| Nana's Dream |
I hope this is in the correct area for this question, but what I want to know is what you've done to aid or make your mpg better???
Now, mind you we just got our 2003 Pilot last Friday night, got 266.1 miles on 16.252 gal's. =16.37 mpg. This was mostly intown driving. We did just two days ago do t-belt,w/p & all drive belts( reg sched maintenance) nothing as far as tune-up related has been done, so plat plugs are maybe due??? My question is really any mods? If so, what?? How much did it really help, etc....
Mike B
aka "poppie"
:2: |
|
|
| jcantanixon |
The best thing I've done to help gas mileage was weight reduction in my right foot.
Driving habits have the biggest influence on mpg. Coast more, accelerate using less throttle, etc. If you have another vehicle with a reading for avg mpg, you can see the results in real time and apply those driving habits to the Pilot. |
|
|
| Nana's Dream |
I know, I know.... gas pedal has a raw egg on it & so does the brake pedal= easy does it ....light touch on both = gooooooddd gasssss$$$$ mpg
OK , but what I meant to ask was, anything like cold air intakes etc.... k & N filters etc, really worth it? We haven't been on a road trip to get a real hiway mpg , just didnt know if thats about it. Doesnt really matter a bunch I guess 'cause we love it to death any who....pics coming as soon as I can detail it out some...
Mike B
aka "poppie" |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by Nana's Dream
I know, I know.... gas pedal has a raw egg on it & so does the brake pedal= easy does it ....light touch on both = gooooooddd gasssss$$$$ mpg.
Actually, it is the brake that has the most influence, and gas second most.
quote:
Originally posted by Nana's Dream
. . like cold air intakes etc....
Nope, does not help, in reality unless the original design is screwed up can not help.
quote:
Originally posted by Nana's Dream
... k & N filters etc,
Nope, does not help, in reality unless the original design is screwed up can not help. |
|
|
| Nana's Dream |
NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!
Answers & saved me money $$$$
o.k. , now what about wood interior & ....??? hehe
mike B
aka "poppie":2: |
|
|
| marcucci |
I'll disagree with N_jay. I think the brake has little influence unless you already drive like a little old lady and are encroaching on "hypermiling" territory. If your braking is having an effect on fuel economy, you probably are still doing jackrabbit starts or just driving carelessly. It sounds like you've already got the right idea.
I'll also part with N_jay on the intake. I do not have experience on the Pilot yet, but while Honda is the best I've seen so far with intake design, they do have a lot of considerations. The "little old lady factor" can't be ignored; Honda has to design an intake to be efficient yet quiet which sometimes does not result in the best performance (in terms of power).
From what I've seen so far of the Pilot intake, unless the cold-air section in front of the filter (Honda usually makes a cold-air "extension" in front of the filter box) is highly restrictive, the section between the box and TB is short and fat. I can't imagine there is much there to gain.
I would point out that 16mpg is poor, I'm getting 20 mixed right now. I would suggest NOT following the OE plug interval as platinum plugs, despite what mfrs who want to achieve a 100k-mile tuneup interval will tell you, will not last that long. Maybe on a vehicle that never revs much past 2k rpms but I would not let the plugs go that long. Plus, depending on the previous driver(s), the primaru O2 sensor may be marginal. I've seen this happen a lot on Hondas (in general), the engine computer usually requires an outright failure to flag a check engine light but will be just happy to operate poorly (run rich) on a marginal/fouled/slow-responding primary O2 sensor.
Of course, Your Mileage May Vary (literally). My 1997 Prelude gets about 9 miles per gallon when operated continuous in VTEC. :) I drive the Pilot a little differently! |
|
|
| Nana's Dream |
so Marcucci:
DO change plugs now.... question? Stick with orig type plat plugs??
then look at mpg.... if still low mpg results, then change out O2 's ?
Does the 2003 pilot have upstream as well as downstream O2's ?
Mike
aka
"poppie":2: |
|
|
| Snow |
Congratz on the new 2003 Nana's Dream We just got our 2003 as well :-)
We just calculated our gas mileage and came up with 13.8 city/freeway :eek: :rolleyes: :-( This was really shocking to us! We are about to do the T-Belt/WP 105,000 service and we are hoping this might help. But seeing as most people are getting much better mileage then us, we cannot figure out what else to do, other then a tune up. |
|
|
| Nana's Dream |
We just did t/belt , w/p & all drive belts @ 118,000 miles. ( Since we just bought it we didn't want to chance it) We also did frt/ rr brakes as a earlier than needed.( again same reason, new to us I always replace brake pads)
I beleive it may be time to do Major tune. The 90k service is the major, dont know if it was done. So we'll do it real soon, next 1-2 weeks. Just bought it & the very next day( can you beleive it ) had to replace the battery. It was amazing how much better it idled after the new battery....
so I guess it was really pulling the whole system down. We did notice it was sluggish to start...taking a little longer than we felt it should to start. So it may have fouled the plus a little. We will do a follow-up to let you know.
