Fuel economy?
#2
that number seems kinda low, i get about 280+ miles per gallon. however i dont drive in the city all the time and not to mention your a/c can't be helping your mpg too much. also depends on how hard you drive your car.
#3
Re: Fuel economy?
Originally posted by lomichele
I get just about 250Miles with a full tank of gas. (A/C always on. I live in Florida) All city milage. Is that all I can expect?
2002 TLS 450 Miles
Michele
I get just about 250Miles with a full tank of gas. (A/C always on. I live in Florida) All city milage. Is that all I can expect?
2002 TLS 450 Miles
Michele
#4
Fuel economy
That's an oxymoron isn't it?
TL-S should NEVER be used in the same sentence with "Fuel economy"!
I had a 1999 Maxima SE I drove exactly the same as my TL-S and the Maxima performance was crisp and fast, yet it still exhibited an excellent Fuel economy to Performance ratio unlike the TL-S. Perhaps my biggest dissapointment with the TL-S is ,it appears to be thus far, a gas guzzler; imho. And that's not to mention the poor paint finish, poor quality control and poor customer service.
I have had three ACURAS, 1/Legend - 1/TL - 1/TL-S, and I cannot in good conscience say I will ever by another. Fuel economy et al aside I do believe that this will be my last ACURA product.
That's an oxymoron isn't it?
TL-S should NEVER be used in the same sentence with "Fuel economy"!
I had a 1999 Maxima SE I drove exactly the same as my TL-S and the Maxima performance was crisp and fast, yet it still exhibited an excellent Fuel economy to Performance ratio unlike the TL-S. Perhaps my biggest dissapointment with the TL-S is ,it appears to be thus far, a gas guzzler; imho. And that's not to mention the poor paint finish, poor quality control and poor customer service.
I have had three ACURAS, 1/Legend - 1/TL - 1/TL-S, and I cannot in good conscience say I will ever by another. Fuel economy et al aside I do believe that this will be my last ACURA product.
#6
Racer
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
From: WPB, Florida
I checked my mileage once ~ 21mpg, that's it only once.
But let me tell you that, judging by my gas guage, I think there is a second fuel pump in our cars that only kicks in at wide open throttle, the problem is that it must be just pumping fuel directly from the tank to the ground.
But let me tell you that, judging by my gas guage, I think there is a second fuel pump in our cars that only kicks in at wide open throttle, the problem is that it must be just pumping fuel directly from the tank to the ground.
#7
I dont know I typically get in the low 20's with my driving from Long Island to the Bronx in NY which is a combination of city/highway and traffic/light traffic driving which is exactly the same mileage I was getting in my 4 cylinder Accord which I am very happy with. I simply dont have to continually wring out this engine like I always had to do with the Accord. On the highway I have seen 29mpg with this car.
I turn of my AC when its not hot out and just use the fans to maintain the interior temp.
Imax Im getting better MPG than my dads Max GXE, are you leaving the A/C on all the time or leaving it in full auto?
I turn of my AC when its not hot out and just use the fans to maintain the interior temp.
Imax Im getting better MPG than my dads Max GXE, are you leaving the A/C on all the time or leaving it in full auto?
Trending Topics
#9
Originally posted by Mr Hyde
Imax Im getting better MPG than my dads Max GXE, are you leaving the A/C on all the time or leaving it in full auto?
Imax Im getting better MPG than my dads Max GXE, are you leaving the A/C on all the time or leaving it in full auto?
#11
Originally posted by bh
yeah, i'm a bit disappointed with the city fuel economy. I had a 10 year old prelude that got better mileage.
yeah, i'm a bit disappointed with the city fuel economy. I had a 10 year old prelude that got better mileage.
Tony
#13
I average about 18-19 mpg on nothing but city driving and frequent a/c and sometimes aggressive driving. I think this is respectable considering the weight and power of this car.
To put it in perspective, I use to avg. @ 22 on my 95 Integra Gs-r with the same conditions.
My only gripe about fuel economy is that the damn fuel light comes on w/ over 3 gal. left over, getting me a little anxious about finding some gas.
To put it in perspective, I use to avg. @ 22 on my 95 Integra Gs-r with the same conditions.
My only gripe about fuel economy is that the damn fuel light comes on w/ over 3 gal. left over, getting me a little anxious about finding some gas.
#14
MPG-Ness
Dude,
LOL! I have no idea why a lot of you guys are whining about the gas mileage of your TL-Ses. The MPG for the car is rated at 19 for city and 29 for highway. That's the range that you guys seem to be getting. So what's the big deal? You guy's don't read your car's specs.?
