Not an Accord, but I previously posted a thread on my Scenic diesel where I am not getting anywhere near what I think I should be. Put into dealer and they did an emissions test and said everthing was fine and there were no other checks they could do!
Did give me advice on an Italian tune up weekly, not using 6th gear below 50 etc.
|
Hi...I'm about a week from ordering a 2.4 Accord with the auto box. I found the 2.0 a bit 'wanting' with the auto attached. Would anyone have any real world figures on petrol consumption for this engine size, or any direction to a UK based owners forum?
Dave K
|
What is all this pre-occupation with mpg figures? People are so hung up about mpg figures as they shell out close to 20 grand for a new motor. If your main concern is top economy choose a VAG diesel - they consistently return the best figures in the real word. So that'll be a a Skoda please, obviously because it makes most sense - why we don't all drive one I can't imagine! If you want image, refinement, technology, smoothness, don't fancy waking the neighbours, enjoy the great adverts, then drive a well cool Honda Accord diesel - top notch quality, reliability and loads of cred. Nice car, wish I could stretch to one. If you get high 30's, low 40's in "ordinary" mixed driving you're probably getting as good as you'll get unless you start pussyfooting your way around the UK road networks which defeats the object of buying such a good car. Drive it! The extra pounds you spend suffering lousy mpg will be recouped several fold at sale time.
For Sale - very economical Picasso HDi - willing to straight swap with any disillusioned Accord diesel drivers.
|
The real gripe here is about the difference between the advertised figures and the ones achieved in real life.
If I am achieving below the quoted "urban" consumption figure for a motorway journey from Scotland to Manchester basically sticking to the speed limits with a max speed of no more than 80mph - then something is wrong with either my car or the advertised figures.
Don't you agree ?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Why would you want a accord(nobody else wants them ugly things!)stats tell the truth!!!
|
Thank you for that valuable contribution which really increases the worth of this thread.
Do try a little harder to write something which makes reasonable use of the space it occupies.
Thank you so much.
|
GrahamF1
I only get 42-44 from my Passat 100bhp diesel estate, even driving gently. An overall of 42 mpg was at a steady 75 mph cruise to Bath and back.
Even gentle acceleration puts the mpg indicator into the 20s.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
I 'phoned Honda two days ago telling them that I was not satisfied with the fuel consumption - 38mpg extra urban - and they promised to get back to me. I 'phoned again this morniong and spoke to the same person who apologised for not contacting me. She had spoken to the technical bods who confirmed that I could not expect to better this and 38mpg was what I should expect. I challenged her with the figures that Honda quote, and she said these were government figures under ideal conditions.
I said that I would post this on here and she said that was no problem.
|
Yet FleetNewsNet had one on long term test that was averaging 48MPG.
The figures quoted by Honda are done in a lab on rolling road. The vehicle goes through a pre-set routine and the emissions are measured and the fuel consumption is calculated from the emissions figure - they don't actually measure fuel consumption at all.
It's been suggested elsewhere that manufacturers set the engines up to give the best possible result on these tests (be daft not to, really). I suppose the benefit is reduced tax liability for company car drivers, and slightly lower road tax for others.
|
There may be a problem with some cars but in my experience Honda's figures are not far out.
Over 29765 miles I have put 594 gallons in - always fill to second stop. This gives an average of 50.1mpg (who needs a trip computer). Car is a Tourer Executive with space saver so is as heavy as they get empty, was delivered on 4th March 2004 and I didn't see another diesel for six weeks so it was one of the first to arrive in the UK.
If I was only getting 40 i would be playing hell with Honda!
|
|
BTW most of the miles are on Sainsbury's diesel - but with the discount going that will probably change!
|
Glaikit Wee Scunner,
Mine is the 110 bhp engine, code AFN and non-PD - so I don't think we're comparing like for like. The quoted figures show better economy from the 110bhp over the 100bhp.
I wonder what the legal situation is? Is there are obligation on Honda to quote reasonable, acheivable figures if they are used for advertising purposes? Surely if they quote a figure and it is unachievable on a public road then the advertising is false / misleading?
Based on the figures quoted for my Passat (and the Focus I used to drive), I look at the extra-urban figure (the highest one) and think I'll get about 8-9 mpg better than that on my 40 mile commute where I cruise at 65mph.
But it seems now that different manufacturers are quoting figures tested in different environments. Surely there ought to be a government standard? What is the point of testing indoors on a lab rolling road, the information is of no use to the consumer. It should be tested outdoors going round and round a test track.
