2008 Honda Accord EX-L: Fuel Range

Hmm...402/16 = 25 mpg, right? Not all that great. That what those SF hills will do to you, I guess.

I got 435.6 miles out of my last tank in my Speed6. About the same range, and its actually fun to look at, sit in, and drive. What a concept.

That does seem a bit average, especially against the rather-high EPA highway rating of 29. I also happen to have a Speed6, and I've put more than 400 miles on its small 15.9-gallon tank (It consistently gets about 27mpg on the highway at 75-80mph.) The normal 6's had bigger gas tanks, too; 18 for the last generation, 18.5 for the '09.

Is 25 one of the highest numbers that you've gotten? The last post I saw on fuel efficiency, while certainly reasonable in my eyes for a car of this size, doesn't really match up to the EPA numbers.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/2008/04/2008-honda-accord-ex-l-v6-fuel-economy-update.html#comments

I do know the Speed6 and Accord aren't exactly competing against each other, but considering they're both high-power ~3500lb sedans, it seemed at least slightly relevant.

2008 Honda Accord EX-L with Navi

Curb Weight: 3616 lbs.
Horsepower: 268 hp
Torque: 248 lb-ft.
EPA Rating: 19/29
Edmunds.com's numbers: ~16/~25, 21.1 combined at last report

2006 Mazdaspeed6 GT

Curb Weight: 3589 lbs.
Horsepower: 270 hp SAE
Torque: 280 lb-ft.
EPA Rating: 16/23 (2008 rating system)
FuelEconomy.gov's numbers: 20/24, 21.9 combined

All data taken from Edmunds.com or FuelEconomy.gov.

Bigger tanks help a lot, except when it is time to fill them up.

My dad had a 1978 Suburban with a 40 gallon tank. He even got as high as 17 mpg on one tank. He often went well over 500 miles on a tank no problem.

My wife's 2000 Chevrolet Venture LT has a 25 gallon tank. Multiply that times 22-24 mpg on the highway(75-80 mph plus air on) and we easily go over 500 miles in a tankful. I think if I ever drove it 65 mph I could easily hit 600 miles in the right setting.

The Aura XR has a slightly smaller tank, 16.4 gallons. I do wish it was closer to the 18.5 of the Accord and Camry. On long trips, however, I am getting 27-28 mpg.

We are debating which car to take to Walt Disney World next year. The parents prefer to take the XR, but putting our two teenagers next to each other(boy and girl) for 2400 miles, some type of horrible incident is bound to occur. No problem with that in the van, but then the van only has 185 horsepower, not 252. Decisions, decisions.

I must be missing something - those mileage figures look decidedly average to me. You'd think with their much-touted VCM, the Accord V6 would be a class-leader in fuel economy. It isn't.

Jaeger - I think you mean much maligned VCM, and rightfully so. That VCM gutted the engine, and without any noticeable benefit as far as I can see. It'll be interesting to compare the Accord's lifetime average vs. the Aura at the end of the test...I don't expect much difference.

400 miles to a tank is not exactly a marathon people....I achieved 410-420 in my 06 Civic SI driving from Boston to NJ. 35mpg x 12 gallons...and I wasn't even tapped out. I was also travelling at an average speed of about 70 mph w/ light AC usage.

And my car is not exactly a highway cruiser.

500 miles to a tank is when things start to get impressive.

Joe

It's nice that these rockets of V6 Sedans can be so swift and still get decent fuel economy. However, most people will never need that much power. Yes, it is surely nice to have especially where people drive as crazy as they do (aka California), but in places like the East Coast, less power is sufficient and the better fuel economy of smaller engines is more appropriate for most people.

And I really don't think that 25 MPG is all that impressive. My 1996 Chevrolet Lumina will in practical driving get anywhere from 31/32 MPG up to 38 MPG on the highway. I get about 22-25 MPG in mixed driving. And while I do not drive like a bat out of hell and get these numbers, I'm not exactly an old lady or a hypermiler, either. Impressive I think for a car with a 3.1 L Pushrod V6 mated to a 4 speed auto transmission.

The LA to San Francisco run, I know this drive well. I'm not necessarily sure why but the drive up uses more gas than the drive down for me, often a difference of 2-3 mpg. The Accord's mileage is good compared to what I've achieved. A last minute rented Caliber got 22mpg, a Murano got 19mpg, and an E320 got 26mpg. I think it's the long long climb from the middle of nowhere into Dublin then Oakland that usually kills my accumulated mpg.

As a sidenote, and this is a personal opinion, I'd much rather have an Accord than a Mazdaspeed6, I can't stand the interior or the bulgy hood or the dinky little exhaust pipes poking out of the fake outlets. Not my cup of tea but I'm sure there are people that love theres.

I get 30 MPG highway on my 2008 Accord with VCM.
However, I agree about the VCM's negative affect on not only the engine but the entire driveability of the car, and its questionable benefit. And you really cannot compare the fuel economy of the V6 6 speed coupe since it has a different final drive ratio than the auto.

