| w3david |
I had a 07 Pilot LX 4WD for 4 months now, and keep tracking MPG for every tank of gas. So far my MPG is between 13.5-15.5 mostly city.
I got 17-18 on highway only. Am I low on MPG? A friend of mine also had a low MPG 07 pilot 4WD.
How is yours? |
|
|
| humanoid |
| That sounds about right. We get about 16 mixed, mostly city though. |
|
|
| tgrimes |
| I've been tracking my '06 AWD every tank full since I bought it last Sept. I drive an average of 60% city and 40% highway and getting about 17.5 MPG. I drive like an old lady in the city though. Doing a road trip this weekend, expecting to get about 22 - 23 MPG. |
|
|
| skyraider |
I've had my 07 EXL for about 10 days now and just filled up yesterday and I calculated 18mpg. I drive combination city and highway and since I am breaking it in I avoid quick starts. Also I found that when I turn on the climate control system the a/c comes on automatically so I made sure to turn it off so I'm sure this helps my mpg.;)
__________________
'07 Pilot 4WD EX-L
Dark Cherry Pearl w/Grey Leather
OEM Accessories: Towing Package, Wheel Locks, All Season Mats, Rear Splash Guards. |
|
|
| Roger |
| That's about what we get. I stopped checking because I just don't like to see the low numbers:eek: That's one thing I'm disappointed with is the mileage. Everybody that drives big Ford trucks keeps telling me that they get 20 or so around town:rolleyes: I find it hard to believe but the Pilot should do better in my opinion. |
|
|
| sfhondapilot |
quote:
Originally posted by w3david
I had a 07 Pilot LX 4WD for 4 months now, and keep tracking MPG for every tank of gas. So far my MPG is between 13.5-15.5 mostly city.
I got 17-18 on highway only. Am I low on MPG? A friend of mine also had a low MPG 07 pilot 4WD.
How is yours?
Up here in SF, I get about 13 mpg in the city. Highway MPG depends on speed and congestion. On trips down I5, I can usually get around 19 mpg. |
|
|
| BillG |
| I drive mixed city/highway. I don't track every tank, but normally get around 17. It can be worse at times if the driving mix changes. |
|
|
| dragoncoach |
quote:
Originally posted by sfhondapilot
Up here in SF, I get about 13 mpg in the city. Highway MPG depends on speed and congestion. On trips down I5, I can usually get around 19 mpg.
Hey Dave, you must drive pretty fast down I-5. I get 14-15 mpg in the city as well, but actually get 23-24 driving I-5 (all freeway doing 70-75 mph). Over all, we average about 17-18. BTW, how's the M doing? |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by Roger
That's about what we get. I stopped checking because I just don't like to see the low numbers:eek: That's one thing I'm disappointed with is the mileage. Everybody that drives big Ford trucks keeps telling me that they get 20 or so around town:rolleyes: I find it hard to believe but the Pilot should do better in my opinion.
Which "big Ford truck" are you talking about, because I don't think there are any Ford trucks that have an EPA city rating of 20 mpg or more? |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by sjlee
Which "big Ford truck" are you talking about, because I don't think there are any Ford trucks that have an EPA city rating of 20 mpg or more?