Mike
aka "poppie"
WE Love our 2003 EX-L DVD 118,500 miles White , FERN leather( still looks grey to me)interior |
|
|
| marcucci |
I personally would not try to get more than 75k miles out of the platinum plugs on the Pilot. I go less on my Hondas that routinely see higher running RPMs.
I would stick with the OE type (NGK or Denso) platinums UNLESS you plan to change them religously, in which case the copper type NGK's (drop the "P" from the front of the NGK part number). The coppers don't last as long but they cost a heck of a lot less and live reliably 1/4 to 1/2 as long as the platinums. For sanity's sake you might just want to stick with the platinums. I'd use the OE heat range (5's IIRC) unless you have some reason to go colder or hotter).
I'd also check the valve adjustment. That can have some affect (albeit small) on economy. The O2 or injectos may be the culprit if plugs don't help.
The Pilot has a single primary (after the front/rear bank merge) to manage the delivered fuel and a single secondary O2 to monitor cat performance. The primary is the only one I would consider changing, and that would probably only be after changing the plugs and running a tank through.
If you do change out the sensor, you can get it cheap at sparkplugs.com - they have the OE style one that is plug and play, and is made by Denso like the stock one (i.e. just as good as stock). Avoid the Bosch "DIY" ones that places like Autozone sell. PITA to install and not usually very reliable. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by marcucci
I'll disagree with N_jay. I think the brake has little influence unless you already drive like a little old lady and are encroaching on "hypermiling" territory. If your braking is having an effect on fuel economy, you probably are still doing jackrabbit starts or just driving carelessly. It sounds like you've already got the right idea.
The brakes turn monemtun (that you "paid" for with gas) into waste heat.
It doesn't matter if you start slow or start fast, if you are dumping waste heat you are waisting energy.
This is where a lot of people get confused with driving style and fuel use. They make a hard connection betwene "jackrabbit starts" (to use your expression) and hard wastefull stops.
Hard stps instead of coasting up to stops wastes the exact same amount of fuel no matter what your style of getting up to speed is.
Also those who use the brakes when changing lanes and to make minor speed adjustments are turning energy into heat insted of using the momentum. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by marcucci
I'll also part with N_jay on the intake. I do not have experience on the Pilot yet, but while Honda is the best I've seen so far with intake design, they do have a lot of considerations. The "little old lady factor" can't be ignored; Honda has to design an intake to be efficient yet quiet which sometimes does not result in the best performance (in terms of power).
From what I've seen so far of the Pilot intake, unless the cold-air section in front of the filter (Honda usually makes a cold-air "extension" in front of the filter box) is highly restrictive, the section between the box and TB is short and fat. I can't imagine there is much there to gain.
What does this have to do with getting better milage?
(aqnd don't fall to the false assumption that any power improvement will gain better milage when you use the same power) |
|
|
| marcucci |
I guess I don't see people use their brakes to scrub off speed unnecessarily that much then. I understand what you're saying but I guess I just don't see it practiced. People should and I think generally do drive prudently for the road conditions and I don't generally see people that do excessive braking only to follow that on with throttle to compensate. Aside from the complete a-holes that are driving wide open and weaving in and out of traffic which I don't think is the case you're talking about. I usually see the excessive braking coupled with excessive acceleration as a driving style.
The only other case I can think of is the hypermiling thing which can be dangerous as I don't think anyone should drive with their first thought "should I be willing to sacrifice momentum and fuel economy by slowing down with the brakes".
Probably just my POV given what I see on the road typically in my area.
With the intake, in general, power adders are fuel economy adders as they generally improve efficiency. In some cases they may not be. In any case, if you improve the efficiency but then start putting your foot in it more you're probably going to see a drop in economy.
The most ocmmon example I can think of is an intake or exhaust, if you remove restrictions that may be present you can improve efficiency, but if you start to "drive it like you stole it" then you're obviously going to consume fuel.
My guess from looking at things is intake/exhaust will not buy you much on the Pilot in terms of efficiency and going larger on the exhaust will probably cost you efficiency. |
|
|
| Buckwheat |
Best solution:
Stay home
Have people come visit you |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by marcucci
I guess I don't see people use their brakes to scrub off speed unnecessarily that much then. I understand what you're saying but I guess I just don't see it practiced. People should and I think generally do drive prudently for the road conditions and I don't generally see people that do excessive braking only to follow that on with throttle to compensate. Aside from the complete a-holes that are driving wide open and weaving in and out of traffic which I don't think is the case you're talking about. I usually see the excessive braking coupled with excessive acceleration as a driving style.
The only other case I can think of is the hypermiling thing which can be dangerous as I don't think anyone should drive with their first thought "should I be willing to sacrifice momentum and fuel economy by slowing down with the brakes".
