| halzhu |
Pilot False gas mileage from Honda like its Accord Hybrid:
Two years ago, I bought a new Pilot EX-L because Honda's ad "Best mileage of the SUV in its kind, when I was comparing with Toyota 4Runner. After breakin and after 5000 miles, I was never able to get the Pilot claimed 17-22.
I was just curious about what gas miles the other Pilot owner would get. So I searched Google for "Complaints Honda Pilot Gas mileage" and found this website very first time. I have read some defensive responses here, such as your driving habit, tire pressure, how your gas miles were measured, how hard you push the gas pedal or break, etc.... None of the obvious reasons apply to my situation, I am always a driver caring about gas miles to most extent over many cars I have driven. As a habit, I measure and calculate my gas miles every single tank of gas and average them even monthly. I disappointed with my Honda Pilot gas mileage mostly 16 mpg on a routine 40 mile daily trip with 70% freeway and good Salt Lake County urban highway and no traffic jams.
I agree a suggestion to file a class action against Honda's false gas mileage claim. |
|
|
| dustino8 |
| As posted before in other threads, Honda does not come up with these figures. The EPA does, and Honda lists them in the vehicle specs. Is it up to Honda to verify the EPA estimates? I doubt it. They are listed as EPA estimates, and there is no guarantee. |
|
|
| larryziegler |
| As was previously posted, the EPA does the testing on a dynamometer, so onboard weight, road conditions/friction, and wind resistance are not factors. With my driving style, I get 15 mpg city and 22 mpg highway as a general rule. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
I get about 17 around town driving hard and short trips and get 20 to 22 on the highway also driving fairly hard and fast.
There are so many things that affect gas mileage, it is just not worrying about unless you are getting truly unreasonable mileage (less than 50% of expected, IMHO) |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by halzhu
[BTwo years ago, I bought a new Pilot EX-L because Honda's ad "Best mileage of the SUV in its kind, when I was comparing with Toyota 4Runner. After breakin and after 5000 miles, I was never able to get the Pilot claimed 17-22.
I was just curious about what gas miles the other Pilot owner would get.
I agree a suggestion to file a class action against Honda's false gas mileage claim. [/B]
I wish I knew your real motives, I can only guess. I've had a '04 Pilot 4wd since March of '04. My driving is pretty much 30/40% highway. I've never been on a trip long enough to fill the tank while traveling. I have kept exact records on (your city) gasprices.com. For the year 2005 I averaged 19.86 mpg, 2006 19.59mpg and so far this year I've averaged 19.31mpg. Consisering the size of the vehicle it would be hard to please me more!....unless you were paying:D |
|
|
| dpierson |
quote:
Originally posted by halzhu
Pilot False gas mileage from Honda like its Accord Hybrid:
Two years ago, I bought a new Pilot EX-L because Honda's ad "Best mileage of the SUV in its kind, when I was comparing with Toyota 4Runner. After breakin and after 5000 miles, I was never able to get the Pilot claimed 17-22.
I was just curious about what gas miles the other Pilot owner would get. So I searched Google for "Complaints Honda Pilot Gas mileage" and found this website very first time. I have read some defensive responses here, such as your driving habit, tire pressure, how your gas miles were measured, how hard you push the gas pedal or break, etc.... None of the obvious reasons apply to my situation, I am always a driver caring about gas miles to most extent over many cars I have driven. As a habit, I measure and calculate my gas miles every single tank of gas and average them even monthly. I disappointed with my Honda Pilot gas mileage mostly 16 mpg on a routine 40 mile daily trip with 70% freeway and good Salt Lake County urban highway and no traffic jams.
I agree a suggestion to file a class action against Honda's false gas mileage claim.
With the aerodynamics of a flying brick did you really expect to get great gas mileage?
Good gas mileage and SUV should never be used in the same sentence or paragraph. However I am getting about 15 mpg in my daily driving which is a mix of surface streets and freeway. On my long trips with the Pilot that are all freeway I topped out at about 22 mpg with two adults, a 50lb lab/shepard mix, a loaded cooler, and cargo for a 2,000 mile trip. Much better than my old Jeep that would have gotten about 17 mpg under the same circumstances.
Good luck with your class action suit. |
|
|
| gryphon75 |
Maybe the problem is that you are filling up your vehicle in the middle of the day and not getting as much gas as you think. Maybe those little magnents will help. Maybe your McDonalds coffee is too hot... etc... etc...