Not sure which Ford trucks he is talking about without doing some research, but my Chevy Silverado Crew Cab 5.3L V8 gets the same real world mpg as our Pilot under the same driving conditions. It has more torque/HP and the truck weight is quite a bit more. The epa estimated mpg of the truck is a bit lower than the Pilot, but it gets closer to the estimate than the Pilot. Contrary to popular belief, a larger engine does not always mean much worse mpg for all vehicles. It depends on how hard that engine has to work to keep up in everyday traffic. Our 99 CRV did not get much better mpg than the Pilot, because it was redlined all the time trying to keep up with traffic. A good example is the 4WD RAV4 - epa mpgs are 23/27 for the 4 cyl and 21/28 for the 6 cyl. And I would bet that driving in real world traffic (A/C on/merging with hwy traffic/driving in hilly terrain/etc) the V6 will be closer to the epa rating than the 4 cyl. |
|
|
| skyraider |
Nobody has mentioned tire pressure yet. I keep mine at 36psi. Rides a little rougher than the 32 the manual recommends but to me not bad:)
__________________
'07 Pilot 4WD EX-L
Dark Cherry Pearl w/Grey Leather
OEM Accessories: Towing Package, Wheel Locks, All Season Mats, Rear Splash Guards. |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by jl_ss
Not sure which Ford trucks he is talking about without doing some research, but my Chevy Silverado Crew Cab 5.3L V8 gets the same real world mpg as our Pilot under the same driving conditions. It has more torque/HP and the truck weight is quite a bit more. The epa estimated mpg of the truck is a bit lower than the Pilot, but it gets closer to the estimate than the Pilot. Contrary to popular belief, a larger engine does not always mean much worse mpg for all vehicles. It depends on how hard that engine has to work to keep up in everyday traffic. Our 99 CRV did not get much better mpg than the Pilot, because it was redlined all the time trying to keep up with traffic. A good example is the 4WD RAV4 - epa mpgs are 23/27 for the 4 cyl and 21/28 for the 6 cyl. And I would bet that driving in real world traffic (A/C on/merging with hwy traffic/driving in hilly terrain/etc) the V6 will be closer to the epa rating than the 4 cyl.
It looks like the 2004 Chevy Silverado Z71 Crew Cab SB is rated to get 15/18 MPG. The Pilot is rated to get 17/22. If your pickup is getting MPG near the higher end and your Pilot is getting MPG near the lower end, then I can definitely see they would be getting similar MPG results.
You have a very good point about gas mileage being affected by how hard the engine is working. Another thing to consider is that in stop-and-go traffic your pickup will get much worse MPG than the Pilot because of the weight difference. Once the pickup is moving, however, the weight becomes less of a factor.
I think once the EPA testing is changed, we'll see real-world MPG estimates.
FWIW, our MPG results fall right within the EPA estimate range for the Pilot... but much closer to the lower end (city) than some of the other vehicles we've owned. |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by skyraider
Nobody has mentioned tire pressure yet. I keep mine at 36psi. Rides a little rougher than the 32 the manual recommends but to me not bad:)
I agree, however, at best I think that increasing the PSI from 32 to 36 would yield an improvement of (at most) only 1-2 MPG... nothing drastic, but a small improvement.
I have 36 PSI on all four tires for that same purpose, plus it improves the responsiveness of the steering a little (IMO). I also think that the ride difference is very small. |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by sjlee
Another thing to consider is that in stop-and-go traffic your pickup will get much worse MPG than the Pilot because of the weight difference. Once the pickup is moving, however, the weight becomes less of a factor.
Nope, the same applies for hwy and stop and go city mpg. Our Pilot and the Silverado get the same mpg in stop and go city traffic - 14 mpg. The Pilot has to climb higher in rpm to launch the vehicle from a stop at a reasonable speed. |
|
|
| whizmo |
I think we all understand that mileage will vary with tire pressures, driving speeds, etc. But I agree with the sentiment here that the Pilot underperforms with respect to its EPA ratings compared to other competing vehicles. I've owned ten vehicles in the last 15 years or so and they've all performed similar to their EPA ratings where the Pilot is consistently about 2-3 mpg low. My experience is that it gets about the same mileage as a V8 Tahoe, and that's a poor showing by the Honda. The dealer has looked at it and pronounced it absolutely normal.
Now with 15K miles in a little over a year, I like the Pilot more and more and it's been dead reliable. But it's a gas hog and that's not what I was expecting when I bought a Honda.
- Mark |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by jl_ss
Nope, the same applies for hwy and stop and go city mpg. Our Pilot and the Silverado get the same mpg in stop and go city traffic - 14 mpg. The Pilot has to climb higher in rpm to launch the vehicle from a stop at a reasonable speed.