Probably just my POV given what I see on the road typically in my area.
With the intake, in general, power adders are fuel economy adders as they generally improve efficiency. In some cases they may not be. In any case, if you improve the efficiency but then start putting your foot in it more you're probably going to see a drop in economy.
The most ocmmon example I can think of is an intake or exhaust, if you remove restrictions that may be present you can improve efficiency, but if you start to "drive it like you stole it" then you're obviously going to consume fuel.
My guess from looking at things is intake/exhaust will not buy you much on the Pilot in terms of efficiency and going larger on the exhaust will probably cost you efficiency.
I agree that from a practical (non-theoretical) perspective in stop and go city driving wasteful use of brakes is usually accompanied by wasteful use of inefficient acceleration. By the same token, however, I would imagine that most hypermilers are not merely trying avoid braking without any consideration of avoiding inefficient aceleration that often leads to unnecessarily inefficient braking.
With respect to intakes, simply putting on a less restrictive intake may do absolutely nothing at all if the intake is not the most restrictive part of the system. Some cars have ben shown to have zero gains in power or efficiency when runing no intake at all. A lot of money is wasted on K&N filters that add nothing but noise if one doesn't first look for dyno proof of meaningful improvement in power. Meaningful improvement in fuel efficiency with an intake is probably much more ellusuve and illusuve. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
With respect to intakes, simply putting on a less restrictive intake may do absolutely nothing at all if the intake is not the most restrictive part of the system. Some cars have ben shown to have zero gains in power or efficiency when runing no intake at all. A lot of money is wasted on K&N filters that add nothing but noise if one doesn't first look for dyno proof of meaningful improvement in power. Meaningful improvement in fuel efficiency with an intake is probably much more ellusuve and illusuve.
Right on!! :4:
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I agree that from a practical (non-theoretical) perspective in stop and go city driving wasteful use of brakes is usually accompanied by wasteful use of inefficient acceleration. By the same token, however, I would imagine that most hypermilers are not merely trying avoid braking without any consideration of avoiding inefficient aceleration that often leads to unnecessarily inefficient braking.
My point is that once you are trying to improve mileage with driving changes, you will be further ahead thinking about how to use your brakes less and making the requisite changes in style (speed, acceleration, ect.), than if you focus primarily on accelerating slower. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Right on!! :4:
My point is that once you are trying to improve mileage with driving changes, you will be further ahead thinking about how to use your brakes less and making the requisite changes in style (speed, acceleration, ect.), than if you focus primarily on accelerating slower.
I agree, but would feel weird if I said, "Right on!!" So I'll just say, I agree. |
|
|
| crvrefuge |
Replace Air-Filter.
38 PSI in all 4 tires.
Change Transmission Fluid.
Change VTM-4 Fluid.
Change Oil & Filter.
Smooth Starts.
The CRV Refuge |
|
|
| marcucci |
A dyno doesn't tell you much about efficiency, at least not at part throttle which is where everyone is concerned about efficiency improvements. Most dyno plots are done at WOT and I doubt you will find one on a Pilot.
If you're looking at minimizing braking for efficiency improvements I think you bought the wrong vehicle (if we're talking Pilots). |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by marcucci
A dyno doesn't tell you much about efficiency, at least not at part throttle which is where everyone is concerned about efficiency improvements. Most dyno plots are done at WOT and I doubt you will find one on a Pilot.
Of course not! That's why I spoke only of dyno proof of meaningful improvement in power. Not fuel efficiency!
quote:
Originally posted by marcucci
If you're looking at minimizing braking for efficiency improvements I think you bought the wrong vehicle (if we're talking Pilots).
No one buys the Pilot purely for it's fuel efficiency, but because they need or want an 8-passenger crossover with Honda reliability. But you can always choose to drive any car more or less efficiently. Personally, we don't even keep track of the fuel economy on my wife's Pilot so I have no idea of what kind of savings is possible. |
|
|
| A6Pilot |
quote:
Orginally posted by marcucci:
With the intake, in general, power adders are fuel economy adders as they generally improve efficiency.
The most ocmmon example I can think of is an intake or exhaust, if you remove restrictions that may be present you can improve efficiency,
[/B]
It's interesting to note that there are a ton of 'shade tree' myths floating around concerning mpg increases. One of the most persistent myths relates to poor mpg figures caused by intake restrictions.
As hard as it is for most of us to believe, the state of intake restriction (clogged air filter or poor intake design, for example) has virtually no effect on fuel mileage in a computer controlled fuel injected engine. Sounds like heresy, I know. This is because the computer will vary the fuel delivered based on the ideal fuel/air ratio by weight. If there is less air delivered, whether by a clogged filter or a closed throttle plate, less fuel will likewise be delivered. The mpg figures will be unchanged. The trade off is that power will also decrease. This goes counter to how most of were raised back in the ancient carburetor days.