What a world we live in where people would suggest sueing over this type of crap.
By the way you may want to sue Honda also because you have to drive. It is a pilot, and should have come with one.
:32: |
|
|
| tim.s |
quote:
Originally posted by halzhu
...Two years ago, I bought a new Pilot EX-L because Honda's ad "Best mileage of the SUV in its kind", when I was comparing with Toyota 4Runner. After breakin and after 5000 miles, I was never able to get the Pilot claimed 17-22...
So which SUV in the Pilot's class have you driven and consistently gotten better mileage?
I drove a Grand Cherokee on the same roads, same traffic, same driving style, same time of day for 5 or 6 years before getting the Pilot. On average, the Pilot gets a couple of mpg's better than the GC.
Granted, the GC isn't exactly the same class as the Pilot (smaller and beefer), but as far as I can tell, the Honda has lived up to it's "better mileage" claims.
By the way, I wouldn't put the 4Runner in the same class as the Pilot either. It's smaller and (as of a couple years ago) seemed more cheaply made. |
|
|
| Sportymonk |
I have an 05 and consistently get 17 - 18.5 running around town. 20- 22 on the road. Get 24 on long cruise control trips.
So the gas mileage isn't 35, I never could have gotten my new gas grill in the back of my Impala. Couldn't have gotten 7 people with luggage for two to the airport. etc etc. It meets my needs so until they built a Aston Martin that gets 50 mpg and can haul 150 cubic feet, I'll stick with the Pilot. |
|
|
| larryziegler |
quote:
Originally posted by halzhu
I disappointed with my Honda Pilot gas mileage mostly 16 mpg on a routine 40 mile daily trip with 70% freeway and good Salt Lake County urban highway and no traffic jams.
If you wanted good gas mileage, you should have purchased a CR-V instead. What I also failed to say in my last comment, if you are living in Salt Lake City, you are also driving at 4300 ft elevation, which will definitely affect gas mileage in a negative way. If you were commuting at 430 ft elevation, you'd find better economy. |
|
|
| iivtecracerii |
the pilot's claim isnt the best mileage of its kind. its has the best mileage among 8 passenger SUV's.
now, what other 8 passenger SUV's are there? hrmm....chevy tahoe/suburban, gmc yukon/XL, toyota sequoia, nissan armada, ....basically giant SUV's with V8's. |
|
|
| tangotango99 |
quote:
Originally posted by halzhu
Pilot False gas mileage from Honda like its Accord Hybrid:
Two years ago, I bought a new Pilot EX-L because Honda's ad "Best mileage of the SUV in its kind, when I was comparing with Toyota 4Runner. After breakin and after 5000 miles, I was never able to get the Pilot claimed 17-22.
I was just curious about what gas miles the other Pilot owner would get. So I searched Google for "Complaints Honda Pilot Gas mileage" and found this website very first time. I have read some defensive responses here, such as your driving habit, tire pressure, how your gas miles were measured, how hard you push the gas pedal or break, etc.... None of the obvious reasons apply to my situation, I am always a driver caring about gas miles to most extent over many cars I have driven. As a habit, I measure and calculate my gas miles every single tank of gas and average them even monthly. I disappointed with my Honda Pilot gas mileage mostly 16 mpg on a routine 40 mile daily trip with 70% freeway and good Salt Lake County urban highway and no traffic jams.
I agree a suggestion to file a class action against Honda's false gas mileage claim.
Let's not get ourselves into a "sue-happy "mode here, blame the EPA not Honda. |
|
|
| rockman19762001 |
| My '03 Pilot has always average between the EPA minimum and maximum range. For the size, weight, capacity to carry junk, the Pilot does ok on a gallon of gasoline. |
|
|
| jl_ss |
| The epa sets the test parameters and Honda does the actual testing - usually during vehicle development. The epa then confirms 15-20 percent of the results yearly. There has been a lot of discussion about the epa parameters not being indicative of real world results and the resulting correction factors that were recently developed. The epa estimates for the Pilot go from 17/22 to 15/20. And that still doesn't encompass all the variables that may affect your mpg. Even the epa says that their estimates are for comparison purposes and are not absolute values: Link . |
|
|
| whizmo |
In my experience, the OP has a point in that many of us (myself included) are, for the first time in our ownership of any vehicle, getting signfiicantly worse mileage than the EPA estimates and are doing no better than larger/heavier SUVs are doing. There are too many of us getting poor mileage to attribute it simply to driving habits.