14 MPG makes sense for the Silverado, but on the Pilot it seems pretty bad. Like I said, in our case, we see 17-18 in the city. |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by sjlee
14 MPG makes sense for the Silverado, but on the Pilot it seems pretty bad. Like I said, in our case, we see 17-18 in the city.
I agree, it sounds bad for the Pilot with an EPA of 17 city, however, there are a large number of us that get 14-15 city with the Pilot (and MDX). |
|
|
| GreenMachine |
quote:
Originally posted by jl_ss
I agree, it sounds bad for the Pilot with an EPA of 17 city, however, there are a large number of us that get 14-15 city with the Pilot (and MDX).
There is also a large number who do not get that low mileage. I have never seen under 17mpg since the very first tank the dealer filled up. :rolleyes:
My last all highway trip was almost 26mpg. I am going again to Orlando tomorrow, except this time I will have two more passengers along with their stuff. I will probably also have to use the A/C on the way down since it’s getting quite warm. I will be keeping track of the mileage to see how much it goes down. I want to compare my calculations with the Scangauge II. |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by GreenMachine
There is also a large number who do not get that low mileage. I have never seen under 17mpg since the very first tank the dealer filled up. :rolleyes:
My last all highway trip was almost 26mpg. I am going again to Orlando tomorrow, except this time I will have two more passengers along with their stuff. I will probably also have to use the A/C on the way down since it’s getting quite warm. I will be keeping track of the mileage to see how much it goes down. I want to compare my calculations with the Scangauge II.
And it's funny how there seems to be very little in between - on both the Pilot and MDX sites. A lot of the forum members who get epa mpg with the Pilot readily admit to driving very conservatively and turning the A/C off a lot (and are very quick to offer tips on getting that mpg). By comparison I get very close to epa with the Silverado driving normally (keeping up with traffic, normal traffic starts from a light, A/C on whenever I want it on, etc). But even when I "baby" the Pilot, mpg does not increase very much at all (certainly not anywhere near 26 mpg hwy). |
|
|
| sfhondapilot |
quote:
Originally posted by dragoncoach
Hey Dave, you must drive pretty fast down I-5. I get 14-15 mpg in the city as well, but actually get 23-24 driving I-5 (all freeway doing 70-75 mph). Over all, we average about 17-18. BTW, how's the M doing?
:2: :2: :2:
Hi, Art.
I usually have the rocket box on top of the car so add some additional drag and, yes, the cruise is usually set around 80 but I find I am often into the gas when traffic evaporates (which is frequent at 5am).
The M is great. There's a company up in Portland, HorsepowerFreaks, that has developed a turbo for the e46 M3. Supposedly, on pump gas, it will jump the rwhp from ~270 to 500. Add an injector kit and you can push 600 horses at the rear wheels. I am hoping that they put in for CARB exemption. If they do, my M will be there, in a heartbeat, for the install. |
|
|
| BillG |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
My experience is that it gets about the same mileage as a V8 Tahoe, and that's a poor showing by the Honda. The dealer has looked at it and pronounced it absolutely normal.
Gotta agree on this point.
One of the reasons I bought the Pilot was that I expected better mileage than the other vehicles I was considering.
I considered buying a Tacoma Double Cab. Had the EPA ratings on the Pilot been more realistic, I might have gone that way. |
|
|
| w3david |
I was also experimenting with 89 vs. 91 gas to determinate if different gas will make any difference in MPG. So far, I notice 91 give me much more torque in low rpm vs. 89 is weak in low power when in low speed. Acceleration is significantly better when using 91. Funny thing is I found actually 89 gives me a little better MPG. However, I have just started the experiment, and would not jump in a conclusion at this moment.
Anyone has experience/knowledge using different gas vs. their MPG? |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by w3david
Anyone has experience/knowledge using different gas vs. their MPG?
Different brands and formulations have greater differences than different octanes.
Formulations can change even within a brand without you knowing.