Personally, I think the 'urban', 'extra-urban' and 'combined' cycles complicate things. Why not just quote a figure for 50mph, 60mph and 70mph cruising in top gear?
|
Personally, I think the 'urban', 'extra-urban' and 'combined' cycles complicate things. Why not just quote a figure for 50mph, 60mph and 70mph cruising in top gear?
GWC,
That would make it even more misleading and bear even less relevance to real motoring.
A big car with a big engine pulling a very high gear can produce impressive steady state consumption figures; yet overall consumption figures can be low.
This is particularly so with modern automatics.
C
|
I 'phoned Honda two days ago telling them that I was not satisfied with the fuel consumption - 38mpg extra urban - and they promised to get back to me. I 'phoned again this morniong and spoke to the same person who apologised for not contacting me. She had spoken to the technical bods who confirmed that I could not expect to better this and 38mpg was what I should expect. I challenged her with the figures that Honda quote, and she said these were government figures under ideal conditions. I said that I would post this on here and she said that was no problem.
>>
It's a bit of a poor excuse to lay the blame on government figures, under ideal conditions, when the difference is so marked. 38 mpg, extra urban, from a modern direct injection diesel is very poor. One should expect to get something near to official figures. The cars that I have had have all returned something very/fairly near to the official figures.
|
|
To say its 'normal' is an easy cop out for Honda. At what point would Honda say it's not normal? Anyone willing to call them and say they are getting 20 mpg and see what the response is?
|
The figures people quote of 38mpg really are diabolical for a diesel engine of the current age - if it carries on I don't think Honda will be able to stay in the diesel market.
With the current crop from VAG, Ford and Peugeot/Citroen, anything less than 55mpg combined out of a 2.0(ish) diesel just doesn't cut the mustard.
Incidentally, at only 38mpg from the diesel is there any economic advantage over the 2.0 petrol?
|
Malcolm
I couldn't agree more with you !
When I was looking at the Accord diesel the other car in the frame was a Volvo V70 D5 (more power but same torque as the Honda) - but what swung it for me was the superb fuel consumption so I bought the Honda !
I must agree with the previous posting which refers to misleading advertising.
Was I duped ?
Car going in for 2 days of tests on Monday (28th) - these tests have been asked for by Honda technical. I will post any results here.
Had a thought about the other problem my car has - the cabin "instant heat" - which has never worked since new - is this connected with the poor fuel consumption in any way ?
Anyone else who has had poor fuel consumption AND faulty cabin "instant heat" ??
|
Do you mean that your heater blows hot air instantly?
Mine went in for the modification in the summer so I hadn't noticed whether it heated up instantly. It takes a couple of miles to get hot, but didn't think that unusual. Mine's going in for its first service in two weeks.
|
I only wish it did !
It takes approx 10 mins to produce warm air , and by that time the engine temp is just starting to register on the gauge.
The manual says that the diesel version of the Accord is fitted with a cabin "instant heat" system which utilises the a/c unit - presumably running as a heat pump.
Instant to me would mean in a minute or so.
I am getting the modification done on Monday - will report results here.
|
The gripe I have had with mine is that the air heater has not been working - they checked the heater/thermostat last week and claim to have done nothing but now it IS working.
Started the engine this morning and cleaned side, rear windows (-1C) and by the time I reached the front the ice on the OUTSIDE was melting!
As far as Fuel consumption when I was looking to change 18 months ago there were numerous posts on here about Mondeo TDCIs only achieveing low 40s - one reason I went with the Honda. Ford were re-mapping ECUs - check the archive as it may be a similar issue with Honda, can't believe they use their own injection system/electronics.
|
I too was looking at the V70, but was persuaded by the Honda's better consumption and by it being the 'next generation'.
Look forward to hearing your test results.
|
I usually get 42-45 mpg with my TDI130, which gives me a range of 550 miles. If I drive it very carefully I can just get above 50 mpg.
A friend's wife, with a similar car says she can get over 60 mpg. She must either start at the top of a hill, the computer is wrong, or she is dreaming, because I just don't believe it.
I have just realised I am getting like Victor Meldrew.
|
|
|
|
|
I took delivery of an Accord Tourer diesel in mid-November and have done about 6k miles so far; a mixture of a few long runs (cruising at 2500rpm on motorways) and my regular 24-mile daily round trip to work and back on decent rural roads with a bit of light urban traffic at the work end.
The overall consumption so far is marginally over the 40mpg mark, which is disappointingly low and certainly less than I was expecting. My local dealer says that the engine tends to gives its best only after it's done about 10k miles; however I can't see any improvement being more than marginal. Time will tell, and I guess the advent of warmer weather might help as well.
--
Martin
|
|
|
|
