ndabunka

Sounds to me like the mountains DID have an effect. Coming down the mountain was like coasting and therefore you didn't use as much fuel. The Mountains are funy things. You can feel like you going up one, when in fact you are still going downhill. I got 32MPH coming back down the mountians from Snoeshoe one time but it's more like 27 goin up that same hill. My car is usually between 28 and 31MPG

Sherlock

Mister V.. the "ECU Flash" describes a process where Acura puts in new programming into the car's computer. I believe this is done thru the OBDII connection under the left side driver's dash. They hook their computer up and upload the new software to the car's onboard computer.

Who knows where the chip is.. buried in it's brain somewhere.

jrecufan

I have to agree with others here. My mileage, which has been mostly city so far (total of about 300 miles only) is around 17. That seems low, especially since I have been driving it VERY easy so far. I'm disappointed, but am hoping for improvement throughout and after the break in period. I can't wait for a road trip to see what kind of highway mileage it gets.

jrecufan

Hordak, I have ALWAYS gotten better mileage in the mountains than flat stretches - mainly for the reasons NDA listed. Has always seemed odd, but it is correct.

Hey NDA, I live in Greenville, NC. We need to get a Carolinas TL meeting set up somewhere.

shawn744

hey leadfoot, lay off the vtec!!

Nodoze2004

Oh the horror of non premium fuel, I shudder at the very thought of low grade petroleum! 93 octane all the way (and will remain so)!!

vtechbrain

The biggest differnce in MPG is driving style. If you floor the accelerator often regardless of city or highway the car will drink copious amounts of gas. If driven conservatively it will use gas sparingly. Unfortunately most of us bought this car for its wonderful thrust so driving conservatively is an illusion. Since getting my license suspended (thus forcing me to be very,very good for at least a year) Im consistently getting 24 combined and 32 to 34 on the highway. for a car with this performance that is miserly indeed. If you used to drive a 4 banger switching to a powerful v6 is indeed a shock. I remember going from a civic to a 99 odyssey from 30mpg to 18 it was a true OUCH!

vtechbrain

BTW the octane will not affect your milage one bit.

markjrenna

I cam across this report:

http://bus.utk.edu/stat/spss2/Solutions%20t1sp02.pdf

Seems Octane and MPG have a direct correlation (if you believe the report).

VOdoc

So far with 3100 miles on the clock, overall mileage has been remarkably consistent at 24-25 mpg on Chevron Supreme 91 octane at average speed of 33-35 mph. Best trip home from work was 32 mpg at 75 mph. Trip computer corresponds perfectly with calculated mileage at fill-up.

I use climate control set to 72 degrees. Mine is a 5AT. I do goose it now and then but primarily try to drive steady and fast. I drive 60 miles a day in mixed city/freeway driving, often with heavy congestion, stop-and-go. You know, L.A.

Nodoze2004

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you here! My last car was a 4 banger civic Si which used to average 24 city with 93. I accidently filled the tank with 89 one time and got much better gas mileage (albeit with degraded performance).

I would never fill the TL with anything less than 93!!

VOdoc

Yep, 93 is great if you can get it. Here in Cali the highest octane rating is 91 (with the rare exception of some sort of aviation-grade 100 octane fuel that a few people have reported seeing for sale). Our grades are 87, 89, 91. I sure like the way my TL runs on Chevron gas. Then again, I sure like the way it runs period!!

sleeks

When we lived in Maryland, my parents drove out to see us and my dad was coasting for so long down a hill, his Instant MPG registered 99! Mountains have an impact.

arkk

I have my TL 6MT one week today. At my first fill up, I got 26.9 MPG. Of course I am being a good boy with respect to the break-in period and not (too many times) going over 70mph.

Needless to say, I am (so far) very impressed and very happy.

bodyshopguy

Ive never gotten worse then 20 per gallon. I average 22 all the time now and use 93 octane

rsxbond

I'm @ 1300 miles now, and I get very good gas mileage...thank goodness! I average about 32mpg on the highway, and about 22 in city. I managed to hit 45mpg for a little less than a minute once!

missmyprelude

I get about 27mpg in my 6mt pretty consistently. My commute to work is mostly rural roads (no stop signs or lights) and highway. I fill up with 93 about once a week.

Rcat

The only thing that higher octane does is stop pre-detonation,thats it.For performance having more octane(higher)allows more timing and higher compression thats whats gives you more performance not the higher octane..If you put 93 octane in a low compression motor it's not going to give you more power,the only way its going to give more power is to advance the timing.The reason why your TL does not run as well on lower octane fuel is you have knock sensors that can tell when your car is having pre-detonation and retards your timing so you dont do damage to your bottom end bearings.Thats why I used to get a good laugh when my son would go to the parts store and get octane booster for his POS mits truck(very low compression wore out motor)If its not knocken your wasting your money on higher octane fuel.But with that said the TL does need 91 or better.

Cesci

I too have noticed a huge difference since the first tank fulls. Up to 6,000 kms now (3600 miles) and am enjoying 32-33 miles to the US gallon. Did 617 kms on 40 litres. I have the 6 MT and when you use 6th gear you can just let it hover above 2,000rpm and you get excellent mileage.

