|
|
love that shot of downtown detroit. It's really thriving
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I guess they have mid grade because once premium comes out of someone's mouth as a requirement for any vehicle people lose their minds.
89 is like, oh it's just one step up from 87. It's in the middle so it's ok.
89 is a waste, it should be 91 and 87.
tuning an engine to run on 91 will give it better power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't think the Accord, or any car for that matter, can easily beet EPA. Thats the point of EPA."
Here's a tip, turn on cruise control and to 70 MPH on the highway. You want the keys to my Odyssey, im gettin 19-22 city. I live in NYC btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting that they recommend 89 octane (mid-grade) fuel for this engine instead of either 87 (regular) or 93 (premium). I've always thought mid-grade was kind of a waste, that we should only have regular and premium, but I guess it is indeed recommended for some engines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have noticed that the 3.8 (yes that ancient push rod "unrefined" V6) gets much better mileage than reported mileage for the 4.0 V6. I think that there is something inherent about the 3.8 design that gets better mileage. I will also point to another brand (GM) that has a similar engine (push rods) about the same size and gets excellent mileage. I think that the 4.0 is pointless in a family hauler. Also the engine is still at 1300 miles as everyone else has pointed out! But I seriously doubt that the way Edmunds drives the van it will ever do better than about 18 mpg. If they make a trip to Vegas and drive nearly legal speeds, they might get EPA. But I would wager a green bill or two that 3.8 would do just a bit better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Something is wrong with your way of calculating."
I think something is more likely wrong with your way of calculating - as opposed to the organization that does this sort of thing for a living.
I don't think the Accord, or any car for that matter, can easily beet EPA. Thats the point of EPA.
|
|
|
|
brn
- Apr 29, 2008 5:26 am
(#13 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
I think it was noted someone else in these blogs. It's interesting to see people post exceptional mileage with their own vehicles. There are probably two reasons for these figures.
1. People with bad mileage usually don't post. That skews the average.
2. People often post their best mileage, not what they really get on an average tank. Skews figures.
3. People's definition of city driving must vary a lot. There's no way an Odysey is getting 22mpg in "normal" city driving.
I'm not saying that everyone posting great mileage is guilty of all the above, but they're usually guilty of at least one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt there is anything wrong with their calculating(come on people they've been doing this for quite some time), I do believe that Chryslers ancient powertrains are to blame.
15mpg is not acceptable, and I hate the fact that all of these posts are so contradicting between others and other posters, a 15mpg in a Minivan is ok but 21 in a crossover is mediocre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hdriver, the difference in all your examples is that the person driving pays for the gas. How good would your or your friends mileage be if you didn't have to pay for gas? I always add 5mpg to any report that Edmunds gives to estimate what I would get. If they report 15mpg city or 20mpg on a trip they took, I figure I would get 20/25.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edmunds, i think somehow your numbers aren't adding up correctly. This is the second post I see ridiculous mileage on. The Accord can easily beat EPA and this van can also too esp. if my Ody can achieve 22 MPG city and 25 Hwy and the last caravan was pretty good in MPG. Sienna has the lowest as a friend of mie consistently gets 18 MPG hwy, 16 city, but 15 in a caravan? Something is wrong with your way of calculating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the best tank I've accomplished with my '94 Ram 1500 pickup (5.2 V8, automatic, with a Class III hitch) is about 15 in mixed driving (small southern town, little traffic). Worst is about 11, but that was when I used it to pull down a building. In other words, we could easily take this discussion to extremes. I agree that it's a bit early to start ranting about the GC's fuel economy, but I sure hope it gets better.
|
|
|
|
mopar424
- Apr 28, 2008 3:47 pm
(#8 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
Dont forget that the GC is a large vehicle with a lot of weight to move around,not to far from a large suv. So in that sense, 15 mpg isnt that bad. Plus, this engine is still only at 1300 mi, as Mercedesfan noted. I also dont see how a Sienna would be less embarrasing to drive than this with its excellent proportioning and chiseled looks.
|
|
|
|
06scooby
- Apr 28, 2008 2:48 pm
(#7 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
I think everybody needs to remember how much "suburban" driving can vary. I get about 25-26 in city driving in Reno (no traffic) but if I lived in l.a. or detroit or whatever i'm sure my "city driving" would be yielding right at or below 20 mpg. Especially if that van is just making short little trips all the time. Nothing you drive will get that good of mileage on really short trips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is a little early to start the gas mileage rant as the engine isn't even broken in yet, lest people have forgotten the sacred 3000 mile rule.
On a side note, our almost identically equipped Grand Caravan with 2000 miles on it has averaged just about 19mpg in mostly suburban driving. Still not great, but I am always amazed how quick this van feels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I drive a freakin 06 Range Rover and I even get 15mpg in not only city use but city use with a lead footed 16 year old [me] behind the wheel. And we have a Hemi Jeep Grand Cherokee as a spare car and that even gets 14mpg with me driving. 14 from a van is absurd! especially with a V6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it looks like an econoline nowadays.....that is one squared off look. The one thing I'll give it...it appears to have the lowest load-floor trunk that I've ever seen. That opening appears to be 3" off the road...
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's horrible! Our '04 Sienna (3.3l V6 230hp) gets 24mpg in (predominantly city) mixed use, and 21-22 in suburbia. Not to mention it can move the van mighty quick, sans embarrassing styling.
|
|
|
|
aspade
- Apr 28, 2008 1:19 pm
(#2 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
A Ford Econoline most assuredly doesn't get 14 in the city Edmunds drives in.
|
|
|
|
estreka
- Apr 28, 2008 1:01 pm
(#1 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
subarctic north - Great Falls, MT |
|
|
That's terribly mileage. A Ford Econoline gets 14 in the city.
|
|