Note that this scenario with computer-controlled fuel injection is not the same as occurs on a legacy carbureted engine. A carb will deliver fuel based on vacuum generated in the venturi. Thus, if there is an intake restriction, venturi vacuum will increase, and more fuel will be delivered per volume of air, (i.e., the fuel air ratio will become rich) and mpg will suffer. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
What most people don't grasp is that most intake and exhaust mods have nothing to do with "efficiency".
Even the one that work, do so by increasing the flow allowing the engine to produce more power at the edges of it operating envelope, NOT by increasing efficiency at all.
Hence there is no reason to even think they would increase efficiency, especially within the normal operating envelope of the engine. |
|
|
| youbetcha |
Are you saying it doesn't take any more energy to pull air through a clogged filter, or are you saying that it doesn't take a "significant" or "noticeable" amount more energy?
Because, if it is "harder" to pull air though the filter, then that has to come at a price. I agree, it may not affect the air/fuel mixture. But *part* of the work done by the combustion cycle is used to push/pull the other cylinders, forcing air through the intake/exhaust cycles. If this takes more work, then there will be some cost or loss to mechanical efficiency or power (it may be small, but not precisely zero). A very clogged filter would cause more drag on the cylinders trying to pull air in during their intake cycles.
It would be like any other frictional loss. |
|
|
| A6Pilot |
quote:
Originally posted by youbetcha
Are you saying it doesn't take any more energy to pull air through a clogged filter, or are you saying that it doesn't take a "significant" or "noticeable" amount more energy?
Associating the "pulling of air" through the intake track with "energy" expenditure is a non sequitor in this discussion of the relationship of intake track restriction vs fuel economy
Frictional losses will not effect mpg figures. Consider the biggest barrier to a free flowing intake system: the throttle plate. In an intake system with large frictional losses, the throttle plate will be more open in order to deliver enough air for requested power output (cruising the interstate at 65 mph, or normal acceleration from a stop sign, for example). Clean up the intake track (new air filter, for example) and the only effect in a fuel injected engine will be a throttle plate that is more closed (restrictive) to incoming air. Fuel economy will be unchanged, as the fuel/air ratio remains constant. Only maximum power production is effected by intake track 'streamlining'.
Try this experiment:
Put your hand partially over the intake pipe. What effect will it have? Total available power will decrease, but fuel delivered to maintain a specified power will remain unchanged.
This is why fuel economy claims by K&N or Turbonator, etc., are laughable in a fuel injected engine. |
|
|
| youbetcha |
So what you are essentially saying is: the intake flow system is already based on restriction at the throttle. Having a dirty air filter just means some restriction is now at the filter and less restriction will be at the throttle. The computer adjusted so total system intake restriction is still the same.
OK, I buy that. |
|
|
| TomStromie |
| Sit in the driver's seat. Whenever my wife drives, the mileage goes down 10%. Go figure. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by youbetcha
So what you are essentially saying is: the intake flow system is already based on restriction at the throttle. Having a dirty air filter just means some restriction is now at the filter and less restriction will be at the throttle. The computer adjusted so total system intake restriction is still the same.
OK, I buy that.
Good man! :4:
At this point in the conversation most people insist they are right and present their "proof" in such an illogical manner, that refuting it is not worth the time.
Then they get called stupid, and next thing you know . . . . . . |
|
|
| compressor |
how about slowing down a bit?
Instead of going 75 do 60 mph. Would that help or is the pilot more aerodynamic at higher speed?
I don't know. |
|
|
| rocky |
| Taking it easy on the throttle, accelerating gently, with 55to 60mph cruising does make a difference |
|
|
| rlapid |
quote:
Originally posted by compressor
how about slowing down a bit?
Instead of going 75 do 60 mph. Would that help or is the pilot more aerodynamic at higher speed?
I don't know.
from my own experience, i can say the pilot is definitely NOT more aerodynamic at higher speeds. the difference in MPG driving at 60-65mph is significantly better than at 75+mph. nowadays, i usually keep my cruising speed around 67 on the freeway, and rarely go over 70. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by compressor
how about slowing down a bit?
Instead of going 75 do 60 mph. Would that help or is the pilot more aerodynamic at higher speed?
I don't know.
It all depends what your time is worth.
In most cases slowing down saves less than the time is worth. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by rocky
Taking it easy on the throttle, accelerating gently, . . . .
While slower "top" speeds definitely save gas, rates of acceleration are questionable, and accelerating too slowly probably is less efficient than quick (not floored) acceleration. |
|
|
| rlapid |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
...accelerating too slowly probably is less efficient than quick (not floored) acceleration.
its also probably less exciting than quick (not floored) acceleration. watching grandma smoke you in her crown vic in the next lane over is painful. :3: |
|
|
| marcucci |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Good man! :4:
At this point in the conversation most people insist they are right and present their "proof" in such an illogical manner, that refuting it is not worth the time.