A majority of my driving is highway driving and I get about 27-29 MPG. My "fuel low" light goes on at around 350 -360 miles. When it goes on I know I have about 3 to 4 gallons left. The fuel light goes on a bit "early" on most cars so it can give people a bit of a time/distance cushion to find gas before they actually run out of gas.
LOL! I have no idea why a lot of you guys are whining about the gas mileage of your TL-Ses. The MPG for the car is rated at 19 for city and 29 for highway. That's the range that you guys seem to be getting. So what's the big deal? You guy's don't read your car's specs.?
A majority of my driving is highway driving and I get about 27-29 MPG. My "fuel low" light goes on at around 350 -360 miles. When it goes on I know I have about 3 to 4 gallons left. The fuel light goes on a bit "early" on most cars so it can give people a bit of a time/distance cushion to find gas before they actually run out of gas.
#15
i just passed break in a while ago, and im getting 26mpg with about 70% highway and 30% local driving, with a lil WOT mixed in. dunno why some of you are getting such bad gas mileage, tho im sure mine will go down with time as i take more trips into tripple digits
#17
Racer
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
I'm now at about 3950 miles and have averaged between 24 and 25 mpg overall, with a mix of city and highway driving. The worst I've ever gotten on a single tank was 21.4; the best was 32.1. I'm liberal with the throttle (love the sound of that vtec), but I don't race from light to light.
The averaage mileage is almost exactly what I got in everyday driving with my '90 Maxima SE 5-speed. The TL-S has 100 more horsepower and is more fun to drive.
I agree with coffeefingers. Y'all are getting what you bargained for. If you want better fuel economy, buy a Civic. My wife's Civic consistently gets 30+ mpg.
The averaage mileage is almost exactly what I got in everyday driving with my '90 Maxima SE 5-speed. The TL-S has 100 more horsepower and is more fun to drive.
I agree with coffeefingers. Y'all are getting what you bargained for. If you want better fuel economy, buy a Civic. My wife's Civic consistently gets 30+ mpg.
#18
Agree with 8ball, and coffefingers. These cars are rated 19/29, and I'm always in that range. Last fillup, I avg'd 22.37 mpg. That's mostly city driving, and having fun! I've yet to take a long highway trip, but look forward to high 20's. Worst I've seen is 19.xx mpg.
Not bad fuel economy for what you bought (i.e. - 3500lb. muscle car!)
Enjoy the drive - Jim
Not bad fuel economy for what you bought (i.e. - 3500lb. muscle car!)
Enjoy the drive - Jim
#19
Another thing to keep in mind is to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges(and in the case of the prelue: apples to lettuce)
What I mean is a 3.0 liter will likely get slightly better mpg than a 3.2 liter TL.
And a 2.0 liter prelude will definatly get bettr mileage than a 3.2 liter engine.
Common sense.
BTW, I get about 24-26mpg with normal driving(75% hwy-25% city) and 18-20 when I drive aggressive.
So my mpg is pretty good.
What I mean is a 3.0 liter will likely get slightly better mpg than a 3.2 liter TL.
And a 2.0 liter prelude will definatly get bettr mileage than a 3.2 liter engine.
Common sense.
BTW, I get about 24-26mpg with normal driving(75% hwy-25% city) and 18-20 when I drive aggressive.
So my mpg is pretty good.
#22
This all sounds vaguely familiar.
Acura specs 19/29 as stated by several posters before me. Anything above that is a bonus. If you read the fine print on the window sticker under the stated mpg (estimate) you will find there is an acceptable +/- range. Most Japanses cars usually do a little better than stated and in the past many American cars have usually done a bit worse, IMO. If you are close, that's all you can realistically expect.
Remember, winter gasolines may reduce mileage, sometimes significantly. This may not be a good time to start checking and complaining about mileage. I relaize some of you guys have been grumbling for awhile.
Another thing, don't post miles per tank. Post miles per gallon. Some people drive further than others when the light comes on. To do this, divide the mileage on your trip meter (Reset trip A or B every time you fill up) by gallons pumped to fill the tank.
I usually get about 21-23 in/around town and about 30 on the highway. On a recent cross-country I averaged 32 while averaging about 80 mph. Current mileage is just over 10,000. My car's mileage levelled out at about 1500-2000 miles and has been consistent since.
