Where did Hondas Fuel Economy go?

[Fake Thug]

I remember reading somewhere that the epa ratings are not read the same as they were back in the 90's. I think that the fit gets decent gas mileage. Either way I would not even think about buying an AV6 if I couldn't afford to fuel it.

[starchland]

i think the demand of ecomoney cars have not hit the maufacture yet...

really?!

[blizzard335]

you can have a very efficient engine and drivetrain setup, but if the weight of the car itself is heavy, that benefits of the engine all go through the exhaust pipe.

Larger cars, larger wheels.

Why cant we just drive small, fuel efficient cars like the Japanese do?

I do, LOL

[Law Grandeur]

I think it's because they've been trying to get out of the "honda, the fuel economy only car"

cept now they are going back to it. there were a little late on the hp power band-wagon. oh well sucks for them i guess lol

[TheNextEpisode]

Honda's new aim to cut sports car development in favor of better gas mileage is a step in the right direction.

Honda CEO Takeo Fukui has made company objectives clear: 500,000 hybrids built by 2012, including the Honda Insight and the 80mpg Honda Jazz.

Link

[deevergote]

My Fit gets 40mpg when I'm not driving it hard.

Honda's V6 cars have a hefty amount of luxury, power, and price. Usually when you're dropping 60k for an RL, you're not really concerned with getting 30mpg!

Honda has efficient cars in the lineup. Their 2-ton 300hp V6 models are just not fuel misers. They are competitive with comparable offerings from Nissan and Toyota, though.

[King James]

On the drive back from Alberta my si got 33 mpg....All highway.....5000ish km averaging 120 the way back.

In the city depending how often I feel like hitting vtec I get 22-24 mpg

Considering my cb used to get 21-22 in the city I dont find this bad at all.....My si is comparable to the cb in size and weight.....not to mention it has 200 hp and is a fuck load more fun to drive lol

[JohnD1079]

My Fit gets 40mpg when I'm not driving it hard.

Honda's V6 cars have a hefty amount of luxury, power, and price. Usually when you're dropping 60k for an RL, you're not really concerned with getting 30mpg!

Yeah, but that, and the some of the civics are the only cars that you can realistically get 30+. As for the RL, true the buyers dont care about getting 30 mpg, but half? common?

The only reason Honda is in business is because of economical, reliable, cheap mantainence care. There is no fun to drive in there. Thats what you guess try to make it, but in no way where the cars designed for it. Proof? Toyota makes the most boring cars on the planet and they are #1.

I dunno, I guess my point is I made an appointment to test drive a Honda Accord coupe V6 s-speed. When I get there , it wasnt ready, on top of that, They didnt even have one on the lot, and the closest one was 20 min away, and the guy didnt want to go out in the cold and get it. So while the guy was mustering up an excuse we were looking at the price and numbers, and My dad was made some really good points. $32k for an Accord that gets 17/25? Thats not the honda I remember, and named a list of cars of that bat that were a better deal. On top of that the sales guy called it a High-Performance sports car and compared it to a vette. . Sad thing is, I was really interested in getting that car, but now, its been chopped off my list.

All those numbers, except for the s2k and new Accord were real life numbers that I firsthand have seen. I still dont get why the 04-08 TL is the only "real" car that gets good numbers.

[starchland]

hmm, the accord you were looking at still gets better numbers than our accords. I dont understand why you would pass up that car so quickly just because of a bad dealer?!

[JohnD1079]

WHat are you talking about? No it doesnt. The cb7 I have I get 30+mpg hwy and AT LEAST 25mpg(on a bad tank) city. Right now I average 22mpg on it because of the winter blend fuel, and all of the idleing/warm up time.

My point is, you guys should be able to argue this, but only pull out numbers and let them speak for themselves. Thats what Honda was known for.

[starchland]

on the highway the 08 coupe v6 gets 30+. 7.8L/100km. do the math. and these are epa numbers.

[foamypirate]

My brothers 08' V6 6-speed Coupe has NEVER gotten lower than 22mpg, and he averages around 24mpg in heavy Austin traffic, and believe me, he isn't a pussy foot. That's 1mpg less than your CB, with MORE than twice the power.