Then they get called stupid, and next thing you know . . . . . .
Well, you can pat yourself on the back for an accurate description of stoich fuel metering but what you and A6pilot neglect is the fact that when there is a restriction, i.e. dirty filter, it reduces the ability to move air at a given CFM at a given pressure drop. Put simply a dirty (enough) filter will alter the operation such that it will take more throttle input to achieve the same power level. This will alter where on the base fuel map the ECU will take it's initial parameters from and potentially cause it to run more rich. Given a dirty enough filter, in my experience with Hondas, probably 50% clogged or so, you could require enough throttle input to put the thing into open loop (i.e. super-rich) operation.
This does require a very dirty filter, but someone who goes as long on the air filter as they do plugs is probably going to experience this.
Likewise, if there are intake restrictions, by improving the amount of power you develop at a given RPM by reducing the pressure drop, requiring the engine to not work as hard, you can increase efficiency by reducing the amount of throttle input and fuel required to maintain speed, etc. As pointed out the friction/pumping losses are probably minimal and this would not amount to much of an increase. Plus, with regards to restrictions NOT filter related, it assumes that Honda sacrificed power for noise abatement or cost which may or may not be true (probably is not true). |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by marcucci
This does require a very dirty filter, but someone who goes as long on the air filter as they do plugs is probably going to experience this.
I completely agree for a VERY clogged filter.
That is the exception rather than the rule. |
|
|
| A6Pilot |
quote:
Originally posted by marcucci
Likewise, if there are intake restrictions, by improving the amount of power you develop at a given RPM by reducing the pressure drop, requiring the engine to not work as hard, you can increase efficiency by reducing the amount of throttle input and fuel required to maintain speed, etc.
Again, it makes no difference in a computer controlled fuel injected engine where the pressure drop occurs (except at wide open throttle [WOT]). In almost every case, the throttle will provide the biggest restriction and pressure drop. The exception is, of course, when the air filter is completely clogged.
What's confusing the discussion is introducing the concept of engine "efficiency". There are two ways to evaluate engine efficiency.
One is in terms of power output. Clearly, a restricted intake path (clogged filter or partial throttle) will limit the maximum power output. The power efficiency will drop. It's interesting to note that power produced, as a function of engine rpm, will be identical all the way up to almost WOT. Only then will power be less when the filter is contaminated.
The other measure of engine efficiency is specific fuel consumption, or power output as a function of fuel consumed. For our discussion, let's call that 'miles per gallon'. This type of efficiency is unaffected by a dirty air filter, unless it is, in fact, virtually clogged.
It’s a subtle and important distinction, but this thread is not concerned with power efficiency. We are only concerned with the effect a dirty filter will have on mileage, or fuel efficiency. It's kind of an 'apples and oranges' argument. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by A6Pilot
Again, it makes no difference in a computer controlled fuel injected engine where the pressure drop occurs (except at wide open throttle [WOT]). In almost every case, the throttle will provide the biggest restriction and pressure drop. The exception is, of course, when the air filter is completely clogged.
What's confusing the discussion is introducing the concept of engine "efficiency". There are two ways to evaluate engine efficiency.
One is in terms of power output. Clearly, a restricted intake path (clogged filter or partial throttle) will limit the maximum power output. The power efficiency will drop. It's interesting to note that power produced, as a function of engine rpm, will be identical all the way up to almost WOT. Only then will power be less when the filter is contaminated.
The other measure of engine efficiency is specific fuel consumption, or power output as a function of fuel consumed. For our discussion, let's call that 'miles per gallon'. This type of efficiency is unaffected by a dirty air filter, unless it is, in fact, virtually clogged.
It’s a subtle and important distinction, but this thread is not concerned with power efficiency. We are only concerned with the effect a dirty filter will have on mileage, or fuel efficiency. It's kind of an 'apples and oranges' argument.
You are so right!!!! :4: :4:
And I am so tired of trying to get people to understand this simple truth! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| sjlee |
| Best thing... not drive it as much. We used to take the Pilot everywhere on the weekends (mostly because my wife didn't like riding in my old car). Now that we got the Accord, she's fine with riding in it, so that gets used on the weekends alot more than the Pilot. |
|
|
| Nana's Dream |
So what you're saying is....
What did you do to make it any better????????
A. Nuthin' What you get is predestined in the cosmo's
B. Take it like a man
C.What the heck is he talking about now....
D.It just don't matter, Cuz I still LUV it anyway!!!!
Poppie:2: |
|
|
| efine |
All I can say is:
2005 EX-L...just purchased. One owner, lease turnback, CA car, clean as a whistle, w/17,142 miles.......$18,400!. This car is so clean, when I put the new Honda Hitch on, the empty holes that had nuts welded in place on the underside of the body didn't even have any dirt in them!!]
