2008 Honda Accord: 22 MPG Average

You drove 362 miles house hunting!? Wow, that's dedication. I think I looked at maybe 8 houses before I bought mine.
 
That's a nice house, btw. Congrats. I particularly like the brick driveway.

House looks good, but the new Accord is positvely eye-watering.

Congratulations to the Toepke family!

You did getaways in a residential neighborhood?
Alert! Dangerous neighbor moving in!
hahahaha

22 mpg is scary awful.

estreka, I believe those are concrete (or stone, but I doubt it) pavers rather than brick.
 
Cute house, BTW.

I agree with blueguydotcom. These days V6's should get at least 28 mpg in city driving. 22 mpg is just dispicable. Honda must be working with the gas companies. It's some conspiracy against you and me.

BillT9,
 
When I can buy a 28mpg (city) V6, I'll be first in line.

Billt9, I'm going to have to agree with Stephen and say I too am looking for that 28mpg (city) V6. Let us know when you find it.

22 mpg is quite a good overall number for a vehicle of this size and power.

22 mpg is great for 268hp and 3500 lbs.
 
billt9, tell me you're joking. 28 on the highway seems to be about an average rating for most V6 sedans

If you're really concerned about around-the-town mileage, get an electric car for use in the city, and use your "gas guzzling" Accord for highway use.
 
Didn't I see somewhere that someone made an electric car out of an Xb? That wouldn't be so bad. Better than the old EV1.
 
Then you can brag you're getting 100 miles to zero gallons of gas.

I wouldn't call 22 great - I'd call it mediocre. My '03 Mazda 6, similar class car, also with a V6, gets between 23-25 in mixed driving, 22 in the city, and around 29-30 on the highway. I'd expect a five year newer Accord with a newly designed engine to better the totals my car gets. The V6 in my Mazda is a thirsty one, being originally designed by Ford - would have thought the Accord would beat it.

sxty - keep in mind your Mazda6 is a 3.0L, whereas the V6 in the new Accord is a 3.5L. Unfortunately, because it sounds like a lot of Kelly's travel was stop & go, VCM probably never really activated, which would have upped the average had it operated on the highway for any reasonable stretch of time.
 
The only 6 cylinder I know that gets 28+ MPG in the city is mounted in a Honda Goldwing.... ; ) ( I know, I know, it's not a "V"6 )
 
I'm lucky to get 24-25 MPG Mixed for the 2.8L in my Passat - and that's with the 5-Speed manual!

THe Mazda 6 is lighter and had a much weaker 3L engine. that is one reason why it matches the Accord in mileage. You arent going to do much better than 22-23 in mixed driving in a V6 sedan.

EPA combined fuel economy for the Accord V6 is 22 mpg. Our SRX that just wrapped also equaled the EPA combined number, as are several of our other cars. It would seem that that's a pretty good number to go by.

It's a brand new car and 2 mpg is not any better than any 6 cylinder car I've owned in the past 5-6 years. That's despicable in my opinion. Where's the new tech going? Obviously, they're not the least bit interested in efficiency...just a worthless horsepower war. God knows you need 260+ hp through the front wheels of a generic family sedan.
 
Cafe will make it happen anyway...the manufacturers will at least be forced to attempt some manner of decent mileage.

What exactly is it that's changed in the past 5-6 years to expect significantly different fuel economy?
 
Does 2007 gas have more Kcal/g?
 
Does 2007 steel weigh less?
 
Do 2007 engines work differently?
 
Does 2007 asphalt have lower rolling friction?
 
The gasoline powered car is a mature technology. It was a mature technology 5 years ago. It will be a mature technology 10 years from now. That isn't despicable, it's thermodynamic reality.
 
CAFE doesn't change engineering rules. Manufacturers aren't just sitting on ways to make the same cars we have now more efficient for free. Government demanding higher mileage isn't going to magically make this Accord get 30mpg instead of 22, it is going to make this Accord illegal and put you in a Yaris - which already gets 30, and you could buy now if you wanted - instead.