Mileage and perceived power vary on many factors other then fuel type/quality, and many of these factors are not easily perceived or measured.
Mileage and perception of power is very hard to measure in any accurate and reproducible manner.
Based on all this, I KNOW that unless you are willing to spend far more time effort and expense on testing than I have EVER heard of anyone outside the industry do, you are far more likely to develop myths and superstitions, than you are to develop any valid conclusions. |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Mileage and perceived power vary on many factors other then fuel type/quality, and many of these factors are not easily perceived or measured.
Mileage and perception of power is very hard to measure in any accurate and reproducible manner.
I agree... the "butt dyno" is far from accurate. Unless you're willing to take your Pilot and have the actual HP/torque measured each time you fill up with a different octane gas, you won't know for sure what the actual difference in performance is.
In addition, it doesn't surprise me that the higher octane gas gives you lower gas mileage. Higher octane gas burns much slower than lower octane gas.
Here's an interesting article on octane rating on Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
Here's a sample:
"The power output of an engine depends on the energy content of its fuel, and this bears no simple relationship to the octane rating. A common myth amongst petrol consumers is that adding a higher octane fuel to a vehicle's engine will increase its performance and/or lessen its fuel consumption; this is false—engines perform best when using fuel with the octane rating they were designed for and any increase in performance by using a fuel with a different octane rating is minimal or even imaginary." |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by BillG
I considered buying a Tacoma Double Cab. Had the EPA ratings on the Pilot been more realistic, I might have gone that way.
Same here. If I had to do it all over again, I'd get a V8 4Runner. It was neck and neck between the two and the Honda's better mileage was the decider for me. But I honestly don't think the Pilot is any better on gas and might even be worse.
Of course, in the grand scheme of things and with the still relatively low US gas prices, the extra gas cost of the Pilot over what I was expecting is not very significant, a few hundred $ a year perhaps.
- Mark |
|
|
| Roger |
quote:
Originally posted by sjlee
Which "big Ford truck" are you talking about, because I don't think there are any Ford trucks that have an EPA city rating of 20 mpg or more?
It's called sarcasm folks, that's why the little smiley guy is rolling his eyes. I think gas mileage is one of the most overestimated things that we talk about. |
|
|
| nobby |
| I don't think "Pilot" and "economy" should ever be used in the same sentence. |
|
|
| rocky |
I only track mine on long runs like Boston to Greenville SC when I can get 22mpg in summer and just got 23.8 in Feb.
Otherwise, during my regular commute it works out at just under 20mpg (sounds better than 19.8) unless I have a few days of playing racing driver and the lead foot kicks in....then I get whats coming |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by nobby
I don't think "Pilot" and "economy" should ever be used in the same sentence.
It should if it replaced your Range Rover! |
|
|
| dragoncoach |
quote:
Originally posted by nobby
I don't think "Pilot" and "economy" should ever be used in the same sentence.
I personally have NEVER seen the two associated...nor have I ever seen a mid or full sized SUV classified as an economy vehicle. Mileage on vehicles can greatly vary due to driving styles, traffic, condition of the car and other factors. We basically just drive and fill. A few mpgs either way is not going to really matter in the grand scheme of overall driving costs. Ever try looking at the 4Runner's actual mpg? I thinking it's not going to be very good. |
|
|
| dragoncoach |
quote:
Originally posted by sfhondapilot
:2: :2: :2:
Hi, Art.
I usually have the rocket box on top of the car so add some additional drag and, yes, the cruise is usually set around 80 but I find I am often into the gas when traffic evaporates (which is frequent at 5am).
The M is great. There's a company up in Portland, HorsepowerFreaks, that has developed a turbo for the e46 M3. Supposedly, on pump gas, it will jump the rwhp from ~270 to 500. Add an injector kit and you can push 600 horses at the rear wheels. I am hoping that they put in for CARB exemption. If they do, my M will be there, in a heartbeat, for the install.