$.02
Acura specs 19/29 as stated by several posters before me. Anything above that is a bonus. If you read the fine print on the window sticker under the stated mpg (estimate) you will find there is an acceptable +/- range. Most Japanses cars usually do a little better than stated and in the past many American cars have usually done a bit worse, IMO. If you are close, that's all you can realistically expect.
Remember, winter gasolines may reduce mileage, sometimes significantly. This may not be a good time to start checking and complaining about mileage. I relaize some of you guys have been grumbling for awhile.
Another thing, don't post miles per tank. Post miles per gallon. Some people drive further than others when the light comes on. To do this, divide the mileage on your trip meter (Reset trip A or B every time you fill up) by gallons pumped to fill the tank.
I usually get about 21-23 in/around town and about 30 on the highway. On a recent cross-country I averaged 32 while averaging about 80 mph. Current mileage is just over 10,000. My car's mileage levelled out at about 1500-2000 miles and has been consistent since.
$.02
#23
I'm averaging around 23-25 mph with about 80% highway driving. I was averaging around 26 until the car broke in, now I'm a little heavier on the gas pedal, so the MPG has dropped accordingly.....
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fuel Economy (thx for U'r replies)
Thank you everyone for your input. Now let me tell you why I was a bit dissapointed with the fuel economy numbers.
I went from my faithful 1991 Alfa Romeo 164L 3.0 V6 Aprx 200HP 5speed. (manual) witch would give me aprx 320 Miles for a full tank of 17 Gallon to this new auto.
One of you asked an interesting question as to weather "We" look at the specs before getting the auto, well I must admit I DID NOT!. And here is why, I assumed that more than a decade later the latetest technology would unable me to go and get a new auto without really thinking of "fuel economy". (this is not a 5000 pound truck!)
Well, I was wrong. (maybe) you see, I still only have 400Miles on this beast and I am about to make "another" assumption (is that how you spell it?) that the perfomences/economy will improve a bit with time.
That being said. I really enjoy the auto. I am 40 years old and must say that the shifting was getting to me. (well, the cluch really).
ps: Idealy a sequential gear box would suit me best but there are none comming to the US (to my limited knowlege) as of yet.
Later.
Michele
here are my first photos.
I went from my faithful 1991 Alfa Romeo 164L 3.0 V6 Aprx 200HP 5speed. (manual) witch would give me aprx 320 Miles for a full tank of 17 Gallon to this new auto.
One of you asked an interesting question as to weather "We" look at the specs before getting the auto, well I must admit I DID NOT!. And here is why, I assumed that more than a decade later the latetest technology would unable me to go and get a new auto without really thinking of "fuel economy". (this is not a 5000 pound truck!)
Well, I was wrong. (maybe) you see, I still only have 400Miles on this beast and I am about to make "another" assumption (is that how you spell it?) that the perfomences/economy will improve a bit with time.
That being said. I really enjoy the auto. I am 40 years old and must say that the shifting was getting to me. (well, the cluch really).
ps: Idealy a sequential gear box would suit me best but there are none comming to the US (to my limited knowlege) as of yet.
Later.
Michele
here are my first photos.
#25
Originally posted by hemants
21-23 mpg, never better than 23 even on long highway trips (probably cos I drive 85-95 mph)
21-23 mpg, never better than 23 even on long highway trips (probably cos I drive 85-95 mph)
#27
Originally posted by 2k2 TLS
that number seems kinda low, i get about 280+ miles per gallon. however i dont drive in the city all the time and not to mention your a/c can't be helping your mpg too much. also depends on how hard you drive your car.
that number seems kinda low, i get about 280+ miles per gallon. however i dont drive in the city all the time and not to mention your a/c can't be helping your mpg too much. also depends on how hard you drive your car.
Tony
#28
Originally posted by thephantom
3 weeks ago I went on a 240 mile round trip, mostly highway and I averaged 29 MPG. For the most part of the trip, I was going 90-100 MPH. I also floored it a couple times, but the gas mileage still turn out great. I was using Mobile 93 octane.
3 weeks ago I went on a 240 mile round trip, mostly highway and I averaged 29 MPG. For the most part of the trip, I was going 90-100 MPH. I also floored it a couple times, but the gas mileage still turn out great. I was using Mobile 93 octane.
I get 29 mpg overall, but that's from doing an average of 70 mph from point to point (based on my portable GPS unit).
Tony
#29
Originally posted by tdoh
Sorry if I sound skeptical, but 29 mpg while doing mostly 90-100 mph? How did you get that--going downhill with a tailwind behind you??
I get 29 mpg overall, but that's from doing an average of 70 mph from point to point (based on my portable GPS unit).
