Least fuel-efficient 4Cylinder in modern history?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-04-2004, 05:48 AM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Crazytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Least fuel-efficient 4Cylinder in modern history?

The Acura TSX?
Old 01-04-2004, 05:52 AM
  #2  
Racer
 
ssm_tsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nova
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm getting in upper 20's.

Maybe you should just sell your tsx?
Old 01-04-2004, 06:16 AM
  #3  
The Voice of Reason
 
bob shiftright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...within 1 mpg of what I'd been getting with the Volvo. Same driver, same route, 2354cc I-4 vs. 2319cc I-5.

Yes, that's just about what I'd expect.

You could just leave your car parked with the keys in the ignition.

Old 01-04-2004, 08:21 AM
  #4  
GEEZER
 
1killercls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dunedin, Fla.
Posts: 44,444
Received 2,227 Likes on 1,421 Posts
Originally posted by ssm_tsx
I'm getting in upper 20's.

Maybe you should just sell your tsx?
or change your user name to "ibitchalotaboutmytsx"
Old 01-04-2004, 09:00 AM
  #5  
Burning Brakes
 
rzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NY
Age: 54
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am getting 24mpg. I used to get 26mpg in my integra on the same route, so it's not bad.
Old 01-04-2004, 10:04 AM
  #6  
2006 DGP Sold 10/24/2012
 
Santa Rosa Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northern California
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Least fuel-efficient 4Cylinder in modern history?

The 2.3L I4 in my '98 Ford Ranger delivers a consistent 16.5 to 17.5 MPG.



Santa Rosa Steve
Old 01-04-2004, 10:27 AM
  #7  
Eat my shorts!!
 
speedzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Houston
Age: 44
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
this is not an economy car. don't expect excellent mileage.
if you're so bitchy about the car, compare the gas mileage to the four cylinder mercedes or the saab 9-3. i'm pretty sure the tsx is more efficient
Old 01-04-2004, 10:32 AM
  #8  
idx
Senior Grasshopper
 
idx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FL
Age: 49
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
26-34 vs 19-22 with my volvo.. I'm not complaining.

As mentioned, its not exactly a pure-econo 4cyl. If you want that, go get a civic. (and/or stop flooring it at every stop)

-r
Old 01-04-2004, 11:49 AM
  #9  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Crazytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I drive conservatively and get 19mpg. My V6 Explorer got about 18mpg.

It's funny how when making a negative observation about the car... everyone's pussies start to hurt. Seriously though... I wonder what the mileage is like with the 04 V6 TL.

Oh and if you drive your TSX every day to work in rural Indiana to go work on a manure farm... your MPG figures are probably not a good yardstick.
Old 01-04-2004, 12:00 PM
  #10  
Racer
 
tsx-mdxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Crazytree
I drive conservatively and get 19mpg. My V6 Explorer got about 18mpg.

It's funny how when making a negative observation about the car... everyone's pussies start to hurt. Seriously though... I wonder what the mileage is like with the 04 V6 TL.

Oh and if you drive your TSX every day to work in rural Indiana to go work on a manure farm... your MPG figures are probably not a good yardstick.
You must be (1) a leadfoot, (2) doing mainly city driving or (3) FOS. I consistently average in the high 20's.
Old 01-04-2004, 12:16 PM
  #11  
A-TSX Driver...
 
hondaboy_tsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Huntingdon, PA
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't know what my MPG is, but I'm able to drive to work all week without filling up until the weekend. My old 4 cyl. Grand Am had me filling up every Fri cuz it ate up all the gas. So...I don't think the TSX is bad on gas at all.
Old 01-04-2004, 12:46 PM
  #12  
Burning Brakes
 
rzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NY
Age: 54
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by hondaboy_tsx
I don't know what my MPG is, but I'm able to drive to work all week without filling up until the weekend. My old 4 cyl. Grand Am had me filling up every Fri cuz it ate up all the gas. So...I don't think the TSX is bad on gas at all.
Are you sure the gas tank is not bigger?