Holly crap! You'll burn rubber for blocks! Then you'll wonder why you're going through tires so fast. Sounds interesting but I would be concerned about any effects on other parts of the engine or drivetrain but I'm sure you have checked it out extensively. Let me know if you do it. I'd like to check it out. |
|
|
| JimB823 |
| Yeah, I can see transmission and differential parts flying all over the neighborhood! :21: |
|
|
| tangotango99 |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
I think we all understand that mileage will vary with tire pressures, driving speeds, etc. But I agree with the sentiment here that the Pilot underperforms with respect to its EPA ratings compared to other competing vehicles. I've owned ten vehicles in the last 15 years or so and they've all performed similar to their EPA ratings where the Pilot is consistently about 2-3 mpg low. My experience is that it gets about the same mileage as a V8 Tahoe, and that's a poor showing by the Honda. The dealer has looked at it and pronounced it absolutely normal.
Now with 15K miles in a little over a year, I like the Pilot more and more and it's been dead reliable. But it's a gas hog and that's not what I was expecting when I bought a Honda.
- Mark
I do not think Honda is truly capable of high mpg as published with current engines.I hope the new engines will improve on that. |
|
|
| bme107 |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
......the Pilot is consistently about 2-3 mpg low. ......
quote:
Originally posted by jl_ss
......there are a large number of us that get 14-15 city with the Pilot (and MDX).
I've tracked every tank for the past 2 years ('05 EXL) and we get 14-15 around town and 20 MAX on the highway. Average starts in town and +5mph cruising speeds.
My father bought the exact same Pilot one month before us and is getting the exact same results in NY. Hoped for much better.
I need to search out what the people with the 2wd and variable cyl management are getting.
At a minimum I can use my numbers as a benchmark to help indicate if something starts to go bad. |
|
|
| GreenMachine |
Well the mileage for our trip to Orlando went down, as expected. I had 2 more adults along with their luggage, and the weather was warm. I ran the A/C the entire way down, about 170 miles and 1/3 the way back yesterday because it was cooler. It rained the entire trip down, and our speed varied dramatically due to weather, traffic, and construction. There was a lot of speeding up and slowing down. Some points of I-95, we got down to almost a complete stop. The traffic on the way back was fine. For our trip we went 341 miles on 15.6 gallons. That's almost 22mpg, which is great with me.
I am not the first one leaving the stoplight, but I am certainly not the last either. I don't drive constantly think about getting good mileage either. I have never been disappointed with the mileage of this 4400 pound vehicle, and even if it was much lower, I still wouldn't care because it's a very safe truck with great reliability. :4: Oh, I think it looks pretty good too. :cool: |
|
|
| w3david |
I learnt that Honda acknowleged their MPG rating for 06 and older cars may subject to a higher number compares to actual, because the odemeter runs faster. They will issue compensation to people were leasing the cars and extend warranty for people who bought it.
This was the trick that Honda get higher rating on MPG, but actual varies. I also learnt that they modified the system to get a more accurate MPG rating from some 07 models. (not sure if 07 Pilot was among those)
I do believe there are some cars (same model) will perform better in MPG than others, due to the quality variations, yet this is not the point for the discussion here.
If majority of cars, or certain portion of cars, are suffering the same low MPG, Honda should acknowlege the issue and resolve or compensation people who bought the car based on the GAS EFFICIENT advertisement. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by w3david
I learnt that Honda acknowleged their MPG rating for 06 and older cars may subject to a higher number compares to actual, because the odemeter runs faster. They will issue compensation to people were leasing the cars and extend warranty for people who bought it.
Where did you learn that the sticker MPG was affected by the odometer issue?
quote:
Originally posted by w3david
This was the trick that Honda get higher rating on MPG, but actual varies. I also learnt that they modified the system to get a more accurate MPG rating from some 07 models. (not sure if 07 Pilot was among those).
Where did you hear that this was a "trick" to get higher MPG ratings? |
|
|
| dustino8 |
quote:
Originally posted by w3david
Honda should acknowlege the issue and resolve or compensation people who bought the car based on the GAS EFFICIENT advertisement.