Tony
Sorry if I sound skeptical, but 29 mpg while doing mostly 90-100 mph? How did you get that--going downhill with a tailwind behind you??
I get 29 mpg overall, but that's from doing an average of 70 mph from point to point (based on my portable GPS unit).
Tony
#30
>>For the most part of the trip, I was going 90-100 MPH
>>I was going around 80 the whole time.
>>Well, what is the big difference between going 90 MPH or 70 MPH?
It's kinda hard to tell if you were going 80, 90 or 100. The big difference between 70, 80, 90, or 100? Air resistance and the amount of fuel it takes to overcome that resistance.
>>I was going around 80 the whole time.
>>Well, what is the big difference between going 90 MPH or 70 MPH?
It's kinda hard to tell if you were going 80, 90 or 100. The big difference between 70, 80, 90, or 100? Air resistance and the amount of fuel it takes to overcome that resistance.
#31
I think the gas mileage is pretty good considering the size of the tank. I have a 94' Honda Civic that has a 12 gallon tank and I am getting about 300 to the tank on the freeway which equates to 35 MPG by the time its close to 'E'. The TLS I can get 350 miles to the tank and usually get around 26-27 MPG on the freeway and witht the AC blowing. I try to look at total tank miles as well as gas mileage. If you travel a little bit, tank miles are important.
One thing I did find out, as Summer comes to an end, is when I run the AC I get close to 3 MPG less than with out running AC. City+AC = 20-21 MPG, City+ no AC = 23 MPG.
One thing I did find out, as Summer comes to an end, is when I run the AC I get close to 3 MPG less than with out running AC. City+AC = 20-21 MPG, City+ no AC = 23 MPG.
#32
Originally posted by lawman
>>For the most part of the trip, I was going 90-100 MPH
>>I was going around 80 the whole time.
>>Well, what is the big difference between going 90 MPH or 70 MPH?
It's kinda hard to tell if you were going 80, 90 or 100. The big difference between 70, 80, 90, or 100? Air resistance and the amount of fuel it takes to overcome that resistance.
>>For the most part of the trip, I was going 90-100 MPH
>>I was going around 80 the whole time.
>>Well, what is the big difference between going 90 MPH or 70 MPH?
It's kinda hard to tell if you were going 80, 90 or 100. The big difference between 70, 80, 90, or 100? Air resistance and the amount of fuel it takes to overcome that resistance.
#33
Racer
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
From: WPB, Florida
Originally posted by thephantom
Good point. Did think about that. Well, does anyone have a better way of calculating MPG??
Good point. Did think about that. Well, does anyone have a better way of calculating MPG??
But I don't really give a sh!t about milage, this car is bad @ss!
#34
Originally posted by jbrown
ummmm, miles traveled/gallons of gas used = miles per gallon Just top off the tank every time you fill up, reset the odometer, run it down to about 1/4 tank, and when you fill up, that's how much gas you used to go the amount of miles indicated on the trip odometer, our car has two of them.
But I don't really give a sh!t about milage, this car is bad @ss!
ummmm, miles traveled/gallons of gas used = miles per gallon Just top off the tank every time you fill up, reset the odometer, run it down to about 1/4 tank, and when you fill up, that's how much gas you used to go the amount of miles indicated on the trip odometer, our car has two of them.
But I don't really give a sh!t about milage, this car is bad @ss!
#35
Originally posted by thephantom
Well, what is the big difference between going 90 MPH or 70 MPH? Roughly 500 RPM. ...
Well, what is the big difference between going 90 MPH or 70 MPH? Roughly 500 RPM. ...
In 5th gear the engine is spinning at roughly 2K rpm at 70 mph, give or take a few; therefore, engine speed is roughly 2500 rpm at 90 mph according to you. Assuming that, and that there is no downshift involved--if I'm not mistaken I would think more effort (gas) would be required to rev the engine from 2000 to 2500 rpm in 5th gear than let's say 1st gear, assuming the same amount of throttle application. Hard to vision this? Try taking off in top gear in a manual transmission car, or even an bicycle--requires more gas (or pedal effort in the case of the bicycle) to get the car or bike moving.
So theoretically speaking, you would need to apply more gas to rev the engine 500 rpms in 5th gear than you would need to do the same in a lower gear.
Now, I'm not saying all of this to disprove your claim that you didn't get 29 mpg while doing mostly 90-100 mph, just that in terms of gas burned, I would think that there would be somewhat of a difference between going 70 mph vs 90-100 mph.
In any case, I wish I could get the kind of mileage you got at those speeds.