In my case, I replaced an SUV rated 16 urban that was getting 17 with a Pilot rated at 17 urban that is now getting 15. No change in drivers, terrain, driving habits, etc. This experience has been reported by tens of us on this board.
I think if some of you crowing about your consistent 19 mpg would put in $50 worth of gas after traveling 220 miles in the "most fuel efficient SUV in it's class", you'd be a little more sympathetic.
Having said all this, this is NOT class action lawsuit material. As others have said, Honda didn't do the tests, the EPA did. And there is nothing in Honda's claims that is specific enough to hold up in any kind of lawsuit. The only winner in such a lawsuit would be the lawyers.
- Mark |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
In my experience, the OP has a point in that many of us (myself included) are, for the first time in our ownership of any vehicle, getting signfiicantly worse mileage than the EPA estimates and are doing no better than larger/heavier SUVs are doing. There are too many of us getting poor mileage to attribute it simply to driving habits.
In my case, I replaced an SUV rated 16 urban that was getting 17 with a Pilot rated at 17 urban that is now getting 15. No change in drivers, terrain, driving habits, etc. This experience has been reported by tens of us on this board.
I think if some of you crowing about your consistent 19 mpg would put in $50 worth of gas after traveling 220 miles in the "most fuel efficient SUV in it's class", you'd be a little more sympathetic.
Having said all this, this is NOT class action lawsuit material. As others have said, Honda didn't do the tests, the EPA did. And there is nothing in Honda's claims that is specific enough to hold up in any kind of lawsuit. The only winner in such a lawsuit would be the lawyers.
- Mark
I hate to always ask the same questions?
How do you measure your gas mileage?
Over how many consecutive tanks?
How often have you checked? |
|
|
| 5Gs |
| I noticed the 2008 4wd pilots are rated 15-20 mpg. I guess they changed their testing method. as far as I know, the 2008 is basically the same as the 2007? |
|
|
| rocky |
| When I saw this poster, I suspected a troll. still thinking that way. |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by 5Gs
I noticed the 2008 4wd pilots are rated 15-20 mpg. I guess they changed their testing method. as far as I know, the 2008 is basically the same as the 2007?
You missed all the epa adjustment discussions? The epa now applies correction factors to get closer to real life mpg without actually changing the test. |
|
|
| Sportymonk |
Well, the Pilot is one of the best vehicles I have had in terms of meeting EPA estimates. (Key word is estimates). I haven't even come close in some of my other vehicles (Chevy Astro, Impala, Ford Fairmont, etc) Like I said earlier, I am getting right at the EPA figures and a touch better on the highway if a long trip with nothing but cruise.
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
In my experience, the OP has a point in that many of us (myself included) are, for the first time in our ownership of any vehicle, getting significantly worse mileage than the EPA estimates and are doing no better than larger/heavier SUVs are doing. There are too many of us getting poor mileage to attribute it simply to driving habits.
- Mark
|
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
I hate to always ask the same questions?
How do you measure your gas mileage?
Over how many consecutive tanks?
How often have you checked?
Then don't. It's getting old.
I've kept gas mileage records in a logbook since I bought the vehicle (as I do with every vehicle I own - my wife thinks it anal as hell). And yes, I know how to compute gas mileage. Jeez.
- Mark |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Then don't. It's getting old.
I've kept gas mileage records in a logbook since I bought the vehicle (as I do with every vehicle I own - my wife thinks it anal as hell). And yes, I know how to compute gas mileage. Jeez.
- Mark
Well congratulations on your anal record keeping.
The issue is that many times little factors like poor methods and selective memory end up being significant factors in peoples belief they are getting poor gas mileage.
I would be interested the data from 5 or 10 consecutive fill-ups. |
|
|
| 5Gs |
quote:
Originally posted by jl_ss
You missed all the epa adjustment discussions? The epa now applies correction factors to get closer to real life mpg without actually changing the test.
I guess I did miss the discussions here (haven't had much time to visit this site lately!). :) |
|
|
| robrecht |
I think my wife still has our Pilot--I'll have to check in our garage when I get home.