My personal fuel economy champ? 1986 BMW 24TD - 2.4 liter inline 6 turbo diesel. Fully loaded with my wife and 2 kids, a trunk full of stuff and the A/C on, at 75 MPH - 42 MPG and with an 18 gallon takn, 16 useful gallons and a cruising range of over 600 miles. AWESOME. If not for the many other problems with the car (BMW = Break My Wallet), I would still own it.

that is 524TD

aurakr: Talk about learning something new every day, somehow I had never realized the gas tank on my Venture was actually 25 gallons. Sadly, with a vanful of people, I normally always make a pit-stop for someone before I get much past 400 miles.

Oh, and as of the "fuzzy black tape" update, Edmunds' Aura was at 19.9mpg, with a high of 31 and a low in the "mid-15 range." so, 1.2mpg lower overall for the time being, but with a better "high", so to speak.

linard: I can certainly understand the difference in opinions on styling, but for me, the exhaust tips are an easy cosmetic fix (and a faus pas that even the the IS-F committed), I personally love the hood/exterior design, and while the material quality in the Accord is definitely better, their new center console layout drives me nuts. The Accord's exterior design isn't my cup of tea either, but again, all the design stuff is markedly personal.

Now, when driving dynamics and AWD come into play...

=D

I find the range on so many cars to be disappointing, my SRT-4 was a joke, the light came on with 4 gallons or so left, so best range ever was only 270 miles without the light, usual was around 200 miles. My wife's Taurus occasionally cracked 400 on long trips and it had a tank similarly sized to the Accord, and it was the Vulcan V6 with a 4 speed auto. My c230K usually tops 400 miles a tank (16.5 gallons, light comes on with 2 gallons left) with mixed driving. My old 97 3.8 liter Firebird broke the 400 barrier as well with it's 15 gallon tank and a 4 speed automatic, it'd covered about 450 miles with 14 gallons (32mpg), that 3.8 got great mileage even at the hands of a 20-21 year old male (aka: not driven gently at all times). I'd love to see how far I could get an E320 Bluetec (21.1 gallon tank, epa 32hwy, reports of up to 38mpg on hwy) on a highway trip.

"Jaeger - I think you mean much maligned VCM, and rightfully so. That VCM gutted the engine, and without any noticeable benefit as far as I can see. It'll be interesting to compare the Accord's lifetime average vs. the Aura at the end of the test...I don't expect much difference."

Joe - agreed. I would be very much surprised if the Accord did significantly better in terms of fuel economy than the recent crop of V6 family sedans tested here - Aura, Camry, Altima etc.

You'd be amazed at how many people will look at a statement by an automotive journalist to the effect that "the Accord gets better than average highway fuel economy" and take it as gospel without even looking at the numbers to see if they remotely support that conclusion. This isn't a matter of subjective opinion - the data either supports it or it doesn't.

My 07 Impala SS has a 17.5 gallon tank, personal best with cruise control was an average of 28 on pure highway driving with cruise control at 75.

This was traveling from northwest GA to Boone, NC with a little over 1/4 of a tank left. My usual average with city/highway is between 21 and 24.

My sister test drove a new Accord and she loved it, she didn't buy it but she wants one. It's a nice car for those who can get past the tumor-like headlights and the crack that runs down each side, if I could put the interior in my Impala I would lol.

Of course fuel economy is far more important to me than crusing range, but I do appreciate a big tank. I could easily go 400 miles on a tank in my Mazda3 with its 14.5 gallon tank. That's just my mixed commuting. I haven't been on a long highway trip with it yet. Unfortunately the low fuel light comes on with about 3 gallons left. I know my tank size and my typical mpg, which doesn't vary much (I've been tracking on a spreadsheet since I bought the car new), but I did have one tank come in fairly low at 27 mpg, so I begin to wonder if it's really going to make it to 400. And besides I've gotten in the habit of filling up every Saturday morning at a station near my house that always has good prices. I usually only have about 300 miles on the trip odometer by then, but I fill up anyway since that station isn't on the way to or from work, and I don't like having to stop in the morning when I'm trying to get in the office early, or in the afternoon when it's 100+ degrees outside and the AC is just getting the cabin cooled off. But I figure once a week is pretty convenient. Many of my coworkers with 30+ mile commutes and bigger cars are filling up twice a week.

Now, the 31-gallon tank on our Yukon XL is wonderful. My wife stays home with the kids, and typically only has to fill up once a month. Although you might be surprised how many miles a "stay-at-home" mom can put on a car... running errands, play dates, field trips, doctor appts, etc., and her city mileage is only about 15-16 mpg. But still, easily 400 miles on a tank, and I prefer to gas up that car myself when we're out together on a weekend (I just feel anxious about her and the kids alone at a gas station these days). On the highway, we can tickle 20 mpg, so 550 miles on a tank is easy. Could be more, but my wife hates it when I ignore the idiot light... On a long vacation trip, you don't always know when the next preferred brand gas station will arrive. I start looking for gas with 100 miles to empty, so that I am able to find something clean and reasonably priced in a decent neighborhood, and pass by all the scummy ones. And on our regular trips to visit family members or go camping in state, it's nice to know we can make it anywhere within 250 miles and back home again on a single tank, and not have to pay highway robbery prices in the middle of nowhere.