Tony
#36
Originally posted by thephantom
Good point. Did think about that. Well, does anyone have a better way of calculating MPG??
Good point. Did think about that. Well, does anyone have a better way of calculating MPG??
Tony
#37
Racer
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
From: WPB, Florida
tdoh,
You are on the right track, but there is one fundamental flaw in your logic. While at the higher RPM required to achieve 90-100 mph you ARE burning more fuel per hour, you are also traveling more miles per hour, and as a result, you don't always get better miles per gallon at a lower speed than a higher speed.
The engine may actually be MORE efficient at a higher RPM than a lower one. Note that this only means less unburned fuel exiting the exhaust pipe, NOT less total fuel injected into the engine.
Anyway, getting to the point, let me illustrate this in a hypothetical situation using B.S. numbers that I made up.
If this were your car:
75mph @ 2000 RPM = 3.00gph = 25mpg
90mph @ 2400 RPM = 3.33gph = 27mpg
So even though you are burning 11% more fuel per hour, you are actually getting 8% better mileage since you are traveling at 20% higher mph! Now this may or may not be true for our cars, but it is VERY possible.
But I don't really give a sh!t about milage, this car is bad @ss!
P.S. sometimes those who know DO talk! At least to help.
You are on the right track, but there is one fundamental flaw in your logic. While at the higher RPM required to achieve 90-100 mph you ARE burning more fuel per hour, you are also traveling more miles per hour, and as a result, you don't always get better miles per gallon at a lower speed than a higher speed.
The engine may actually be MORE efficient at a higher RPM than a lower one. Note that this only means less unburned fuel exiting the exhaust pipe, NOT less total fuel injected into the engine.
Anyway, getting to the point, let me illustrate this in a hypothetical situation using B.S. numbers that I made up.
If this were your car:
75mph @ 2000 RPM = 3.00gph = 25mpg
90mph @ 2400 RPM = 3.33gph = 27mpg
So even though you are burning 11% more fuel per hour, you are actually getting 8% better mileage since you are traveling at 20% higher mph! Now this may or may not be true for our cars, but it is VERY possible.
But I don't really give a sh!t about milage, this car is bad @ss!
P.S. sometimes those who know DO talk! At least to help.
#38
All right guys. Why can a jet that cannot go supersonic at sea level easily go supersonic at, say, 36,000 feet? Could it have something to do with a thicker atmosphere and the air resistance at sea level?
Try this unscientific test. Have a friend drive 60 mph. Then hang your head out the window. Next, have him drive 100 mph and hang your head out the window again (you might want to have your friend hold onto your belt). If you survive, let know if you can tell the difference.
If that unscientific test doesn't convince you, let me know and I'll come up with another.
Try this unscientific test. Have a friend drive 60 mph. Then hang your head out the window. Next, have him drive 100 mph and hang your head out the window again (you might want to have your friend hold onto your belt). If you survive, let know if you can tell the difference.
If that unscientific test doesn't convince you, let me know and I'll come up with another.
#40
Originally posted by jbrown
tdoh,
You are on the right track, but there is one fundamental flaw in your logic. While at the higher RPM required to achieve 90-100 mph you ARE burning more fuel per hour, you are also traveling more miles per hour, and as a result, you don't always get better miles per gallon at a lower speed than a higher speed.
The engine may actually be MORE efficient at a higher RPM than a lower one. Note that this only means less unburned fuel exiting the exhaust pipe, NOT less total fuel injected into the engine.
But I don't really give a sh!t about milage, this car is bad @ss!
P.S. sometimes those who know DO talk! At least to help.
tdoh,
You are on the right track, but there is one fundamental flaw in your logic. While at the higher RPM required to achieve 90-100 mph you ARE burning more fuel per hour, you are also traveling more miles per hour, and as a result, you don't always get better miles per gallon at a lower speed than a higher speed.
The engine may actually be MORE efficient at a higher RPM than a lower one. Note that this only means less unburned fuel exiting the exhaust pipe, NOT less total fuel injected into the engine.
But I don't really give a sh!t about milage, this car is bad @ss!
P.S. sometimes those who know DO talk! At least to help.
Both of our examples would probably be true in a controlled environment; however, I would think that we can agree that one could probably get better gas mileage doing 70 mph than doing 90 in real life.
In any case, I'm with you--I'm not particularly interested in mileage either but I do keep an eye on it once in a while, as abnormally low fuel economy not explainable due to known circumstances could possibly mean that something might be wrong with the car.
Tony