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.
My EXL audio sounds at least as good as any other stock Honda I've ever driven.
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 flexible overall.
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 double-downshift.
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 current Accord.
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.
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 website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.