"That's despicable in my opinion."
 
everyone's entitled to an opinion but 22mpg in a car with 268hp isnt bad. Sports cars used to have 268hp 10 years ago. Modern technology has allowed cars to get heavier and far more powerful without any noticeable decreases in economy. Today's V6 cars are about as efficient as the models offered 10-15 years back but those cars had FAR less power and in many cases weighed less. I know the 1998 Accord got no better mileage than the 2008 model in spite of having only 200hp from a 3L V6.
 
aspade is 100% correct. CAFE standards will make cars a lot slower or a lot more expensive or both. You cant change the laws of physics by changing laws in congress. All of the money and effort car companies have put into modern engines is what allows us to have cars wtih 250+hp than can get close to 30mpg and still have room for four adults. Compare today's cars (mileage wise) with similarly fast muscle cars of the 60s and 70s and you will see how far we've come.

My 03 Accord V6 6MT gets 27MPG in mixed driving, 25 in the city and 32 on the highway. Lowest tank I've ever had was 23.6. The fuel economy numbers got substantially better after 15-20k miles and when I learned how to correctly drive the car for good fuel economy, which is something that no Edmunds car will ever have happen. I would expect any Edmunds test vehicle to get on the very low end of what normal people would experience for gas mileage based on the type of driving that is done.
 
I would like to see the fuel economy numbers that the accord can pull in on a cruise control only highway trip at 65, 70, etc mph. I average 34MPG at 65 to a low of 30MPG at 80.

aspade, what about things like direct injection? BMW continually finds ways to get better mileage out of their engines, without sacrificing power. How'd Ford do it with their new 3.5 V6 that beats the mileage and power of the Duratec 3.0 V6 in my Mazda?
 
No, there isn't some sort of magic bullet that will automatically increase mileage by 25% but there are small things that make a difference. Like the fact that the new Mazda 6 is lighter than the old version, while getting bigger in size and engine power. Driving down weight has got to be the goal of manufacturers going forward because our appetite for engine power isn't going away anytime soon.

aspade- excellent post.
 
City driving kills gas mileage on any car. Maybe I need to move to the suburbs because my mileage sucks

From my perspective, I don't think a 22 mpg average is particularly good for a 268 hp 3500 lb car. My 3600 lb 300 hp BMW 335i Coupe has thus far averaged 22.5 mpg and my driving is mostly suburban (maybe 25-33% highway). And that thing can absolutely smoke the Accord V6.
  
Seeing as the modern ICE is only around 20% efficient, I'd say there's always opportunity to make gains (however marginal) in economy. Cars are simply increasing in weight and power faster than the efficiency improvements are happening.

"From my perspective, I don't think a 22 mpg average is particularly good for a 268 hp 3500 lb car. My 3600 lb 300 hp BMW 335i Coupe has thus far averaged 22.5 mpg and my driving is mostly suburban (maybe 25-33% highway). And that thing can absolutely smoke the Accord V6."
 
I find it funny that some people still look at just the numbers as there are MANY MANY MANY MANY variables that can effect fuel economy. Weight, aero dynamics, torque curves, gear ratios, driving style, weather conditions, quality of fuel, traffic conditions, and location to name a few.. The Accord obviously can match the numbers as stated by the EPA. What else are you asking for?

<shameless plug>
Fuel Economy: Gas Saving Tips
http://66.160.188.111/strategies/436
 
We Test the Tips - What Really Saves Gas? And How Much?
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106842/article.html
</shameless plug>
 
Glad to be of service! :o)

BimmerJay - Your 335i is a 3.0L engine (versus the accord's 3.5L). You cannot compare engines of different displacements directly like that. If you were run both cars equally as hard, however, I would be willing to bet your twin turbos would eat up a lot more gas than the N/A 3.5L in the Honda.
 
The number that Edmunds reported (22 MPG), as someone astutely stated, is probably "...on the very low end of what normal people would experience for gas mileage based on the type of driving that is done." =)

The 335 is lighter than the Accord and has a smaller engine and has more gears. That would explain why its able to match the Accord's results in spite of having 300hp.
 
Contrary to what people are saying here, edmund's driving style is realistic as are their fuel economy numbers. Most people dont drive in an artificial way just to get great fuel economy. I know I dont. why in the world would Edmunds drive around slower than normal just to post unrealistically high fuel economy?
 
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0802_midsize_sedan_comparison/index.html
 
check out this comparo by MT. The results are interesting as is the observed fuel economy. Now THEY were obviously driving the cars aggressively.

I agree with HondaAcura- if your car meets the new EPA standards, be happy.
  
sxtystang- all things equal, larger engines move heavier vehicles more efficiently than smaller engines. For example: Suby Tribeca gets better mileage with the new 3.6L than it did with the 3.0L because of its high mass. Of course if you have a 2700 lbs Corolla, the smaller engine would work better, again all variables being equal (gearing, weight, Cd, etc).
  