I put in a K&N air filter ($50.00), tore off the stock resonator and rear muffler & rear heat shroud , put in a stainless MagnaFlow Muffler at the resonator spot, and ran a custom bent, stock diameter size pipe, out the back ($248.00 installed). Gave it a small boost in giddy-up, a growl when you push your foot down and at startup which is not noticeable at cruise. Just returned from a 657 mile trip. I filled up at 10 PM just before the freeway on-ramp on the return trip and travelled over 300 miles on that leg straight home, North on I-5 from south of Portland, OR, to Bellingham, WA in one shot..26 MPG Highway at 70-80 MPH most of the way, with cruise control on as much as possible (est. 95% of the time). Yes, I double checked my math!
I also added Techron Fuel-Injector Cleaner to the tank (Costco buy), put 36 PSI in all four, new Oil & Filter, & new Honda Oil in rear end just before I left.
It will take me a while to re-coup the $300.00 spent on the mods from the gas savings, but I usually keep my cars for 10 years, so I figure it will come back to me eventually.
If you want it to be even quieter, you can put a MagnaFlow resonator on as well, but I can't say exactly how much quieter it would be, or what the MPG change might be. The reason we put the new muffler in the resonator spot instead of at the back where the old one was, was to eliminate that tinny, brapping sound most of the "tuner" cars make with their mufflers at the back and a large hole protruding from under the bumper. This, and the suggestion to use stock diameter pipe, came from the chop shop kid as a way to reduce and "tune" the noise without having to add the resonator.
Good luck.
E |
|
|
| TomStromie |
| The single best thing I do to improve fuel economy is move my wife to the passenger seat--she has a very heavy foot. |
|
|
| Silver_ZHP |
Heres my two cents.... In my experience driving my 04 Silverado Z71 for 4+ years, there were two things I could do to increase my economy... Drive at a highway speed that did not over-tax the engine at forcing the vehicle through the air (drag) after driving many highway miles and observing the rather accurate economy computer, I learned that the magic speed was around 60-65 mph. If I was gentle with the right foot and did not use A/C, I could squeeze a REAL 21mpg out of this large vehicle with it's 5.3 engine, four real doors, and 4x4 equipment. Another practice several keep mentioning is drive such that you do not convert your momentum into heat energy. Because engines are more effecient at or near their max output, heavy throttle is not necessarily the enemy, the enemy is a jack-rabbit start, only to immediately scrub off that energy converting it to heat with the brakes. Using that logic, my thought is that the savings is at the braking end of our driving patterns. It will always take at least x amount of energy to more your vehicle from a to b, but what you convert to heat in the middle is the waste. Bottome line, drive so that you do not over-use your brakes. The overall mechanical effeciency of the driveline of modern engines is hard to improve upon, mfg's have done about all that can be done in an effort to meet cafe standards. It's hard for me to believe that any mods I make will have a positive effect on effeciency, mayby output, but not actual effeciency.
Again... just my observations and thoughts... remember the salt!
Just purchased a 2008 Pilot Ex and lovin' it! |
|
|
| youbetcha |
quote:
Originally posted by Silver_ZHP
Heres my two cents.... In my experience driving my 04 Silverado Z71 for 4+ years, there were two things I could do to increase my economy... Drive at a highway speed that did not over-tax the engine at forcing the vehicle through the air (drag) after driving many highway miles and observing the rather accurate economy computer, I learned that the magic speed was around 60-65 mph. If I was gentle with the right foot and did not use A/C, I could squeeze a REAL 21mpg out of this large vehicle with it's 5.3 engine, four real doors, and 4x4 equipment. Another practice several keep mentioning is drive such that you do not convert your momentum into heat energy. Because engines are more effecient at or near their max output, heavy throttle is not necessarily the enemy, the enemy is a jack-rabbit start, only to immediately scrub off that energy converting it to heat with the brakes. Using that logic, my thought is that the savings is at the braking end of our driving patterns. It will always take at least x amount of energy to more your vehicle from a to b, but what you convert to heat in the middle is the waste. Bottome line, drive so that you do not over-use your brakes. The overall mechanical effeciency of the driveline of modern engines is hard to improve upon, mfg's have done about all that can be done in an effort to meet cafe standards. It's hard for me to believe that any mods I make will have a positive effect on effeciency, mayby output, but not actual effeciency.
Again... just my observations and thoughts... remember the salt!
Just purchased a 2008 Pilot Ex and lovin' it!
that's my vote for best "first" post on this site. |
|
|
| rlapid |
quote:
Originally posted by youbetcha
that's my vote for best "first" post on this site.
that was a good first post, indeed. welcome to the boards Silver_ZHP, hope you enjoy your pilot as much as we do! |
|
|
| donx |
I used to get 16-18 mpg in previous 3 years in mixed city/hwy driving, because I was a quite spirited driver, but finally realized my loved Pilot is not a racer car, especially when using it as a school bus.