[starchland]

My brothers 08' V6 6-speed Coupe has NEVER gotten lower than 22mpg, and he averages around 24mpg in heavy Austin traffic, and believe me, he isn't a pussy foot. That's 1mpg less than your CB, with MORE than twice the power.

and more power with better efficieny. know imagine if they designed these same motors with the same power goals as 90s but better efficiency. we might have 40+ cars again. for me, I wasnt impressed with the fit though, for me id be only saving about 2 L on the highway per 100km.

[owequitit]

There is no research into this, but it seems like the fuel Economy associated with honda at one time isnt there.

The New Accord V-6 get 17/25. That completley turned me off from the car. A 04 MB s600 with 12 cylinders and 2 turbos can manage 21 mpg on the highway, thats sad.

The Acura RL-My dads says it the computer averages around 17, and its more like 16 mpg.

The s2000. Dont know the exact numbers but I think its 22/26. Thats horrible for a 4 banger. On top of that, we all know that actual numbers are lower than the ratings.

99-03 Acura TL-When I had mine I averaged 22-23 mpg, and it didnt matter if I drove it Hard or Soft.

the 04-08 TL is a v6 with 270 hp, and it gets 30+ mpg hwy and High 20s in the city. Why is this the only recent car(and I am not talking about their econobox's) that gets respectable gas mileage?

What am I missing here? All of these numbers are Horrid, especially from Honda.

1) The EPA number measurements have changed. You can't compare 1990 numbers with 2008 numbers. No matter how many turds you flush down the toilet, it isn't going to work. Knock 10-20% off of the 1990 numbers and you might be pretty close. The EPA changed the way they measure MPG, and it is now apples to oranges. Simple as that. They also changed the way HP is measured at approximately the same time, which is why the 2007 TL has "less power" than the 2006. The engine is EXACTLY the same, but the HP reads lower. A change in test procedure, nothing more.

2) We have NEVER gotten LESS than EPA numbers on any of our Hondas. Not one. Of them all, my CB got the worst MPG stock. Our 2002 Accord V6 beat the numbers slightly, but our 2006 KILLS them. I think it was rated 26-27MPG highway. We routinely get 33-36 on the highway. With an automatic, in a 3400lb car that will outrun my H22 swapped CB7. It is routinely cruised at 80-85MPH and it DOES get used on the highway. Manual models get about 2-3MPG more. We also see 23-25 city while not babying it at all. It seems your only real experience is with the RL. Show me another 4,000lb AWD car that gets stellar MPG.

3) Weight is the enemy of performance. Even if your CB did get better MPG, which it probably actually didn't, it didn't protect you in a crash as well, have as much comfort or space, and didn't have anywhere near the features the new Accords do. Hondas aren't the only cars that have increased in weight, nor are they they only ones that have remained "flat" on MPG. Keep in mind that in 1990 a car with the Accord V6's performance would have been far smaller, and would have had a V8 that got anywhere as low as half the MPG.

Yeah, but that, and the some of the civics are the only cars that you can realistically get 30+. As for the RL, true the buyers dont care about getting 30 mpg, but half? common?

The only reason Honda is in business is because of economical, reliable, cheap mantainence care. There is no fun to drive in there. Thats what you guess try to make it, but in no way where the cars designed for it. Proof? Toyota makes the most boring cars on the planet and they are #1.

I dunno, I guess my point is I made an appointment to test drive a Honda Accord coupe V6 s-speed. When I get there , it wasnt ready, on top of that, They didnt even have one on the lot, and the closest one was 20 min away, and the guy didnt want to go out in the cold and get it. So while the guy was mustering up an excuse we were looking at the price and numbers, and My dad was made some really good points. $32k for an Accord that gets 17/25? Thats not the honda I remember, and named a list of cars of that bat that were a better deal. On top of that the sales guy called it a High-Performance sports car and compared it to a vette. . Sad thing is, I was really interested in getting that car, but now, its been chopped off my list.