Large engines that make a lot of torque can have super tall gearing to keep revs low and deliver excellent fuel economy- if the car is lite enough. A great example of this approach is the Corvette. However, when this powertrain is thrown into a heavier vehicle, that benefit evaporates (think CTS-V).

So far, as posted in a previous entry on the Accord, this engine continues to depress me.
 
It is one of the weaker 3.5 liters available right now. For those who quote the stated horsepower and torque numbers, you need to find out more about this engine. It's low and mid range has been cut down for the sake of VCM, and it is weaker than it's competitors in the Camry and Altima in everyday driving.
 
It's EPA rating is equivalent to the Camry except with a 1mpg better range on highway (i.e. the honda is rated at 29 highway vs 28 for the camry).
 
It's everyday acceleration has been negatively affected to achieve this.
 
Supposedly, "Everyday driving" will yield betters results than the EPA average shows. Supposedly, the EPA tests don't really utilize VCM and so it doesn't really show up on the EPA results.
 
However, the EPA has a combined rating of 22 mpg for the Accord and Camry.
 
And, so far, Edmunds is achieving that.
 
Hence, so far, the weakened Accord 3.5 liter V6 is achieving the same fuel economy as the stronger Camry 3.5 liter V6. The difference the VCM makes at the sacrifice of mid-range acceleration has not yet been proven to be worthwhile.
 
Color me unimpressed by this Honda engine. I'm impressed by the exterior design, interior design, and interior spaciousness, as well as the revolutionary steering design and impressive, but Honda dropped the ball on this engine/transmission.
 
Joe

Meh, displacement shmisplacement. More reciprocating mass is no excuse! But thanks for the fuel economy lesson, guys, I'm aware of the many variables that can affect it. :-) FWIW, I drive with 500 lbs of lead in my trunk, floor it at every light, and I have direct fuel injection into the exhaust pipes to blow flames out of the back of the car. Now how would THAT affect my mileage?

Bimmerjay,
 
It sounds like you've found a way to make a new German car run like an old French one. Renault Fuego, anyone?

poor honda. everyone else can be as efficient or as UN effecient as they want, be people will hound honda for whatever they do.
 
its meets the epa, its heavier than both the camry and altima, comparing it to your driving style and what YOU average is pointless, and there is a version of this v-6 that doesn't lack the midrange torque that the vcm equipped version does.
 
(i don't feel that its gutless, its still a v-6 and it has more guts than my car now. of all the things to complain about guys....)

Hi, Chris-
 
I wouldn't necessarily compare your Accord V-6 to this one, either, given that yours is a stick-shift. I had a Mazda 3 hatch with the 2.3 & a 5-sp that routinely turned in 28-32mpg under my watch regardless of whether I was on city streets or on the freeway, while poor Chavis routinely turns in about 10 mpg less than I do with the same car, but an automatic. I'd like to think that a good part of the difference was my dogged refusal to shift above 3500rpm unless absolutely necessary & stubborn insistence on cruise control when I was on the freeway. For the record, my first car, a Honda Civic with a stick, was similarly consistent albeit with less work involved.
 
For those who are wondering, I actually do get good gas mileage out of my Altima Hybrid - 35 every time.

" poor honda. everyone else can be as efficient or as UN effecient as they want, be people will hound honda for whatever they do. "
 
Thats partially Honda's fault since their ads constantly brag about how efficient their lineup is- you cant be mad that people expect great mileage out of every Honda even if its really only true of their four cylinder equipped models. When you have a reputation based on efficiency some people expect EVERY vehicle you make to be efficient.

Joe, Im with you on overall drivetrain performance as I really thought Honda could have implemented the VCM without the loss in performance. The car is certainly no slouch as it matches the Malibu in straightline performance but I know it could have been better. Id like to see what the non VCM V6 could do with a 6AT.
 
1487, Im actually glad Honda decided not to have a "full line" (large V8 SUV/ trucks) as you say. It just proves that you can still remain profitable, independent and healthy making good cars and small/midsize CUVs. If you make good products people will buy them, GM FINALLY realized that!

How is Honda not a full-line manufacturer? Heck, you can buy everything from a Honda lawnmower, generator, boat engine, car.... all the way up to a biz jet! That sounds like a pretty full line to me. :-D