Doesn't the EPA come up with these mileage figures? Why should Honda compensate for numbers they didn't derive? They are simply stating what the EPA estimates are. |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by dustino8
Doesn't the EPA come up with these mileage figures? Why should Honda compensate for numbers they didn't derive? They are simply stating what the EPA estimates are.
Exactly. In addition, the poster also assumes that the EPA uses the odometer on the vehicle to help calculate the gas mileage, which is inaccurate in the first place.
Also, if you read the EPA jargon on the window sticker, it specifically states that the MPG figures are an ESTIMATE and that actual results will vary. In addition, it also lists additional ranges for both city and highway gas mileage.
When 2008 Pilots come out, they will have the new EPA estimates, so it will be interesting to see how much it changes. |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by sjlee
Exactly. In addition, the poster also assumes that the EPA uses the odometer on the vehicle to help calculate the gas mileage, which is inaccurate in the first place.
Also, if you read the EPA jargon on the window sticker, it specifically states that the MPG figures are an ESTIMATE and that actual results will vary. In addition, it also lists additional ranges for both city and highway gas mileage.
When 2008 Pilots come out, they will have the new EPA estimates, so it will be interesting to see how much it changes.
Link |
|
|
| GreenMachine |
quote:
Originally posted by w3david
I learnt that Honda acknowleged their MPG rating for 06 and older cars may subject to a higher number compares to actual, because the odemeter runs faster. They will issue compensation to people were leasing the cars and extend warranty for people who bought it.
This was the trick that Honda get higher rating on MPG, but actual varies. I also learnt that they modified the system to get a more accurate MPG rating from some 07 models. (not sure if 07 Pilot was among those)
I do believe there are some cars (same model) will perform better in MPG than others, due to the quality variations, yet this is not the point for the discussion here.
If majority of cars, or certain portion of cars, are suffering the same low MPG, Honda should acknowlege the issue and resolve or compensation people who bought the car based on the GAS EFFICIENT advertisement.
The GPS we used on our trip read a little over 1 mph slower than the speedo at 73mph. That's close enough for me. When I get new tires, that difference will probably go away since the new ones will be a little larger/wider. |
|
|
| sjlee |
It's been a while since I went back and checked my gas mileage spreadsheet for the Pilot, but with all this talk about crappy gas mileage and the new EPA estimates I had to see what we are getting.
We bought our 2005 Pilot new back in November 2005. At the last fill-up, we had 21,068 miles on the odometer. Our overall average since we bought it has been 18.6 MPG.
Here are some examples of what we're getting for mileage. All are with at least a 5 gallon fill-up and excludes the fill-up by the dealer upon delivery:
Worst: 15.4 MPG (@ 4358 miles)
Best: 25 MPG (@ 9595 miles)
Last five tanks (all mixed driving): 19.8, 19.1, 20.7, 16.1 and 20.2 MPG
I know that my calculations are not scientifically accurate, but it would appear that we are getting gas mileage results that are right in-line with the "old" EPA estimates.
:confused: |
|
|
| nobby |
quote:
Originally posted by nobby
I don't think "Pilot" and "economy" should ever be used in the same sentence.
I own a '93 Civic with 360k on it and it gets great mileage. I just associated "Honda" with "economy"when I bought the Pilot.
It replaced a '96 GMC Safari that, incidentally, got better mileage than the '06 Pilot. |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by nobby
I own a '93 Civic with 360k on it and it gets great mileage. I just associated "Honda" with "economy"when I bought the Pilot.
It replaced a '96 GMC Safari that, incidentally, got better mileage than the '06 Pilot.
Weird... did you just quote/reply to yourself? :confused: |
|
|
| dgipalo |
quote:
Originally posted by nobby
I own a '93 Civic with 360k on it and it gets great mileage. I just associated "Honda" with "economy"when I bought the Pilot.