All those numbers, except for the s2k and new Accord were real life numbers that I firsthand have seen. I still dont get why the 04-08 TL is the only "real" car that gets good numbers.

How much experience do you actually have driving ANY of these cars you talk about? Obviously none. Take an Accord V6 6 speed for a run. Not only is it only a few 10ths slower than a G8 GT to any speed you care to run, it gets better MPG and has almost as much grip. Then tell me it isn't a real car. On crappy all season tires. It also can run 13's stock if you are a good driver. It traps faster than a Charger R/T, a Mustang GT and again, is only about 1 MPH behind a G8 GT in the 1/4 mile. I would like to see that in your CB. On top of that, it is safer, more solid, quieter, better built, more luxurious, better equipped, better looking, has a better warranty AND will probably get better MPG than a stock CB would. Yeah, what a peice of shit. If you adjust the price of a CB for inflation, it would be MAYBE $2,000-3,000 cheaper than the new one. You couldn't modify a brand new CB7 to match.

Most owners of new Hondas are reporting MPG BETTER than the EPA numbers, in some cases quite a bit better. Like me for instance. We have owned the car for just under 3 years, and over 36,000 miles and it still way outperforms the "numbers."

The ONLY real exception seems to be cars equipped with VCM. They don't seem to quite deliever what they promise. Other than that, it seems to be mostly business as usual at Honda. VCM softens the bottom end, and they just don't seem to do as well as maybe they would have had Honda just used the non VCM V6 and put a 6 speed auto on it. But that is speculation on my part. I have no way to confirm that.

Another good example is the new Insight. It is probably going to be rated at about 43MPG combined mileage per the EPA. In real world tests so far it has returned up to 63MPG in combined driving. That is almost 50% better than the EPA. If you understand the EPA test, you will understand that it is all done on a dyno, under VERY specific circumstances. As such, it is easy for a company like GM to build a car that does better than a Honda on that test, even though it may not in the real world. The engineers of the Insight have already admitted that they sacrificed the results of the Insight's EPA numbers to get better real world mileage. The Corvette is a stellar example of this. It gets great EPA highway mileage. IF you leave it in 6th gear, and IF you NEVER get on it. As soon as you do, the mileage drops through the floor. It quickly goes from the low 30's to the mid teens or lower. Why? It was optimized for a test.

As for the price comment, if you look at what you are getting for $32K(if you don't overpay, they actually top out at about $30 MSRP), it well justifies the price. To get similar equipment, quality, etc. you are probably looking at a pretty heavily equipped BMW, Benz, Audi, Acura, Lexus, etc. Considering the price difference, that isn't bad. It doesn't have the "name" but it has just about everything else. I have been in cars costing twice as much that would get put to shame by our 06 EX V6. The new ones are nicer.

Quoting Toyota's sales numbers has nothing to do with Honda's being fun to drive. Go drive any Si against cars of the same year and tell me they aren't fun. Add Preludes, Integras, RSX's, and NSX's to that list. I have driven Bimmers, Benzes, Mazdas, Toyotas, Nissans, Fords, GM's and high zoot Chryslers that weren't as much fun as some of my Hondas. Even though they were way newer. Honda's have a VERY high fun to drive factor, and they have a polished, harmonized, intuitive way of going about business that I have not yet found in another car. At least not one that includes the reliability, build quality and efficiency. Hondas do include a lot of fun to drive factor, not as THE main priority, but as one of them. The fact that they don't sacrifice so much to get it is the nice part. They are extremely well rounded, which is really what fuels their success. Not just MPG. And certainly not just MPG on paper.

I find it odd how you compare real world results on one hand, and then paper results on the other, to try and build a case that is actually just an apples to oranges comparison designed to make you feel better. If you don't want to buy a Honda go ahead. But to make outlandish claims without a lick of real world experience about new Hondas is a shame for yourself.

[owequitit]

cept now they are going back to it. there were a little late on the hp power band-wagon. oh well sucks for them i guess lol

Honda has ALWAYS had competitive peformance for every class they have ever competed in.