The last car I bought for my own use was a 1993, and at that time the EPA estimate included an estimated range of about 5 mpg on each side of it's estimates. Contrary to many people's experience, I've never had any difficulty exceeding even the older, more optimistic EPA estimates when I drive extremely conservatively, eg, coasting downhill or to a stop, sometimes even with the engine turned off, accelerating very slowly, maintaining a very constant relatively slow speed on the highway, windows closed, no AC, etc. (Incidentally, my Dad & I used to keep meticulous records.) But when I drive my modest Miata like the sports car that it is, which is most of the time or even on the track ocassionally, I get horrible gas mileage.
Driving style has so much to do with your actual fuel economy and most drivers actually have terrible driving habits. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Driving style has so much to do with your actual fuel economy and most drivers actually have terrible driving habits.
You can say that again!
Oh, you already did.
:2: :2: :2: |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Driving style has so much to do with your actual fuel economy and most drivers actually have terrible driving habits.
Also some of the driving style issues are counter intuitive, and vary by vehicle. |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
I would be interested the data from 5 or 10 consecutive fill-ups.
Last ten fills show an overvall average of 14.91 mpg with a high of 16.37 and a low of 13.49. Again this is exactly the same type of service my previous SUV (which had a lower EPA rating) was returning around 17. The change in EPA testing calibration has nothing to do with this because both vehicles were tested on the "old" system.
I'll pass on spending an hour typing the data into here so you can check my math.
Sure driving style, weather conditions, loading, etc. etc. etc. have a huge effect on mileage. That doesn't diminish the fact that tens of us on this forum are experiencing significantly worse mileage compared to the estimates than any other vehicle we've ever owned.
- Mark |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Sure driving style, weather conditions, loading, etc. etc. etc. have a huge effect on mileage. That doesn't diminish the fact that tens of us on this forum are experiencing significantly worse mileage compared to the estimates than any other vehicle we've ever owned.
- Mark
No, I didn't intend my comment to negate your experience at all. Personally, I have no previous SUV experience to compare our Pilot with, and my wife just happens to be one of those people who does not have the best fuel economy style of driving. I used to when I drove a Diesel Rabbit, but not any more! :7: |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
No, I didn't intend my comment to negate your experience at all. Personally, I have no previous SUV experience to compare our Pilot with, and my wife just happens to be one of those people who does not have the best fuel economy style of driving. I used to when I drove a Diesel Rabbit, but not any more! :7:
No problem.
Anybody's single experience is anecdotal, but after looking at this and other boards for awhile, I'm convinced that the Pilot does tend to underperform vs. it's published mileage ratings for a very large number of drivers. Conversely, I've got friends who own a variety of Chevy V8-powered SUVs and trucks who have generally the opposite experience - they're vehicles seem to do better than they expected from the ratings.
Put a new V6 Honda Pilot and a new V8 Chevy Tahoe in 1000 drivers' hands, and I'm convinced the cars would return about the same mileage, despite the differences in mileage ratings, hp, size, weight, etc.
I don't interpret this as anything untoward by Honda - I just think there is either a lot of variance in mileage among samples of Pilots (my dealer says my car is running "to spec" although I wonder what they actually did to check it) or perhaps the testing protocol is unusually favorable to the Pilot. For example, the testing protocol does not take into account aerodynamics at all since the cars are tested on a dyno. Perhaps the Pilot is unusually draggy.
There has been quite a bit of discussion on this board about how much differently the 03-05 Pilots run vs. the 06-08 models, and many have reported their mileage dropping dramatically when they traded for the later-model cars, even though the EPA ratings haven't changed.
There have also been reports that mfgs will take the testing protcol and tune the engines to deliver optimal mileage on the protocol, even if this optimization causes the overall mileage in typical driving to be decreased. But I have no idea if this has happened - I'm just speculating.
In any event, I would never advise anyone to buy a Pilot over a similar competing SUV on the basis of better mileage.
- Mark |
|
|
| andyschneider |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Put a new V6 Honda Pilot and a new V8 Chevy Tahoe in 1000 drivers' hands, and I'm convinced the cars would return about the same mileage, despite the differences in mileage ratings, hp, size, weight, etc.
- Mark
Now THIS is an interesting comparison, because I owned a 2001 Chevy Tahoe with the 5.3L V8 and 4WD, and (a car separated) now drive a 2006 Honda Pilot with the 3.5L V6 and 4WD. Same driving style, same roads, everything the same. If you compare the two, I was averaging 15 mpg with the Tahoe over 35k miles, and averaging 18.5 mpg in the Pilot over 24k miles. Now, one factor that likely came into play here is the rear gearing - the Tahoe had the trailering package and the 3.73 rear end, so likely that cut the mpg by one or so. But overall the Pilot gets better mpg over a very long period of time.