It replaced a '96 GMC Safari that, incidentally, got better mileage than the '06 Pilot.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious:
The Pilot is a 2 1/4 ton trucklet with brick-like aero and a huge frontal area. The engine is 2.3 times larger than your civic, and weighs damn near double the weight of that generation Civic. As other folks have stated, it is possible to get decent-for-type fuel consumption (high teens in the city, low 20's at reasonable highway speeds). If you cruise in the 80's and treat stoplights like your personal NHRA course, the fuel consumption WILL royally suck. TANSTAFL. |
|
|
| jayjr98 |
The fact is, EPA estimates have been overstating mileage for years. We all know that the EPA will use its new methodology beginning in 2008.
But the cool thing is, there is a website where you can select your current vehcile and it shows you what the mileage estimate would have been if the new and more accurate tests were performed on it.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
For example, my 2005 4WD Pilot... window sticker said 17/22 and I NEVER got 17 MPG in the city -- EVER. Going to the website above, and selecting my Pilot, it shows that under the new tests my Pilot would be rated at 15/20.
That is a much more accurate estimate of its real fuel economy.
For what its worth, I get between 13-15 in the city. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by jayjr98
The fact is, EPA estimates have been overstating mileage for years. We all know that the EPA will use its new methodology beginning in 2008.
But the cool thing is, there is a website where you can select your current vehcile and it shows you what the mileage estimate would have been if the new and more accurate tests were performed on it.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
For example, my 2005 4WD Pilot... window sticker said 17/22 and I NEVER got 17 MPG in the city -- EVER. Going to the website above, and selecting my Pilot, it shows that under the new tests my Pilot would be rated at 15/20.
That is a much more accurate estimate of its real fuel economy.
For what its worth, I get between 13-15 in the city.
Since the test is different, I would assume that the new figure they give you is just an estimate of the "new estimate".:D |
|
|
| tangotango99 |
quote:
Originally posted by jayjr98
The fact is, EPA estimates have been overstating mileage for years. We all know that the EPA will use its new methodology beginning in 2008.
But the cool thing is, there is a website where you can select your current vehcile and it shows you what the mileage estimate would have been if the new and more accurate tests were performed on it.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
For example, my 2005 4WD Pilot... window sticker said 17/22 and I NEVER got 17 MPG in the city -- EVER. Going to the website above, and selecting my Pilot, it shows that under the new tests my Pilot would be rated at 15/20.
That is a much more accurate estimate of its real fuel economy.
For what its worth, I get between 13-15 in the city.
I believe driving habit , extra items in vehicle and tire pressure have effect on mileage, besides the EPA is just an estimate. |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by jayjr98
The fact is, EPA estimates have been overstating mileage for years. We all know that the EPA will use its new methodology beginning in 2008.
But the cool thing is, there is a website where you can select your current vehcile and it shows you what the mileage estimate would have been if the new and more accurate tests were performed on it.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
For example, my 2005 4WD Pilot... window sticker said 17/22 and I NEVER got 17 MPG in the city -- EVER. Going to the website above, and selecting my Pilot, it shows that under the new tests my Pilot would be rated at 15/20.
That is a much more accurate estimate of its real fuel economy.
For what its worth, I get between 13-15 in the city.
Like I said before, both the Integra and Pilot that we have get gas mileage right in line with the current EPA estimates. I guess we're in the "minority". :confused: |
|
|
| CMasten |
I have tracked my 05 now for the past 2.5 years and 25,460 miles.
I get almost exacly 17/18 in the city and 22/24 on the freeway.
No complaints here |
|
|
| philjohn |
Our Pilot is averaging around 17-18 mpg in mixed driving with temperatures below freezing. Our '05 Ford Super Crew 4X4 pickup tends to show 14-15 mpg in the same driving and we just got back from a 4,200 mile trip in the Ford pickup. It averaged 17.29 mpg on the way to Phoenix and about 12.5 mpg on the way back pulling a heavy tandum trailer. We have another trip coming up and I expect our EX-L AWD Pilot to average around 20 mpg on this trip. We'll keep you posted.