Crazytree, since your car has so many problems, maybe you should try to get rid of it. Seriously, at least that's what I would do if I were you.
Old 01-04-2004, 01:17 PM
  #13  
STi'd
 
gavinn58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Eight-Oh-Eight
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i get 400mi to the tank in mixed driving...i'm not complaining one bit.
Old 01-04-2004, 01:25 PM
  #14  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Crazytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by rzee
Crazytree, since your car has so many problems, maybe you should try to get rid of it. Seriously, at least that's what I would do if I were you.
If I could do this without losing a ton of money I would strongly consider it. Have any fanboy friends like yourself that might be interested?
Old 01-04-2004, 01:45 PM
  #15  
Instructor
 
Proo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Crazytree
I drive conservatively and get 19mpg. My V6 Explorer got about 18mpg.

It's funny how when making a negative observation about the car... everyone's pussies start to hurt. Seriously though... I wonder what the mileage is like with the 04 V6 TL.

Oh and if you drive your TSX every day to work in rural Indiana to go work on a manure farm... your MPG figures are probably not a good yardstick.
I think 19mpg is really low. That is V6 territory for sure. Do you sit around in traffic jams a lot? That really eats gas badly. I remember I got around 21mpg one time when I did a lot of stop-and-go. Usually it's at 26-27 though. Not as good as I hoped, but nothing to complain about.
Old 01-04-2004, 02:13 PM
  #16  
Burning Brakes
 
briny319's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 856
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
I just drove from NY to AL and got an average of 32mpg. Most of that was driving at 80-90mph but I did sit in traffic for a few hours in the bronx and in TN. I get about 23-24mpg normally and thats 65% city / 30% highway / 5% idle.

For the size of the engine and the power it produces I don't think the TSX has bad gas milage at all. I'll take 24mpg in a 2.4l 200hp TSX than 34mpg in a 1.6L or 1.7L 127hp Civic.
Old 01-04-2004, 03:40 PM
  #17  
04 remembrance
 
iamhomin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Least fuel-efficient 4Cylinder in modern history?

Originally posted by Crazytree
The Acura TSX?
well, i don't understand why people are so defensive, but to answer your question, it isn't the acura-tsx

i get at least 24mpg, and at best i get around 30. i guess it all differs since we all having different driving habits and what-not, but 19 is just horrible.
Old 01-04-2004, 04:32 PM
  #18  
A-TSX Driver...
 
hondaboy_tsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Huntingdon, PA
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by rzee
Are you sure the gas tank is not bigger?

I don't know. But if it is, it's nothing noticeable as it's costing me the same to fill up (maybe a little more since I have to use premium gas now).
Old 01-04-2004, 05:06 PM
  #19  
Obnoxious Philadelphian
 
jcg878's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Jersey
Age: 47
Posts: 5,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I average 20mpg in pure city driving. Just got 28mpg on a recent road trip though.

What's the real difference between getting 19-20 mpg and 23mpg in a year?? Is that going to break you financially?
Old 01-04-2004, 05:20 PM
  #20  
Not an Ashtray
 
darth62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Stuck in traffic south of Burbank
Age: 62
Posts: 1,818
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I get about 20 MPG in purely city driving as well. When it is more mixed, I get somewhere between 25 - 27. On the highway, low 30s. This is about what I got in my last Accord, although the TSX is a helluva lot faster.
Old 01-04-2004, 06:20 PM
  #21  
6th Gear
 
baker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's abslutley bogas. My 2001 Accord V6 got a consistent 25 in Los Angeles Metro traffic. 60,000 miles on the clock. My new TSX has already gotten the same. I haven't abused it yet only 300 miles.
Old 01-04-2004, 06:51 PM
  #22  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Crazytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It may be bogas... but it's not bogus. In fact several others have corroborated these mileage figures.

