Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord

Page 1 of 3  
Hey guys,
I just purchased a 2003 Honda Accord LX Sedan Automatic and moved to Colorado Springs.
Loaded down with all of my personal belongings, I got 32mpg during the
770 mile drive from Dallas. This was fine with me.
During the first few weeks that I was here, my driving was evenly split between city, small highway (55mph) and mountain driving. I averaged 24mpg.
Determined to do better, I committed to keep the TAC under 3,000 for the entire volume of gas in the newly-filled tank. I just filled it up last night and did the calculation. 22mpg.
My eyes are crossing...
Almost all of my driving for this past tank has been city driving. I have not been an A/C fiend, and I shift into Neutral and coast downhill rather than let the engine do it. I take my time getting places and I don't jackrabbit starts or stops.
What am I doing wrong? Or does Colorado just suck? Is my expectation of 25mpg city driving unreasonable?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Drewaffe wrote:

Yes it is, especially considering your altitude and mountainous terrain.
EPA estimates on the V-6 Accord are 21 city, 30 highway. In your driving conditions, anything over the EPA city number is a good result for city driving.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The altitude should not affect mileage. (Empirical evidence of this is my 91 Civic: Got 40 mpg at sea level for several months. Still getting 40 mpg at a mile high altitude, late spring through fall.)
Driving in mountainous terrain may be the problem.
The car is two years old, though. It is about due for a tuneup. Have you had one done recently? Check your owner's manual. It may specify new
fuel filter air filter plugs
at a minimum.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I only know that the regular unlead gas is 86 instead of 87 in Utah and Colorado. I do not know that affects the gas mileage, also.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
See, among others,
http://www.valvoline.com/carcare/articleviewer.asp?pg=dsm20020401go&cccid=3 & scccid=3 .
http://www.idavette.net/hib/fuel /
The lower octane gas in the Rocky Mountain states is appropriate for the altitude.
I doubt the lower octane affects fuel mileage.

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

I hadn't considered that. The altitude has the same effect as not opening the throttle all the way, so lower octane works fine.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Drewaffe wrote: <SNIP> I shift into Neutral and coast downhill

It's illegal to shift into neutral when going downhill, in some juristictions. It's for a couple of good reasons. Don't do it.
'Curly'
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0600, "'Curly Q. Links'"

And prey tell what ARE those reasons.

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

Much of the speed reduction when going downhill is achieved by taking your foot off the gas and letting the engine do the "brake" work. By putting the transmisison in neutral, you have to rely entirely on your braking system, risking rapid overheating of the brakes. Overheated brakes work very poorly, leaving you open to destruction.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry J. wrote:

neutral also /raises/ gas consumption on an injected car. if the ecu sees no throttle above a certain rev, it assumes coasting mode and shuts off gas delivery entirely. it won't do that if it's idling because the revs aren't high enough to register as a coast.
coasting in neutral could arguably save gas on a carburetted engine so that's probably where this bad practice arose, but for injected engines, absolutely leave it in gear all the time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hello, Great post. I just wanted to add that it's a bad habit to get into. I doubt that it saves any gasoline. In addition, it adds more "wear" to the transmission. In other words, your transmission will wear out quicker if you shift into neutral every time you go downhill. Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:34:46 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

We've just had a past that states it saves on carb cars, but not, generally, fuel injected ones, which you obviously didn't read - despite the fact that the poster only considered immediate consumption, and not the increased downhill speeds and its implications if the coast is continued on the flat or near-flat areas following the slope.
I'm intrigued though, by your asertation that being in neutral puts INCREASED wear on a transmission, since it was my understanding that since it would ahve no load, and not be spun beyond the rated ranges (in all probability slowly, depending on gearbox design), that it wouldn't increase wear, but instead decrease it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flobert wrote:

for the clutch packs, slipping in & out of neutral is more use than they would experience in coasting, hence it can cause more wear. less of a deal on the honda, and completely irrelevent in the face of the safety arguments however! either way, there's no justification for coasting in neutral.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:04:43 GMT, "Larry J."

