After 2500 miles on the odometer, and finally getting a tankful of my more
usual driving (without a 40 mile, at least, straight trip each way), my
measured mileage per this morning's fill-up (342 miles on the trip odometer)
was 30.7. I compare that to the typical 27 mpg I got with my 2004 EX I4
Accord. I'm pleased with that. The car sure rides better than the 2004, too,
and I do like the added features. But it's going to cost me $1000 to get the
audio system to sound good, considering the stock 6-speaker system is way
down in the "awful" category.
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:38:40 -0400, "Howard Lester"
My EXL audio sounds at least as good as any other stock Honda I've
I find the new models with CVT get better highway mileage than several
previous models - but often worse city mileage. Also, that "rides
better" is two things, they've smoothed out the ride because of
constant bad reviews even though much of the previous harshness was
supposed to be "sporty" and was done intentionally, and also the new
Macpherson struts up front which handle better at low g's, but not as
well at high g's. Also the active sound cancelling thingy the audio
system does makes it seem smoother.
It's also funky to hit the accelerator and feel the car speed up, and
the tach doesn't move. And while that may be a good efficiency move I
think it is seldom a good performance algorithm, since most of the
time this happens in the 2k-3k RPM range and (I presume) there's more
power higher up.
i've not driven this car, but other cvt's do rev up if you press the gas
harder - it shifts to a higher power band. once there, the speed
increases as the revs stay constant at the new higher level.
to do what you're describing would be quite fuel efficient, particularly
if the motor was optimized for that specific rpm, but it wouldn't be as
Get one and drive it for a while.
It's frustrating, very hard to judge your acceleration when the engine
stays at the same RPM, maybe they should simulate the RPMs on the
audio system or something.
But yes, in certain "moods" it does let the engine rev, but it is not
easy to judge when it will happen and not clear how to handle the
pedal to get what you want. It's very reminiscent of how the old
Honda autos would go all sticky on you and then suddenly do a
I won't be at all surprised if these CVTs start breaking down around
50k miles ... but me being a leasee I hope to be gone from it by then.
i've driven other cvt's extensively and think they're a great system.
after about 2 minutes you learn to ignore revs and that is pretty much
the secret of not worrying about them.
on the cvt's i've driven before, i just think of the pedal as being a
command on how fast i want to go and let the transmission figure out how
to load the engine. you don't /need/ to worry about rpm's with an
infinite number of transmission ratios.
the civic hx will last 300k miles by some accounts - the drive-away
clutch problem excluded. unless it's part of honda's new
"detroitization" and new found love for built-in failure, there's no
reason the accord transmission shouldn't be just as reliable.
Or, perhaps, they could give better standard transmission models.
Not terribly unhappy with the 2013 Accord, but they can do better
as there is more bark than bite. No need to simulate -- the rise in
noise level is very impressive .... but the flagging in the torque
is even more disappointing.
I might go with a standard if they had it (more available on all
models etc) but I have to believe that the best of automatic
technology now, is better. I just don't think we're getting it on the
Yes, for the first little while I drove a CVT (Civic Hybrid),
I did find I was listening to the wrong cues when accelerating.
This was especially so since all my previous cars had been
manual transmissions. However, after a week or so I learned
new habits and had no more trouble.
Maybe it's my "advancing" age (jeez, did I just say that?)... I have no
issues at all with the CVT. Yes, it does some funky things when I want to
pass someone on a 2-lane road, but it seems to behave no different from the
I4 auto I had on the 2004. And once it gets going, it really goes. No
complaints from me.
We all have our tastes in what is good and right with cars.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 19:37:23 -0400, "Howard Lester"
I dunno, I'm older than I used to be, too, and my mental image of a
"sports car" is still a little buzzy engine with no power at low RPM
so you have to actively engage things if you ever want to get going.
That, or the American reply, big displacement engines with torque all
day long - that these days means turbocharging as often as not.
My 1987 Accord sort of pretended to be the first of those, and even
the 2004 Accord still paid it homage - it would rev if you put your
foot down. Today the engines claim to have power at high RPM, but
with the long stroke and the funny computers you can't hardly get
there. So you end up lugging around town at low rpm and low
responsiveness. Which is OK 80% of the time depending on your own
personal style and of course traffic. It takes some amazing tech to
even *try* to do what Honda does with the current models. But the
poor city mileage tells me, they don't really have it down yet.
If you put it in Sport mode it even behaves a little more like them
old-style "sports cars", but then the long-stroke engine starts to
feel a little rough, balance-shafts and sound cancellation or not, and
the mileage only gets (a little) worse.
Just a matter of Honda getting old along with us and maybe a little
faster than I'd like, come on Honda keep me young!
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.