Now, if you wanna compare differing driving styles, with both my wife and I owning Pilots at the same time, she was averaging 21mpg over the same period I was averaging that same 18.5 in mine. Reason? She drives like a "granny" and I drive with a lead foot. So that shows where the driver "difference" comes into play.
Just some more data to chuck into the fire here...
andy |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Put a new V6 Honda Pilot and a new V8 Chevy Tahoe in 1000 drivers' hands, and I'm convinced the cars would return about the same mileage, despite the differences in mileage ratings, hp, size, weight, etc.
I would think that given that test you would probably find 10's where it is true, and 100's where it is false.
We went from 2 different Range Rovers getting 12 around town and just barely 15 on trips to the Pilot getting 17 to 18 around town and 20 to 22 on trips.
I say "around town" and "trips" because neither set of driving conditions align with the EPA's "city" and "highway" assumptions. |
|
|
| kraky |
My buddy got one of the new sierra 4 wheel drive pickups with the engine that cuts cylinders (like the 2 wh drive Pilot). He's got it broke in and is now on synthetic oil. He's consistantly getting 19mpg with mostly highway driving...just a bit of stop and go mixed in.
Last weekend the wife and I drove a nice slow rural trip in our 07 Pilot with just a couple stops and goes....and speeds about 63mph tops. Our result was 20.1 MPG.
So in general the mileage between our two vehicles is about 1mpg.
One thing I've noticed about MY pilot is it doesn't seem to matter whether I'm driving slow rural roads or on the freeway at 73 mph......air cond on or 0ff......I almost always get 20-21 mpg. Seems like "thinking" of setting the cruise a little slower has no productivity for mpg.
I wish I could fall in love with the looks of the new Highlander...I'd probably be there in a minute cause I think they'll be pulling another 3-4 mpg over my pilot. I guess I'll just have to get off the band wagon and accept that I like most everything else about the Pilot. Guess there isn't a perfect SUV for a guy like me that gets ANAL over a point or two. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by kraky
My buddy got one of the new sierra 4 wheel drive pickups with the engine that cuts cylinders (like the 2 wh drive Pilot). He's got it broke in and is now on synthetic oil. He's consistantly getting 19mpg with mostly highway driving...just a bit of stop and go mixed in.
Last weekend the wife and I drove a nice slow rural trip in our 07 Pilot with just a couple stops and goes....and speeds about 63mph tops. Our result was 20.1 MPG.
So in general the mileage between our two vehicles is about 1mpg.
One thing I've noticed about MY pilot is it doesn't seem to matter whether I'm driving slow rural roads or on the freeway at 73 mph......air cond on or 0ff......I almost always get 20-21 mpg. Seems like "thinking" of setting the cruise a little slower has no productivity for mpg.
I wish I could fall in love with the looks of the new Highlander...I'd probably be there in a minute cause I think they'll be pulling another 3-4 mpg over my pilot. I guess I'll just have to get off the band wagon and accept that I like most everything else about the Pilot. Guess there isn't a perfect SUV for a guy like me that gets ANAL over a point or two.
I doubt the Highlander will actually get you 4 MPG better, and that is less than $40 a moth to teh average driver.
For $40 a month, i'll drive what I like better! |
|
|
| gryphon75 |
Going to my house my mileage in a 2003 Pilot sucks.
Leaving my house my mileage is great.
Oh yeah, I live on top of a mountain.
:2: |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by kraky
My buddy got one of the new sierra 4 wheel drive pickups with the engine that cuts cylinders (like the 2 wh drive Pilot). He's got it broke in and is now on synthetic oil. He's consistantly getting 19mpg with mostly highway driving...just a bit of stop and go mixed in.
Does your buddy have the 5.3L or the 6.0L? I get 20 mpg hwy from my Silverado crew cab that has the 5.3L without cylinder deactivation. |
|
|
| krygny |
| Some of you people have to stop getting so angry about those of us who defend the Pilot's mileage. If I'm getting good mileage, I just can't help it. |
|
|
| kraky |
| Re the engine.....not sure....I think the smaller engine. Thats pretty phenominal out of a truck that sits as high as a 4wheeler and the gmc grill is not what you'd think is very aerodynamic!! I've driven the truck and it sure has plenty of power and the ride is wonderful. |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by krygny
Some of you people have to stop getting so angry about those of us who defend the Pilot's mileage.