Whilst yes, that was the case in the 60s, not since the late 70s at the latest has this even been an issue. A semi, comming down a mountain, yes, a car down a hill, no. Keep with the times, and stop with the decades old misinformation please.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flobert wrote:

it's not misinformation, it's dead accurate. brakes linings /do/ over heat, brake lines fail, brake fluids boil, speeds can become excessive, and you are not in full control of the vehicle in the event you need to make any evasive manoevers. it's bad for the transmission too. do not ever coast in neutral down a hill! /EVER/!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
said:

Somtimes, nothing will convince a zealot. Like the constant debate wiht those who still think they're doing their new cars a favor by changing the oil every 3,000 miles.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry J. wrote:

his money on excessive oil changes. really. i /do/ however care if his willful ignorance affects /my/ safety on the road. if he careens out of control onto /my/ side of the freeway and hits /my/ car because he's been coasting in neutral and has lost control because his brakes are toasted, he'd better make sure he can run faster than me, because i /will/ be upset.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
said:

Hahaha..! Agreed.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

For this to work as you say, you'd need the following to happen badly ventilated/cooled brakes. constant application of brakes weakened brake lines under-spec brake fluid
Any of these would occur in any sudden deceleration from a high speed (such as an emergency stop on the highway) and be in all probablility more fatel then.
Modern brakes are designed to cope with small aplication loads for longer periods of time. Many car manufacturers do these kinds of manouvers as tests in their brake systems, to prevent precisely this from happening. /whats more, its the very first fade test. Were you then to take the car on a long winding downhill run from the mountains you'd have a lot more heat buildup in your brakes, and a lot greater application of wear, having heaier repeated applications of the brakes, with a lower ventilation speed.
You're also on the assumption tha when coasting, people ride the brake instead. you know, i've never done that. if i coast, i don't then ride the brake, instead i'll make a check application, every so often.
As for the 'not in full control' argument, again, thats from the 50's and 60's before the advent of the nice modern synchromesh. For an avoidance measure, engine power or no will make no difference. For stopping, your braking speed is limitedby the static friction lmiit of the vehicles tyres. In fact, you're not having to brake the rotational inertia of the engine and connected gearbox componants, so you're ahead there too. The only way i can see the engine being of any benefit is if you ahve to go FASTER, or a 90dergee+ oversteer situation, but in that case, you'd probably want to change from a cruising gear in any case.
Regardless, I'm sure we'll be able to go around in circles like this, each counter-claiming the other. Instead, i'll send an email over to see if Mythbusters will take a look at it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flobert wrote:

1. all brakes heat on application. that's fundamental fact. if you're dissipating /all/ your forward energy through the brakes and are not using engine braking because you are in neutral, the brakes will heat more!!! that's fact!!!
2. you can easily have constant application of brakes. you're never going to have road conditions that just happen to suit you!
3. brake lines deteriorate with age! fact.
4. brake fluid absorbs water from the air. it starts to degrade the moment you open the bottle. fact.

that's stupid.

you don't know what you're talking about. any brake fades as a function of temperature. temperature is a function of the speed you want to turn into kinetic energy. any form of stop start driving, regardless of hills, heats brakes. period.

dude, apart from the fact that coasting is illegal, you're also indicating you don't have the vehicle under proper control.

eh? what has synchromesh got to do with it? that's utterly irrelevant.

but engine braking does!!! that's why automatics down-shift - for engine braking and safety.

only if the brakes can supply sufficient friction. if they're toast, you can have the best tires in the world, but they won't mean a damned thing to stop you running into that kid that's just kicked their ball into the road.

what planet are you on??? look up engine braking on google. truck manufacturers invest millions in engine braking technology because its so effective AND SAFE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T OVERHEAT BRAKES.

eh?
be my guest. geeze. i can maybe understand ignorance as an excuse if the engineering is not understood, but using it as an excuse against the law??? buddy, you take the prize!
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.