My best tank in my '07 Focus was 421 miles. I can conceivably regularly top 400 miles on a tank, but that's usually about when the fuel light comes on. Median fill-up mileage over 62 tanks is 360 miles. Not too bad, in my mind.

My theory about big gas tanks: they're great for long-distance cruises. But realistically we're limited by other things, such as bladders, hunger, and pets. Yeah, maybe you can go 600 miles on a single tank, but can you realistically go 8 hours (avg 75 mph) without stopping for some other reason?

Of course you need to stop to eat and use the rest room - but the point with an extened range created by a large tank and great MPG is you don't need to fuel up. We could drive from Virginia to Syraucse, NY - about 400 miles and my wife never have to get fuel the entire week before refueling to return home with the BMW.

I too would like to see what I could do with a E320 Bluetec as well. I thought the diesel engine terrific - my wife hated it - once the turbo spooled up it had decent acceleration, but otherwise compared to a previously owned '83 Accord was very sluggish and "heavy" around town. My wife loved zipping around in her Honda.

penboy

If you have the extended version, yes you have a 25 gallon tank. If you have the short or normal version, the tank is only 20 gallons.

My wife and I once went from San Diego to Las Vegas in less than 4.5 hours, with one stop in Barstow to gas up. I was driving my 1993 Saturn SL2 and never once went into triple digits.

Two kids later, with or without kids, we stop roughly every 100-150 miles. No more high speed runs.

Now on a run to Las Vegas, we usually stop at the Tommys in Barstow and then depending on how the wife feels usually in Baker.

Most GM cars need a bigger tank. I dont want a 18.5 gal tank but I would like something that was about 17-17.5 gallons. The good part about a smaller tank is less time to fill up and lower totals at the pump. I would be at $68 a fill up if my tank was as large as the Accord's.

ahightower

My wife was the opposite. Twice in the eight years we have owned the Venture, I have put in 24.1 and 24.4 gallons in the tank. Warning light, what warning light?

Thank god it was only when gas was about $2.00 a gallon, but still. She explained it by saying the range to empty gauge said she had 80 miles left.

Memo to all potential Venture owners, the range to empty gauge is not that accurate under a quarter of a tank. Unless, maybe the Venture gets 80 mpg on the last gallon, who knows?

The good news is that I didn't have to push it and now my wonderful wife is miss paranoid. In fact she has gone full circle lecturing our teenage daughter about going under a quarter tank in her Cavalier :)

True, you're not going to drive 500 miles without having to stop at all.

But many of our common destination are within 3 hours, and we will not stop at all (use Grandma's bathroom when you get there). Then we can come all the way home again without buying gas, until I happen to pass by my friendly neighborhood gas station with consistently low prices, and where I am collecting points for free cokes and car washes.

Or if you're going farther and you do have to stop, you can stop at a decent restaurant, have a nice meal, and use a clean restroom. My wife refuses to use "yucky" gas station bathrooms anyway, so I'd just as soon not have to stop for fuel.

Given the driver only put in 15.99 gallons of gas in a 18.5 gallon fuel tank validates that the car can go even further. I do however think the Accords overall F/E is about average for its segment.

"However, I agree about the VCM's negative affect on not only the engine but the entire driveability of the car, and its questionable benefit. And you really cannot compare the fuel economy of the V6 6 speed coupe since it has a different final drive ratio than the auto."

Unfortunately this is true. Im having a debate with some other TOVers over at TOV (Temple of VTEC) about why the system isnt really doing anything to help the car and the fact that this drivetrain isnt the playful, earger drivetrain thats expected and usually delivered by Honda.

I could see implementing the system if it had NO effect on performance or power while delivering top of the class performance and above average fuel economy.

The 6MT coupe is almost unreal. Fun, eager, zingy, athletic and still has that nice VTEC top end rush while providing abundant low and midrange torque. I thought the 3.2 260hp V6/6MT combo im my 03 Acura CL Type-S was more than adequate until I drove the 6MT Accord. WOW!

VCM hurts performance, whether its accleration or the normal stop and go driving cycle. The VCM significantly negatively alters the torque curve to the tune of about 32 lbft compared to the V6 6MT. Not only does it choke performance, it gives no real or justifiable gain in F/E. Whats the point again Honda?

"The 6MT coupe is almost unreal. Fun, eager, zingy, athletic and still has that nice VTEC top end rush while providing abundant low and midrange torque. I thought the 3.2 260hp V6/6MT combo im my 03 Acura CL Type-S was more than adequate until I drove the 6MT Accord. WOW!"

I can only imagine - I had a '94 Legend Coupe
Type II 6 speed and that was a blast - pretty amazing acceleration numbers comparable to the '08 speed V6 Accord Coupe AND would hit 155 governed. I think Acura regularly understated it HP 3's - if you ever drove a 161 HP '90 Legend you would know what I am talking about. No way it was only 161! But again, the point is what Honda? I got 28-30 with the Legend Coupe ten years ago. I get 30 tops with my '08 VCM Accord, and NOWHERE NEAR the performance. What gives? What kind of highway mileage are the 6 speed coupes getting?