Pot calling the kettle black.
- Mark |
|
|
| krygny |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Pot calling the kettle black.
- Mark
:confused: |
|
|
| switch |
With the Pilot, I have noticed that around town the gas mileage is a bit better than what I expected, and on the highway it's what I expected.
The Pilot doesn't have sufficient low end torque for climbing hills at lower RPMs. Even on grades that aren't steep, it has to gear down to a fairly high rev in order to keep the speed consistent. With some other vehicles, like a V8 powered GMC truck, it will be able to keep the revs down.
One other thing I've found is that if I can, when on the highway I drive with cruise control as much as possible. It does a better job of keeping the vehicle from gearing down than if I drove without the cruise control. This was not the case with previous Accords and Civics that I owned. |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by switch
The Pilot doesn't have sufficient low end torque for climbing hills at lower RPMs. Even on grades that aren't steep, it has to gear down to a fairly high rev in order to keep the speed consistent. With some other vehicles, like a V8 powered GMC truck, it will be able to keep the revs down.
I've stated this same thing multiple times in different threads. I live in a hilly area and it's exactly what I observe. With my V8 truck, I get much closer to the epa mpg estimate than the Pilot. |
|
|
| BedfordFred |
I have owned 9 Hondas in my lifetime. All but two of them regularly exceeded the EPA rated highway mileage.
The two that didn't? 98 CR-V and 07 Pilot. Both are lucky to exceed city rating. |
|
|
| switch |
quote:
Originally posted by jl_ss
I've stated this same thing multiple times in different threads. I live in a hilly area and it's exactly what I observe.
I live in a very hilly area too. The mountains rise from sea level to 3100 feet in about 5 miles of road.
Eastern edge of North Vancouver, where I live:
Houses on the west side of the North Shore of Vancouver:
Vancouver in the foreground (west end), North Shore in the background:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_yNxuaFYeuXs...00/P1010058.JPG |
|
|
| larryziegler |
| I just returned from meetings in Napa Valley, a 428 mi roundtrip combination of freeways and 2 lane roadway and averaged 24.5 mpg, the highest mileage I have gotten so far. My average speed, according to my GPS, was right around 67 mph in each direction, with a maximum speed of 86 mph going and 83 mph coming back. I filled up just as I left town and filled up as I returned to town, using 17.5 gal of regular 87 octane gas. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by switch
I live in a very hilly area too.
I was in Vancouver a few weeks ago--beautiful area, great seafood! |
|
|
| larryziegler |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I was in Vancouver a few weeks ago--beautiful area, great seafood!
I'm afraid to go to Vancouver due to the shift in the currency valuation :D
I have to say Vancouver is a gorgeous city, as I have been up there 4 times and would definitely go back. |
|
|
| switch |
It's picturesque with the mountain backdrop, but if you're on the mountain side, it's hard on the gas mileage (and the brake pads) as there is a lot of stop/start driving in the hilly areas.
Since the Pilot pushes its fair share of air, do people at higher elevations (without a lot of hill climbing) get better gas mileage? For example. if you stuck to city driving in a place like Boulder CO? |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by switch
Since the Pilot pushes its fair share of air, do people at higher elevations (without a lot of hill climbing) get better gas mileage? For example. if you stuck to city driving in a place like Boulder CO?
Theoretically yes. It's the reason airliners are so efficient flying at high altitude.
But since aero drag really only starts being a signficant factor at highway speeds, it would show up only in highway use and any signfiicant hills would negate the advantage. For a trip across I-80 in Wyoming (which is relatively high and relatively flat) with no wind (which is rare), I could see mileage climbing 10% or so due to reduced aero drag. But city driving in Boulder? Probably insignificant.
- Mark |
|
|
| dgipalo |
quote:
Originally posted by switch
It's picturesque with the mountain backdrop, but if you're on the mountain side, it's hard on the gas mileage (and the brake pads) as there is a lot of stop/start driving in the hilly areas.
Since the Pilot pushes its fair share of air, do people at higher elevations (without a lot of hill climbing) get better gas mileage? For example. if you stuck to city driving in a place like Boulder CO?