So out of curiosity I tried to practice hypermiling a couple of months ago and I am getting 20-23 mpg in mixed driving with half of time fully occupied with 8 people, AC on while driving on highway, plus all the anti-airdynamic mods I added to the car (Front and side bars, heavy hitch, roof bars, roof luggage basket), I also encountered some traffic jam but still achieved the mileage goal.
If I really want to drive fast, I do it in my Porsche. :)
The tricks I used are:
1. soft on both pedals, pretending there is a raw egg underneath them.
2. try to keep rpm low, mostly lower than 2000.
3. during acceleration and when it is safe, release the gas pedal to drop rpm, and then immediately back on gas pedal.
4. keep reasonable distance from the front car (not too far, of course), so I can brake very smoothly to reduce heat/energy loss.
5. allow the car to slide downhills
6. the magic speed is around 55-65
7. tire pressure 36-38 psi
Again, safety was always the first priority for every trick I did. In fact, because I paid extreme caution to my surrounding, I actually felt very safe practicing them, I did not drive slow and did not block any traffic. One last note is that, because the brake on Pilot is quite soft, by not following the front car too close, it makes me feel more confident now when encountering emergency braking situation. |
|
|
| Big_D |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I agree that from a practical (non-theoretical) perspective in stop and go city driving wasteful use of brakes is usually accompanied by wasteful use of inefficient acceleration. By the same token, however, I would imagine that most hypermilers are not merely trying avoid braking without any consideration of avoiding inefficient aceleration that often leads to unnecessarily inefficient braking.
With respect to intakes, simply putting on a less restrictive intake may do absolutely nothing at all if the intake is not the most restrictive part of the system. Some cars have ben shown to have zero gains in power or efficiency when runing no intake at all. A lot of money is wasted on K&N filters that add nothing but noise if one doesn't first look for dyno proof of meaningful improvement in power. Meaningful improvement in fuel efficiency with an intake is probably much more ellusuve and illusuve.
This is why my NSX has a stock intake. It is amazing how many people will spend hard earned $$$ on things that don't do anything. :)
For the Pilot, the best thing you can do ito improve your economy is to anticipate stops sooner and let off the gas sooner to utilize your fwd momentum.
Other items to Check:
Tire Pressure - underinflated tires increase roll resistance
Air Filter - a clogged air filter wastes fuel also |
|
|
| Eatskittens |
| All the talk of k&n filters is interesting. I performed a 2 year personal study on my subaru impreza. The mileage for the first year with a standard filter and new plugs averege mileage was 28.2mpg. The next year I installed a K&N and new plugs. Mileage with this setup is 30.9mpg. the first year mileage and second year mileage were within 1300 miles. I know this isnt with a pilot but it does say something. On a side note in the impreza the filter gave notable improvement in throttle response causing a little more harder driving. Take what you want from this. I am not an engineer but I have run these on many vehicles and have seen results on most all of them. Engines are air pumps increasing air flow in and out has to increase efficiency. Again just my 2 cents :26: |
|
|
| Big_D |
| I agree that K&N filters allow more air into the engine, but they also allow more dirt. Also because they use oil to trap dirt, you will get oil residue in your throttle body. I am a proponent of using a factory paper filter and change it often. |
|
|
| rlapid |
| i know most pilot owners here on the forums oppose aftermarket filtration systems, but i'm curious about a new product AEM has developed and would like to see your guys' opinions on it. its called the dryflow panel filter. click here to check out the full details. supposedly, it requires no oil, has a very high filtraion efficiency, and is reusable with very little loss in efficiency with repeated cleanings. most likely, it will not produce any improvement in power or MPG, but it may be more convenient and efficient than a paper filter. |
|
|
| A6Pilot |
quote:
Originally posted by Eatskittens
Engines are air pumps increasing air flow in and out has to increase efficiency. :26:
It's been noted many times before, but once again won't hurt:
Except at wide open throttle, the throttle is the main restriction to the incoming air charge. On a car that regulates fuel delivery via computer sensors and fuel injection (not vacuum, as with a carb), intake restrictions (throttle position or air filter media) will not effect mileage.
A change to a filter media that has less restriction will only effect max power output only at completely wide open throttle, almost always at the cost of particulate filtering ability. Don't confuse power output with engine efficiency, a common mistake.
