Accord 2013 mileage - yes and no

Page 1 of 2  
Been driving my Accord 2013 EXL for a couple of weeks now, that's with the four-cylinder engine and the CVT transmission. Also comes with a handy instantaneous and trip mileage indicator, first time I've had
that (and about time). I haven't even filled the tank up yet, have been driving sparingly the last few weeks. But here are a few observations.
The rated mileage is supposed to be something like 27/36, up from last model's 23/34, or thereabouts. Problem was on the old model I never got more than 30 mpg on a tank, even with over 90% unobstructed freeway driving. And worse, around town (or in stop-and-go) it was a dog, often getting under 22 mpg. So I had high hopes for the new one.
Have they been met? Yes and no.
It was not yet a full tank test, but on a 100 mile freeway round trip the indicated aggregate mileage was over 33. Assuming the indicator is accurate, that's more than 10% better than the previous model. Cruising at 70-80mph, the mileage is better yet.
On the other hand, around town the new model is no better - and may be worse. If you miss a couple of lights, the aggregate drifts below 20 mpg. Ouch.
FWIW, this is without trying the "economy mode" button but otherwise driving with a very light foot, guided by the instantaneous rating. Something the car seems to hate is feathering in acceleration, what seems to work better is giving it a small burst and the coasting, the CVT seems *very* aggressive about dropping the RPM to nothing when it can.
So, it looks to me like the direct-injection and CVT system could use a little more tuning. Hey, do you think standard maintenance will include a software update at some point?
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/22/2012 3:41 PM, JRStern wrote:
Thanks for the report. How is the road noise?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Much quieter and smoother than my 2010, which did not have the active cancellation (apparently the 2012 did).
The front suspension is also a success, I think, and even the rear suspension tuning is much different that the previous models, small road noises that Honda has *intentionally* passed through up until now, are gone. And without going all land-yacht soggy like the old Camry ... I haven't driven a recent Camry so can't comment on that.
Turning onto my block from the main street there is a small negative camber, and the new car takes it noticeably smoother than before. Also the car seems to ride over foot-wide rain gutters even better than before, and it was good before!
The drive-by-wire steering is very light, but after getting used to it for a few days it seems fine.
--
So far I'm liking it pretty well, it's a real step up - and a good
thing!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guarantee you the testing on the EPA route was done with the economy button on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:20:13 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"

I thought I'd read, not.
Anyway for myself, I'm going to empty the first tank and get a "real" reading, before I press it.
Car has a lot of buttons, ...
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/23/2012 8:22 AM, JRStern wrote:

Not just the Eco button? ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's like that Civic ad on tv, only it's the Honda that has start button and camera button and touch screen radio controls, an obnoxious set of climate control buttons, and seat memory buttons and door lock buttons and trunk open buttons and I just dunno how many more buttons inside and outside and hidden and obvious and marked and unmarked, with lights and without lights, and I haven't even gotten into all the computer messages and warning lights and beeps and squawks that yes I wanted and paid for but even so it's like riding in a PacMan game sometimes.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This morning I test drove an EX sedan with CVT. On one straight stretch of 60 mph highway, the [gas] mileage indicator was showing as high as 50 mpg. That can't be possible...
In a nutshell, I was very impressed with the car. It has so many new features that impress me, though the sound system in my 2004 so far seems a lot better. (Maybe the stock speakers can be replaced? In any case it's not a deal-breaker.) I am strongly considering buying a 2013 to replace my 2004 EX sedan, but will not buy any earlier than next spring. I want to find out if there are any issues with this first year new model.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:04:50 -0400, "Howard Lester"

I have a 2003 LX and thinking of the same except not until 2014 or 15. Unless I have to, I'm leary of buying a first year model and my Accord is running too well to get rid of.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:04:50 -0400, "Howard Lester"

It can briefly peg at 60mpg even at speed if you let up on the accelerator a bit on a flat or even downhill. That's not particularly unique, but I think they do try to tune the engine/tranny to do that.
Now that you mention it I can mention that I did notice less than expected engine braking coming down Sepulveda pass towards the 101, when I took my foot off the gas.

Big jump from the 2004 (that I also owned) to this new model!
Don't blame you for waiting, right now there are no deals or financing offered and you have to do the ol' Greco-Roman wrestling with the dealer to get a half-decent price.
They do have a pretty good deal on the LX tho, which is up-featured waaaaaay more than the LX used to go. But yeah there's lots of new stuff, not a bad idea to wait a while.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"JRStern" wrote

The salesman said he'll contact me when Honda offers an incentive. (I'm getting the EX.) I'm in precisely the position "Observer" is in: my car runs too well, and I'm leery (not leary) ;-) of a new model year. I also noticed, driving my car home, it felt like... "home." So it could be tough emotionally to let it go, even after nine years. Knock on formica, I've had virtually no trouble with this car, but after 9 years... is it ready to suddenly explode? ;-)
I noticed that with all the gauges and lights and "lane watch" and everything, I was pretty distracted looking at them all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 06:13:00 -0400, "Howard Lester"

It may be getting due for some more expensive preventative maintenance, which at dealer prices make it a good time to move on.