I'd think that you'll lose engine efficiency (and certainly power output) faster than you'll gain from reduced air drag. |
|
|
| larryziegler |
| Actually the vehicle is less efficient, as the air is less dense, which means less air into the intake. Though the computer does provides some compensation to the air/fuel ratio, it doesn't compensate enough and performance/economy suffers at higher altitude. 70 mph speeds are too slow for any noticeable differences in wind resistance. |
|
|
| switch |
quote:
Originally posted by larryziegler
Actually the vehicle is less efficient, as the air is less dense, which means less air into the intake. Though the computer does provides some compensation to the air/fuel ratio, it doesn't compensate enough and performance/economy suffers at higher altitude.
You'd think a simple electric fan on the intake manifold would help with reduced air density. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by switch
You'd think a simple electric fan on the intake manifold would help with reduced air density.
Take a look at the power required to run a supercharger.
An electric fan would need the same amount of power.
BTW, a well designed engine is just as fuel efficient at high elevations.
It may even be more fuel efficient. It does operate at significantly less peak output potential. (size efficiency) |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by larryziegler
Actually the vehicle is less efficient, as the air is less dense, which means less air into the intake. Though the computer does provides some compensation to the air/fuel ratio, it doesn't compensate enough and performance/economy suffers at higher altitude. 70 mph speeds are too slow for any noticeable differences in wind resistance.
I would think most modern engine computers and sensor systems would "compensate enough". Carbs had problems with running too rich at altitude, but modern EFI systems generally don't.
Back of the envelope calculations show that aero drag at 5K altitude is reduced about 13% vs. sea level. And at 70 mph, aero drag accounts for more than half of the total power required to propel a vehicle. So I'd expect steady-state fuel mileage to be improved somewhere around 5-8%. I'd expect this to be noticeable, but as we've discussed, if hills, stops, etc. are mixed in, it would probably get lost in the noise.
- Mark |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by switch
You'd think a simple electric fan on the intake manifold would help with reduced air density.
These "fans" are called superchargers (if mechanically driven from the engine) or turbochargers (if driven by a turbine powered by exhaust gases). You could drive them electrically, but you'd have to generate the power from the engine and it is more efficient just to directly run the supercharger from the engine. Turbos are more popular these days because they are powered by latent heat in the exhaust gases that would be wasted otherwise.
They can be engineered to maintain sea level air density at altitude but when used on cars, they tend to be a simplified design with a fixed amount of boost over ambient pressure so engine power declines with altitude just like an unboosted engine.
- Mark |
|
|
| larryziegler |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
I would think most modern engine computers and sensor systems would "compensate enough". Carbs had problems with running too rich at altitude, but modern EFI systems generally don't. - Mark
Take a drive to Lake Tahoe (elev 6200 ft), with freeway speed capable highways as high as 9,000 ft and you'll see a great deal in loss of performance, mushy gas pedals, and subsequent lower fuel mileage. EFI doesn't compensate enough for thinner air at those altitudes. Engines just don't breath as well in that environment. |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by larryziegler
Take a drive to Lake Tahoe (elev 6200 ft), with freeway speed capable highways as high as 9,000 ft and you'll see a great deal in loss of performance, mushy gas pedals, and subsequent lower fuel mileage.
Loss of performance? You bet. At alttiude the engine will have less peak horsepower.
Mushy gas pedals? Sure. For any given power level desired, you'll have to press the gas pedal down further.
But loss of power is NOT the same as loss of EFFICIENCY.
Any engine that isn't artificially boosted is going to lose horespower with altitude. This means that for any given throttle setting, the lower air density will mean less O2 to combust with fuel and less power.
But if the FI system is working properly, it will keep the A/F ratio the same, so while you'll make less horsepower, you'll also use less fuel in EXACTLY the same proportion. (If it's not working properly, yes, the mixture will be overly rich and you'll waste gas, but I've never heard of any issue with the Pilot not properly conpensating for changes in air density with altitude and the fact the car makes less power doesn't indicate the A/F ratio is too rich.)
Bottom line is that for any amount of fuel consumed, the engine will make the same power, you'll just need more throttle to pump a larger volume of less-dense air into the engine. Efficiency is basically unchanged. (Actually, that's not totally true - the engine will actually be slightly more efficient at altitude because pumping losses will be less past the more wide-open throttle plate, but that's a minor consideration.)
And if the engine is exactly as efficient, then if aero drag is less, the car will get better mileage. That's the reason airplanes get better gas mileage at higher altitudes, including ones powered by piston engines.
