Guest

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

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.

VTEC Animal

I get about 240 before my gas light comes on, and that's 100% city mileage. Climate control always on full auto. Sometimes I do drive it a little hard so that might explain the lower mileage.

imax

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.

bh

yeah, i'm a bit disappointed with the city fuel economy. I had a 10 year old prelude that got better mileage.

jbrown

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.

Mr Hyde

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?

Mr Hyde

Oh that works out to 280-300 miles on a tank for me typically.

imax

I live in So. Florida and the A/C is always on. My driving habits are identical to how I drove my Maxima SE and the TL-S delivers, on average, at least 3 mpg less than the SE. For me there is only one answer "the TL-S gets terrible gas mileage".

lawman

Last time I checked (city driving after changing oil at 3000K with Mobil 1) I got 21.959 mpg.

>>that number seems kinda low, i get about 280+ miles per gallon.

2k2 TLS - man I wish I could get over 280 mpg.

tdoh

Granted that it's 10 years old and automobile technology has improved since, but...let's see--it has two fewer cylinders, 1+ liter less engine size, almost a thousand pounds lighter (if not more), and it's a Honda. I dunno about you, but it wouldn't be surprising to me that it still can get better mileage than a TL-S...

Tony

daverman

I'm getting low 20's MPG on average, which is respectable since this car produces 260HP and weighs 3500lbs! This figure goes up to mid-20's during long-distance highway cruising.

J32A2RULES!

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.

coffeefingers

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.

ice091298

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

lilboykorea

it'lll be alot better after break in... after having the car for few months now the gas gauge is actin' normal

8ball

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.

mackdaddy

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

mikegunnz

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.

thephantom

I have around 12,000 miles on the car and I average around 21-23 MPG. I do probably 80/ 20 City. However, when I take the car for a long ride on the highway, I get about 29 MPG.

hemants

21-23 mpg, never better than 23 even on long highway trips (probably cos I drive 85-95 mph)

rockinTLS

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

juniorbean

iTrader: (5)

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.....

Guest

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.

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.

astro

I am getting almost 30MPG from my TL-S...that's averaged over 4 tanks of gas too...

tdoh

280+ miles per gallon???!!! Man, what kind of engine do you have in your car?

Tony

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

thephantom

Well, what is the big difference between going 90 MPH or 70 MPH? Roughly 500 RPM. When I had around 700 miles on the car I took her from MA to MD and back with my ex along with luggages and I got 29 MPG. I was going around 80 the whole time. The way I calculated the mileage was to fill up my tank to the point where the nozzle clicks. Then I would make the trip and fill up at the end. Then, I would take the miles I racked up and divide that by the number of gallons I just refilled... to the point where the nozzle clicks, and there's my number. Am I doing this right?? I will be making the same 240 mile trip this Sunday again and I will recalculate and post what I come up with this time. But if anyone has a better way to calculate the MPG, please let me know.

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.

Las Vegas TLS

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.

thephantom

Good point. Did think about that. Well, does anyone have a better way of calculating MPG??

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!

thephantom

That's what I have been doing to calculate the mileage. Well, I will give it one more shot on Sunday.

tdoh

Well, let's see (and forgive me if my physics logic is faulty):

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

tdoh

The way you mentioned is fine; however, keep in mind that the point when the nozzle clicks may not be consistenly at the same point, even if using the same pump. The amount of vapor in the fuel system or a bad vapor recovery system in the gas pump itself may make the pump click off early. Not that big of a factor if you average out over may refills; OTOH one could fill up at a gas station right off the freeway, get on the freeway, coast for about 40-50 miles at 65 mph, then fill up at another gas station right next to the freeway and wind up with some abnormal mileage like 35 mpg or so. Not to say that someone would fudge numbers like that, but mileage readings can vary widely depending on the particular driving environment and circumstances.

Tony

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.

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.

lawman

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.

vperkins2

I 2nd that motion!

tdoh

I agree with you here--in the real world, there would be mitigating factors which would affect fuel economy at various speeds--factors such as stop and go driving, aerodynamics, how much throttle is applied in various gears. Sure, you'd probably get better gas mileage going let's say 70 mph than you would at let's say 25 mph. However, keep in mind that there is probably more on-and-off throttle application going on at lower speeds than at higher speeds (when you're not looking for a kill, that is ).

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