I don't know what the problem is... I have even overinflated the tires a bit.. and I'm planning to switch from 76 Premium to perhaps Chevron Premium. And I have to say I'm a pretty conservative driver... in fact maybe a bit TOO conservative.

Attention Fanboys: don't get all defensive... I didn't say the TSX is the shittiest engine around... just asking if it was the least fuel efficient. Eg: Lamborghinis get like 7mpg but the engines certainly aren't shit.
Old 01-04-2004, 07:05 PM
  #23  
idx
Senior Grasshopper
 
idx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FL
Age: 49
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Crazytree
Attention Fanboys: don't get all defensive... I didn't say the TSX is the shittiest engine around... just asking if it was the least fuel efficient. Eg: Lamborghinis get like 7mpg but the engines certainly aren't shit.
It works the other way as well. Don't get offended if we don't agree.

I base my opinion off the consistent 26+ MPG (I check it manually every fill and compare it to the nav and recent fills), so forgive me if I feel the need to present some conflicting stats.

1) Something is screwed with the car.
2) Driving conditions are effecting it that much. "Seems" somewhat unlikely since you state you're such a conservative driver. (which for the most part I am as well.. But I certainly let it rip on certain roads.)

It's funny how when making a negative observation about the car... everyone's pussies start to hurt.
Keep in mind that negative observations about the car in general are fine. They make for good discussion and more knowledge about the vehicle for everyone. Although since this "observation" doesn't seem to be widespread for the vehicle, don't discount data from others.


-r
Old 01-04-2004, 07:11 PM
  #24  
You want me to break it?
 
Gpump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas
Age: 49
Posts: 2,871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What the heck kind of driving are you doing to get 20 mpg? I get 31-32.2 doing 80 in the morning, and a rare 24.4 when traffic is bad (also one unexplained instance, but that time I used a different gas that may have been inferior, dunno). Anyway, beats the 16-17 that my 2.3L I4 Isuzu pickup was getting, that's for sure.
Old 01-04-2004, 07:17 PM
  #25  
Moderator Alumnus
 
provench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Raleigh, NC
Age: 51
Posts: 4,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I usually get around 26-28 when I am just driving around, but I just broke through on this last tank which involved 90% highway mileage ... 32MPG on my 6MT TSX. By the way, also saw a nice girl on the highway with a TSX, she waved and everything (I waved back of course) ... such a friendly crew us TSX'ers in NC are
Old 01-04-2004, 07:33 PM
  #26  
The Voice of Reason
 
bob shiftright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I recalculated - 24.21771 mpg, that's a little better than the Volvo has been averaging for the last 130,000 miles. It included driving to Boston in that awful snowstorm last month.
Old 01-04-2004, 07:54 PM
  #27  
Obnoxious Philadelphian
 
jcg878's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Jersey
Age: 47
Posts: 5,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Gpump
What the heck kind of driving are you doing to get 20 mpg? I get 31-32.2 doing 80 in the morning, and a rare 24.4 when traffic is bad (also one unexplained instance, but that time I used a different gas that may have been inferior, dunno). Anyway, beats the 16-17 that my 2.3L I4 Isuzu pickup was getting, that's for sure.
I assume this is at least partially directed at me. I drive 4 miles to the train each AM and 4 miles back with about 8 lights inbetween. If I drive the 16 miles into the city I actually get better mileage but of course use more fuel.

My saturn got a consistent 30mpg on regular, but I still don't miss it.
Old 01-04-2004, 08:34 PM
  #28  
Racer
 
zircon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: southern ontario
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Provench: she waved with the knowledge that going the opposite direction, she would not have to face you. just kidding.

32 on highway about 23 in city. Basically what I had expected.

Great car overall.
Old 01-04-2004, 08:40 PM
  #29  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Crazytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The people who think I am full of shit are either illiterate or have not read the other threads with at least 10-12 members reporting sub-20mpg.

And like I said earlier... if you live in the boonies and drive every day on empty highways... of course your mileage is going to be high. For us city folk... [I drive the 10 through downtown M-Sat] the mileage is going to be shit.

