quality, and it doesn't add any BTU content, so it really can't do that.

WhiteBB2

iTrader: (1)

i never said it was scientifically proven. I just noticed that when I used premium (under almost identical driving periods) the premium lasted about 40miles longer.

Sorry I tried to help.

Bravenrace

Don't take my reply wrong - I appreciate the help, and I'll probably try it. I was just asking for more information if you had it. But even if it does help mileage, the savings would likely be negligible. If I pay $.10 more for premium and it raises my mileage 1 mpg, the savings would be virtually nothing anyway.