Yeah, but that's what all the kids are doing, y'know?
I'll probably post a review of the lane watch and forward collision warning features (thought they were both only on EXL?)
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/specifications.aspx
Short review is "not ready for prime time", mildly entertaining and mildly annoying, and maybe mildly useful.
Also discussable are the human factors design of pretty much everything else on the dash, where also the short review is "eh", with the immediate observation that the electronic "white" color has a lot of blue - and tends (a) to become unreadable through sunglasses that generally filter blue, and (b) blue is contraindicated at night.
--
But it's not horrible, just unprofessional. Less than optimal
(y'know, like getting our ambassador killed). I know that many of the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"JRStern" wrote

I may get to "let it go" before 90,000 miles, which is a major service. I use an independent Honda mechanic; he charges about $275 IIRC.
At my age I can't afford to be distracted by cutesy gauges and indicators. Over as short a time as possible, I hope, I won't have to look at those things. I'll tell you, this morning I sure could have used the back-up camera!
Lane-watch and forward collision warning are only on the EX-L. I don't need those. I do like the other lane indicator right-side mirror camera thing that shows you what's on the right side of your car when you've got your right-hand turn signal on. Of course, one has to use the turn signal to see it, and we know there are plenty of drivers who don't seem to know it exists..
I'm grateful the seats are deep enough, as they are on my '04, for my long legs. Other cars seem to have gone to shorter seats, which are comparatively uncomfortable for me. That's why I would never again consider a Civic or equivalent, even if it was [still] a great car. IIRC, even the Camry's seats are shallower.
I look forward to your review. ;-)
H
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hardly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:49:23 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"

Frankly I haven't looked in a decade, but don't you (still) get hose replacement, boots, timing chain, and who knows what else in there, totalling a couple of grand at dealer prices? And that's just scheduled stuff. Used to be you'd also get oil pan replacement and some other "scheduled failures" about there, too. Of course the ol' 87 needed a new Master Cylinder (Felix the Cat reference) about every 30k miles.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Just about the last thing I expected this morning was a reference to Felix the Cat in the Honda newsgroup, but I have thought about him whenever the master cylinder gets mentioned as well. Now I can't get the song out of my head. Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or maybe some people would rather drive around reliably in a shiny new car with zippy new features instead of needing to buy a new engine and transmission once a year, all other things being equal.
Yeah sure, you might save $50/month over driving a new LX, but it probably costs you two hours a month to do it. Guy at work unexpectedly revealed himself as a reasonable mechanic, doing his own preventative work on an old BMW 5-series at 140k miles, I was very impressed, but I'm sure he makes 3x more per hour than he's saving by doing the work himself. Still, everyone needs a hobby.
TANSTAAFL
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you're buying a new engine and transmission once a year, you're doing it all wrong. You're buying the wrong car.
OK, let's just put it out there: you've stretched the game of hyperbole way past the breaking point with that throwaway comment.
You started out with the premise of "expensive preventive maintenance" equalling "time to move on".
But now you've changed your tune to "But I wanna! Shiny! Shiny! Shiny!"
Thanks for confirming for us that you choose to spend all that money for "Shiny! Shiny! Shiny!" instead of spending significantly less money on simple regular maintenance.
You want to drive around "reliably"? Then get a reliable car from the start and do the regular maintenance. There's nothing *not* reliable about even a 15 year old car, if it's maintained well.
No, the throwaway culture is alive in this one--"I don't want to take care of it, I want to use it up and throw it away and get another! That's easier!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Using a car for 10 or 15 years and then selling it is not throwing it away, it's manufacturing your next 'new' one.
On 10/26/2012 7:14 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/26/2012 08:36 AM, JRStern wrote:

so it's not a financial decision!

thanks, but i'm not buying a new engine and transmission every year. what i meant was that the money i'm /saving/ means i could /afford/ to, even if the car was a piece of junk. which it's not.

no dude, it's considerably more than that. your car is going to depreciate at least $5k in the first year. that's ~$415 per month, before increased insurance and finance. i could get a new engine, new transmission and a decent quality re-paint for that. and still have change for a trip to victorias secrets.

less than the time new cars owners spend washing theirs.

alternatively, iywsdrdiy.

--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.