I'm using 76... does anyone think that this has anything to do with it?
Old 01-04-2004, 09:14 PM
  #30  
Burning Brakes
 
Bass Mechanic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Age: 54
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
you guys must be driving like mario andretti.
i get about 22-23 in the city consistantly

and i just got back from a trip to las vegas and back where 1 tank i had the cruise set to 84 MPH and got 33 MPG i would say at that speed that is damn respectable.
in a head wind on another tank with the same speed i got 24 MPG felt like i was towing another car behind me.
a headwind will seriously affect your MPG. but from my experiences with my car i know it would be feasable to see 36 MPG if i drove the speed limit.
Old 01-04-2004, 09:15 PM
  #31  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Crazytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
People please keep in mind that I live in LA... and although other metro areas have traffic... LA's traffic is probably the worst outside of Beijing or Lahore, Pakistan. But let's see.
Old 01-04-2004, 09:49 PM
  #32  
Burning Brakes
 
rzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NY
Age: 54
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I live in NYC so I can't see how much worst your traffic can be. I am not saying that you are full of shit, but please don't get all defensive just because others are getting better milage.
Old 01-04-2004, 09:59 PM
  #33  
The Voice of Reason
 
bob shiftright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I live the NYC area, where "gridlock" was invented, too...

So you must use Evil Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) if you're in LA.

Did you read the EPA link and the other thread on this?

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm

http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...&highlight=RFG
Old 01-04-2004, 10:18 PM
  #34  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Crazytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by rzee
I live in NYC so I can't see how much worst your traffic can be. I am not saying that you are full of shit, but please don't get all defensive just because others are getting better milage.
NYC traffic is "worst" than LA traffic? If you don't know what you're talking about... please keep your mouth shut. According to 2002 statistics... LA traffic is 86% worse than NYC traffic.
Old 01-04-2004, 10:20 PM
  #35  
Obnoxious Philadelphian
 
jcg878's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Jersey
Age: 47
Posts: 5,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hate to agree with crazy, but there are definitely worse traffic areas than NYC - I'd put LA and DC/N. Va up there.
Old 01-04-2004, 10:31 PM
  #36  
Burning Brakes
 
rzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NY
Age: 54
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Crazytree
NYC traffic is "worst" than LA traffic? If you don't know what you're talking about... please keep your mouth shut. And yes... LA traffic is MUCH MUCH "worst" than NYC traffic... you apparently have NO idea what an abomination the LA freeway system has become. Heck it looks like NYC barely made the Top 10.
I did not say NYC traffic is worse than LA, I said I can't see how much worse, meaning that it's not by much. My gosh, people get so defensive about everything.

Now tell me where I can see that 86% worse information from?
Old 01-04-2004, 10:38 PM
  #37  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Crazytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SECRET HINT: It involves clicking the link I posted. Go there and maybe you will find some "Extra Information" about how much worse it really is.
Old 01-04-2004, 10:45 PM
  #38  
Burning Brakes
 
rzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NY
Age: 54
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Crazytree
SECRET HINT: It involves clicking the link I posted. Go there and maybe you will find some "Extra Information" about how much worse it really is.
I read that. You can't determine how much worse the traffic condition is by simply counting number of hours wasted. In NYC, the population is a lot more concentrated, and the average driving distance is a lot shorter than that of LA, so the only statistics that make any sense would be average driving speed.
Old 01-04-2004, 11:12 PM
  #39  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Crazytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The report also measured cities according to a Travel Time Index , which looked at how much slower a particular trip takes during rush hour compared with the same trip driven when traffic is flowing freely. Los Angeles topped that list, too. The study said a rush hour trip in Los Angeles takes an average 90 percent longer than the same trip during a non-rush hour period.
AMAZING.
Old 01-04-2004, 11:21 PM
  #40  
 
KC 2004 TSX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who are you quoting?


Quick Reply: Least fuel-efficient 4Cylinder in modern history?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:57 AM.