- #1662 of 2672
-
Re: 2008 EXL V6 [bvdj84]
by plethysmo
-
Apr 08, 2008 (7:29 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bvdj84 (Apr 07, 2008 5:34 am)
Your are correct to claim that Honda V6 engines take a long time to break in. I have kept records of the 216 fill-ups on my 06 Accord coupe LX-V6, 85704 miles, 3022.783 gallons. I plotted a 1 year running average mileage chart, to minimize seasonal affects. This chart shows a constant .3 mpg improvement each year over the first 4 years. At that time I got new tires and the 1 year running average declined 1 mpg. Once the new tire effect was fully in the running average, it is increasing again.
The decrease due to the new Michelin Energy MXV4 tires was not surprising, since they were softer and quieter than whatever came from Honda.
No evidence of a rapid mileage improvement over the first few thousand miles as some 4cyl Accord owners have reported.
|
- #1663 of 2672
-
Re: 2008 EXL V6 [plethysmo]
by ljgbjg
-
Apr 08, 2008 (7:55 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: plethysmo (Apr 08, 2008 7:29 am)
New tires can have a huge impact on fuel economy.
1. Full tread depth versus that on a worn tire
2. Tread pattern can have a big effect on the rolling resistance of the tire
3. Softness or hardness of the rubber compound can affect mileage.
4. Speed rating - the higher speed tires are generally performance tires with softer
rubber compounds.
Passenger car tires are in some way or another some compromise - handling and performance for ride and comfort, decreased rolling resistance for aggressive tread and rain water dispersion. Unfortunately, unlike F1 or other race cars - we have to do with one kind of tire for all conditions - race cars can and do change from soft aggressive rain tires to dry weather smooth surface tires for high performance.
If you live in AZ, I suspect you seldom need rain tires, so you can go for a hard rubber compound with low rolling resistance and a less agrressive tread pattern. Seattle? Softer rubber, aggressive water dispersing tread pattern and higher rolling resistance. The exact same car's mileage will vary with locale and types of tires.
Most GOOD tire merchants will have comparison charts for you that have them rated for rolling resistance, noise, revolutions/mile, etc.
Changing tires can have an enormous impact on MPG - sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
|
- #1664 of 2672
-
Re: 2008 I4 LX-P Automatic [fventura]
by malmouza
-
Apr 08, 2008 (12:40 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: fventura (Mar 25, 2008 3:58 pm)
I think most people they are not aware of one technical aspect of the new 2008 Honda Accord 4 cylinders and 6 cylinders; they both have a drive-by-wire, where the throttle open and close electronicly when the driver press the gas pedal, instead of the old mechanical cable. This has a very bad effect on the fuel consumption. I tested this behavior using SCANGUAGE tool, and I saw that sometime you're pressing the gas pedal more than you need to, in other word the gas pedal is very sensitive, and it does not give much information about the throttle position. Using the scanguage tool as a reference, I can manage 25 MPG on my 2008 accord sdn (4 bangers). I hope this help.
|
- #1665 of 2672
-
best so far
by stickguy
-
Apr 08, 2008 (6:19 pm)
-
|
just did a round trip from Philly to NY (about 240 miles). Mostly highway, a little local in the middle. For a change, no traffic delays. Lots of troopers, so I mostly ran 65-70.
Got a tick under 36 (35.9). Just me, no luggage to speak of, no AC and windows and roof closed.
IMO, about the best I am ever likely to do, and pretty darned good for a car this size and comfortable.
2005 EX-L 4 cyl 5 speed stick (just hitting 24K on it).
|
- #1666 of 2672
-
Re: best so far [stickguy]
by thegraduate
-
Apr 08, 2008 (7:13 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: stickguy (Apr 08, 2008 6:19 pm)
Got a tick under 36 (35.9). Just me, no luggage to speak of, no AC and windows and roof closed.
IMO, about the best I am ever likely to do, and pretty darned good for a car this size and comfortable.
And don't forget quick! A manual transmission Accord can run low 7s to 60 MPH. That's faster than the pocket rockets of a few years ago! I have the auto, so not quite as quick and involving, but it gets better highway mileage (taller gearing) and is great in point and shoot traffic. I love it!
TheGrad
2006 Accord EX I4 5AT
|
- #1667 of 2672
-
Re: best so far [thegraduate]
by ljgbjg
-
Apr 09, 2008 (1:45 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Apr 08, 2008 7:13 pm)
7th Generation was a great one consistently got 29-30 with a V6 A/T coupe on the highway.
|
- #1668 of 2672
-
Re: best so far [ljgbjg]
by malmouza
-
Apr 09, 2008 (5:11 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ljgbjg (Apr 09, 2008 1:45 am)
I own 2008 accord 4cyl 5speed MT (300 miles on the odo). and it does not matter what you do, you will always get the same 25 MPG, and I am considering myself as a hypermiles expert, this might be due to the engine parts are still tight in the engine, and the manufacturer use a heavy oil grade to minimize the noise and the friction for the first 1000s miles. Again, this is One big car, that weight a lot, and physics talks. In stop and go traffic, I don’t think anybody will get better than 20 MPG. On a new engine.
|
- #1669 of 2672
-
Re: best so far [malmouza]
by ljgbjg
-
Apr 09, 2008 (5:23 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: malmouza (Apr 09, 2008 5:11 am)
I agree with you - this is one big car. I wonder what the CD is compeared to the 7th Generation? The front end appears to be boxier and with greater exposure than a 2007 which had the sloping hoodline. A greater CD combined with the heavier weight - the V6 is 300 pounds heavier than last year (so much for the extra 24 HP) will = lower fuel economy, REGARDLESS of the VCM. You are doing well - I am reading here about EXL models with the 190 HP I4 getting 17!.
|
- #1670 of 2672
-
Re: best so far [ljgbjg]
by dpmeersman
-
Apr 09, 2008 (6:05 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ljgbjg (Apr 09, 2008 5:23 am)
Taken from Motor Trend article comparing 07 Camry to 08 Accord Sedan:
No projections are needed in the wind tunnel, though, as the Accord has already bettered its performance due to a drop in the coefficient of drag from 0.34 to 0.31.
I'd like to know how they accomplished that as the frontal area does appear to be more substantial than the gen 7's.
|
- #1671 of 2672
-
Re: best so far [ljgbjg]
by malmouza
-
Apr 09, 2008 (6:10 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ljgbjg (Apr 09, 2008 5:23 am)
I think the VCM is just hype from Honda in order to sell the V6 engine. The way the VCM work; it shuts down the fuel injectors for a specific cylinders, and fill the cylinder with air instead. According to Honda this system will result in an increase in MPG by 1 or 2 miles. I do not agree, with Honda. The fact that the cylinder is still moving up and down, result in the other active cylinders to bear the burden of the weight of the inactive cylinders. This almost cancel the effect of saving couple drops of fuel every x RPM. If Honda did use a transmission between each 3 cylinders bank, the result will be real 4 or 5 MPG increase; but the problem this approach will cost Honda more money; by consequence they need to raise their price by at least $1200 for the transmission. On my wife’s 2007 Honda Odyssey EX. No VCM, I managed 25MPG on a highway and 21MPG on avg. 25% city / 75 % highway. I heard people with the VCM are getting 17 MPG on avg. This proves my point. This is one of the reason that Honda is going to get ride of the VCM technology, and replace it with Diesel. The problem you’ll have to paye a hefty premium to get that car, plus the diesel price is $1 more than the gas for one gallon. You do the math, and you’ll see that it’s better to buy a good 4 cylinder car that suite your needs.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