- Mark |
|
|
| switch |
| So at alititude is it recommended to have a ramair scoop and to drive fast? |
|
|
| larryziegler |
| I thought we were talking cars here, not airplanes. :D |
|
|
| dgipalo |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
Loss of performance? You bet. At alttiude the engine will have less peak horsepower.
Mushy gas pedals? Sure. For any given power level desired, you'll have to press the gas pedal down further.
But loss of power is NOT the same as loss of EFFICIENCY.
Any engine that isn't artificially boosted is going to lose horespower with altitude. This means that for any given throttle setting, the lower air density will mean less O2 to combust with fuel and less power.
But if the FI system is working properly, it will keep the A/F ratio the same, so while you'll make less horsepower, you'll also use less fuel in EXACTLY the same proportion. (If it's not working properly, yes, the mixture will be overly rich and you'll waste gas, but I've never heard of any issue with the Pilot not properly conpensating for changes in air density with altitude and the fact the car makes less power doesn't indicate the A/F ratio is too rich.)
Bottom line is that for any amount of fuel consumed, the engine will make the same power, you'll just need more throttle to pump a larger volume of less-dense air into the engine. Efficiency is basically unchanged. (Actually, that's not totally true - the engine will actually be slightly more efficient at altitude because pumping losses will be less past the more wide-open throttle plate, but that's a minor consideration.)
And if the engine is exactly as efficient, then if aero drag is less, the car will get better mileage. That's the reason airplanes get better gas mileage at higher altitudes, including ones powered by piston engines.
- Mark
If you keep the speed (power demanded) constant, especially on a grade, the tranny will downshift to keep up with the power demand. And the higher revs will result in increased frictional losses. |
|
|
| jomejmo |
| I have also been disappointed with my 05 EXL since claims like "better gas mileage in its class" were seriously taken into account during my buying decision. I do not think that a class action is the solution but consumers should not be mislead by the government or the automobile industry. Could these two be too close here? I get 13-14 mpg on mostly neighborhood driving, correctly measured frequently. Recently the dealer replaced spark plugs since a couple became bad way before their stated replace time. I have had a noticeable improvement in power and mpg but it is still too early to judge objectively. It is a great car but we are entitled to the real facts. |
|
|
| dgipalo |
quote:
Originally posted by jomejmo
I have also been disappointed with my 05 EXL since claims like "better gas mileage in its class" were seriously taken into account during my buying decision. I do not think that a class action is the solution but consumers should not be mislead by the government or the automobile industry. Could these two be too close here? I get 13-14 mpg on mostly neighborhood driving, correctly measured frequently. Recently the dealer replaced spark plugs since a couple became bad way before their stated replace time. I have had a noticeable improvement in power and mpg but it is still too early to judge objectively. It is a great car but we are entitled to the real facts.
Misfiring plugs will result in a significant MPG reduction. My '03 had been dropping MPG over the last couple thousand miles. Coincident with the MPG drop, I noticed a drivability problem at light throttle. Took the car in, and the dealer replaced the EGR per TSB/warranty extension. The next tank was ~ 2 MPG better than the previous 2 with no conscious change in driving conditions (16.8 to 18.6). My commute is ~10 miles, average speed 35 MPH, with some idling. I drive with respect to the Pilot's considerable bulk, and treat momentum as a precious commodity. ;)
If you have lots of short-trip driving where the engine starts near cold, and doesn't fully warm up, your MPG will suffer. I suspect Honda's emission strategy (and what gets it LEV/ULEV designation) has something to do with it. Seems Honda sets getting the catalyst up to temp ASAP a top priority. They do it by richening the mix and keeping timing 'late' so the exhaust temps are high. This strategy minimizes HC and CO emissions by getting the catalyst working, but the richer mix does cause increased fuel consumption during the first few minutes of operation. If your driving conditions have this as the predominant mode of operation, the gas mileage will suck. It can also cause rich-fouling of plugs. |
|
|
| jomejmo |
| Superb information. I will keep in mind the EGR valve, since its malfunction seems to also cause the driveability issues that I had experienced. Many thanks. |
|
|
| GreenMachine |
| I decided to see how well I could do on my daily roundtrip now that gas is getting a little more expensive. Since it's cool, I obviously ran with no A/C and did not race from each red light and stop sign. I went 407 miles on 19.4 gallons ~ 21mpg. :cool: I normally average about 18 - 19 in the summer. |
|
|
|