Mileage is a tough nut to crack because we don't measure it on a level playing field. Throw in a head wind and the mileage drops by 20% or more. Throw in a tail wind and it goes up 5%, etc. There's city driving on interstates that move along at 55 mph or more and then there's city driving that has you sitting still with the A/C on and the outside temperature sitting at 101 degrees (Phoenix last week!!). Such is life.
Bottom line is however, if you want mileage, you've got to bite the bullet and drive a car. Cars cut the wind better and that takes less gas. If you want room to carry things and AWD, you'll have to pay for it. I'd like to see Honda bring out a small V-6 diesel for the Pilot and Accord that would get us 30 mpg on the highway in the Pilot and 40 mpg in the Accord. Then too, if we could get a AWD Accord station wagon, we'd be all set. Food for thought, any way. |
|
|
| jayjr98 |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Since the test is different, I would assume that the new figure they give you is just an estimate of the "new estimate".:D
Not exactly. Realize that the EPA doesn't even drive the cars on the road!!!!
They're put onto a machine that goes through a series of controlled engine revs, and the emissions are measured at the exhaust. Using the measured emissions, they apply a "formula" based on factors such as vehicle weight (and many more) and that is how they get the estimates.
So the answer is no, they do not need to "re-do" older cars... they've alreasy measured their emissions output under certain conditions, now they just apply the new formula. |
|
|
| AZJim |
My 06 is a 2wd and the first week we had it we took from Phoenix to San Diego and got 24 mpg. I think we made it on one tank as well. I traded a 05 Durango Ltd w/hemi and that trip was a 3 tanker!!! I read online where Durango owners claim to get 20 mpg with a hemi and all I can say is Bull$hit!! I avg like 12/13 with city/hwy driving with the Dodge. I charge all my gas on amex and the year end statement itemizes fuel charges. I averged 350/mo for 1st 7 months of 06 with durango and 150 the last 5 months with the Pilot. I know its a 4wd vs 2 wd but in Phoenix 2wd is all I need plus the extra $200/month now pays for the premium fuel I use in my Saab 9-5 Combi.
Jim |
|
|
| switch |
Gas mileage can vary widely because of various factors.
In the winter, additives are added to gasoline in the colder climates, and this additive will decrease gas mileage.
Running with AC on, or with fans, headlights, etc., will decrease gas mileage. In a small car, it takes as much power to run the AC full out as it takes to cruise at 50mph.
Driving habits make a huge difference in gas mileage. If you're constantly feather light on the gas pedal, you'll get much better mileage.
Terrain makes quite a difference on gas mileage. If you live in an area that has a lot of hills, expect to have reduced gas mileage (and increased brake pad wear).
Roads and locales make quite a difference. Some city commutes of 20 miles might involve very little stop/start, while others have a lot of lights along the way. Which one is a true "city" mileage indicator?
Tires and tire pressure can make a noticeable difference. Some tires will increase mileage on a Pilot by 1 to 2 mpg. Running 38psi instead of 33psi, on the freeway, can give you 1 to 2 mpg. Just by changing tires and running more pressure, you could go from 18 to 22 mpg on the highway.
Finally, some large vehicles will get good mileage on the highway. They often lug along at a low RPM. A 3.5L engine on a vehicle that is going 65mph might be running at 2500rpm. On another vehicle, the same size of engine might be running at 2000rpm. For the later vehicle, the displacement is the same but it is only filling up the cylinders 80% as much. I've ridden in a Cadillac that gets good highway mileage, and it's mostly due to the car's final drive ratio being very low. Get into a hilly condition, and the decent mileage goes out the window.
I'd bet the RPM the V6 RAV4 pulls on the highway is lower than the 4 cylinder. Have you tried a new 4 cylinder Accord? It revs much lower on the highway than the previous generation, and it shows in the gas mileage. |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by switch
Gas mileage can vary widely because of various factors.
Don't forget aerodynamics is also a factor. |
|
|
|