Of course, if it's sound you're after, a K&N might do the trick. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by Eatskittens
All the talk of k&n filters is interesting. I performed a 2 year personal study on my subaru impreza. The mileage for the first year with a standard filter and new plugs averege mileage was 28.2mpg. The next year I installed a K&N and new plugs. Mileage with this setup is 30.9mpg. the first year mileage and second year mileage were within 1300 miles. I know this isnt with a pilot but it does say something. On a side note in the impreza the filter gave notable improvement in throttle response causing a little more harder driving. Take what you want from this. I am not an engineer but I have run these on many vehicles and have seen results on most all of them. Engines are air pumps increasing air flow in and out has to increase efficiency. Again just my 2 cents :26:
Switch back for a year and verify.
Year 1 and Year 2 with a new car are not comparable.
Year 1 you are getting used to the car and the way it drives.
Year 1 the car is breaking in.
Year 1 you probably are doing more showing off with the car, etc. |
|
|
| 2004 PILOT |
| I parked it in the garage! |
|
|
| Nathan_P |
quote:
Originally posted by 2004 PILOT
I parked it in the garage!
Yeah...my wife & I ride together in her Camry a lot more now, but that mostly is because my employer moved offices closer to the location where she works. But when the winter comes we will be taking the Pilot no matter what gas costs because she has gotten spoiled by the heated seats. :D |
|
|
| youbetcha |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Switch back for a year and verify.
I would only believe the results if the owner didn't know about the change (blind study). Even better, if there were two owners, one who got the change, and one who thought he got the change.
A driver that knows about a change invalidates the study because he can subtly affect the results to support what they think the answer should be. Which is typical, if you spent money to try to do something, you want to show it worked. He may not even realize he is doing this manipulation. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by youbetcha
I would only believe the results if the owner didn't know about the change (blind study). Even better, if there were two owners, one who got the change, and one who thought he got the change.
A driver that knows about a change invalidates the study because he can subtly affect the results to support what they think the answer should be. Which is typical, if you spent money to try to do something, you want to show it worked. He may not even realize he is doing this manipulation.
Yes, we certainly could Prado out the sources of bias, and develop an appropriate test plan to eliminate each of the statistically significant ones.
From that point we would have to determine our error range and decide if it is good enough for our goal, or if we need develop additional tests to eliminate or minimize the effects of other factors. |
|
|
| DB22 |
| Remember that if you used the accelerator to get up to speed then braking throws all of the energy used in the trash. Being that braking costs money the conclusion is never brake. It was previously stated that leaving a greater distance to the car in front is useful because you can let off the gas and coast for longer. That is the best suggestion on this thread to improving gas milage. (of course, my suggestion of never using the brakes is the best suggestion but it takes some practice and you get through a lot of Pilots!) |
|
|
| youbetcha |
quote:
Originally posted by DB22
(of course, my suggestion of never using the brakes is the best suggestion but it takes some practice and you get through a lot of Pilots!)
So how many Pilots do you go through, about 6 a year?
:D |
|
|
| DB22 |
quote:
Originally posted by youbetcha
So how many Pilots do you go through, about 6 a year?
:D
Your question is not relevant - this thread is about saving gas! |
|
|
| youbetcha |
quote:
Originally posted by DB22
Your question is not relevant - this thread is about saving gas!
You are the one who posted that you go through a lot of Pilots by never braking. :8:
I was just having a little fun with it. :2: |
|
|
| DB22 |
quote:
Originally posted by youbetcha
You are the one who posted that you go through a lot of Pilots by never braking. :8:
I was just having a little fun with it. :2:
So was I ( I should have used a smiley)
But seriously have you ever checked milage through the city on a day when you get all the red lights as opposed to a day when you get mostly green ones? The difference is a least 5MPG's.
I asked a friend of mine to design intelligent traffic signals that monitored traffic from far away so as to keep the greens to the majority of cars. It gets very complicated but it could easily save the USA billions of barrels. I go to work at 3AM and have to wait at lights that are red with no other cars for miles around just wasting my time, money and resources.
Maybe Obama could run with this one!:) |
|
|
| rlapid |
quote:
Originally posted by DB22
I go to work at 3AM and have to wait at lights that are red with no other cars for miles around just wasting my time, money and resources.
in my town, they have programmed the traffic lights on certain streets so that during the least busy hours (10pm-5am), all the lights flash red, indicating a 4-way stop, which saves a lot of time. some cities take this one step further and have the busier road getting flashing yellow, while the intersecting road gets flashing red, so that commuters don't need to stop at every light. try talking with your city hall and get them to implement these in your city :D |
|
|
| DB22 |
We used to have the red flashing with the cross traffic flashing yellow but the attorneys screwed that up (as usual) by advising the city that it was not as safe as a regular sequence. I think that it was the same richard-head that mandated the ugly air bag sticker on the visor and the chime to tell you that you just opened the door!
Why can't they add a loop sensor far enough before the signal so that the light has time to change to green before you get to the intersection? This would eliminate the need to brake, accelerate back up to speed therefore saving gas. I know - It makes too much sense for the city to have thought of that. |
|
|
|