SSM6MTNAVI

I just got through my 3rd tank and after filling it up I calculated the gas mileage using the calc on the navi screen, really cool feature. 360 miles on the trip odo/14.525gals = 24.78mpg. Trip computer said I was averaging 22 mpg....... wierd. Anyone else experience this? I have consistently got 24-25 mpg (just like in my previous Accord) in mainly city driving since I picked up the car, until my girlfriend visited me one weekend and it dropped to 20 mpg coz all she did was redline the thing. When I drive it around I hardly get over 2k rpm and drive it in 6th whenever it's possible. Those freakin oil people are rich enough! Overall I couldn't be happier with the car!

jefffree

I was absolutely amazed at the great (IMHO) gas mileage I got on a trip today. Went from Seattle to Portland - about 180 miles at nearly 80 MPH the whole way. Wind was at my back and the mounties were on Krispie Kreme break. When I got to Portland, computer showed 27 MPG.

Since I normally drive 67-70, on the return trip I got 32 MPG. Sweet!

Car is three months old with 2900 miles. As a footnote, oil life just turned to 60%.

Gotta love it.

vtechbrain

You are absolutely right!

HuKaShI

I too have noticed a difference. I now have 5,700 miles on the car and it does a bit better on mpg. One thing though, I checked the tires 2 weeks ago, and the pressure for them was low. So I filled them up to the proper pressures. Then I filled up my tank and drove till the low fuel light came on. I usually got about 285-295 miles till the low fuel light came on. After the tire adjustment, I got 435 miles till the fuel low light came on.

Guys, check your tire pressures. This could be the culprit for your low mpg.

markjrenna

I don't have my car's manual or even the car here. What did air pressure did you use or do you recommend?

Thanks.

Motoracer

I went on my first long trip with my new TL 6-MT, Boston to North Carolina and back. The motor is still new with ~4,000 miles and the original "break-in" oil now at 30% life.

Running mostly at 70-75 mph with 2 people in the car it got 30 mpg on the low end and 32 on the high end of virtually 100% highway miles.

Back home my mixed commuting is still averaging 24 mpg despite increased application of the right foot.

I'm really impressed with the efficiancy / performance of this car compared to the others I tested. If only I could get the window trim to stop rattling!

Whilst in NC, I rode in my father's new Lexus LS430. Granted it's a tiny bit more expensive (less than 2X), but the interior was totally tight and free of rattles. By comparison the Lexus makes my TL feel (sound) like a clapped out NYC taxi.

Republican TL

Did a 350 mile trip. Averaged 28 mpg according to the computer doing between 70-80 mph. The car is still not broken in yet either (only 900 miles.)

Shinj1EVA

i find, that if i don't floor it.. i get better gas mileage

I have 4000 miles on my TL now (2 1/2 months). SO fun.. gotta stop flooring it.. it's really digging into my wallet heh. On average, i get about 18-22mpg.. i'm gonna see how it does w/out pushing the car to its limits everytime i want to accelerate.. u know.. accelerate like normal ppl.. gradually...

mrwalter

At just about 3,000 miles, my daughter and I took my 2004 TL 5AT on a white water rafting/camping trip. The trunk was full, and even the rear seat area was full just above the window line - this is not a show car. I was still babying it, and since Wisconsin police seem to love Illinois drivers, we rarely exceeded 70 mph. I was delighted to see the average mileage around 32 mpg. That was MUCH better than the usual 18 mpg around home.

Now I'm almost up to 5,000 mpg and saddened by the usual 17mpg. But I can't complain about the car -- it's the local traffic that does it in. It's only 10 miles to work, but the trip usually takes 30-50 minutes (which is why I switched from MT to AT for the first time in my 54 year life), so the average speed is usually under 25 mph. No car can get good mileage if the engine is running and it's simply not moving!

I did try mid-grade fuel (around here, that's 91 octane) for one tank and the mileage seemed to drop precipitously - but then again, the miles driven during that tank were not consistent with other tanks of 93 octane fuel. With a new 1977 280 Z the mileage went up from 15 mpg to around 22 mpg when it reached 12,000 miles. But engines were not as sophisticated in 1977. I'll just have to wait to see -- and enjoy the trip getting there.

clewttu

I got 22 city, 29 hwy on my first tank and am averaging 25 on my second tank on both city and hwy

SouthernBoy

Mine has never gotten below 23+ MPG in around town driving. Actually, I tend to average around 26 for normal town driving with work commute. My highway mileage is over 31 MPG.

While not as good mileage as my 2002 Altima SE (214 CID engine - that's 3.5 liters for you liter-lovers, and modded to around 265 HP), it's not bad. The Altima would just touch 28 MPG in city driving.

Two days ago, I checked my mileage and it was 23.7.. I was a little more agressive with the throttle, plus it's been a little cooler.

It's been my experience with the Altima that the warm summer weather delivered better fuel economy than the colder fall and winter months.

wrooni

Had my Tl for a week now, putting ~150 miles a day on it, split pretty evenly between highway and suburban. Trip computer reports ave. 31 mpg hwy, 26 for the suburban. Given the wide variations, could it just be different driving styles or is there something going on with the cars?

Xpditor

Hmmm. That means our Acura's 3.2 engine is 196 ci? That's about one half the displacement of a 389 ci Pontiac engine or 396 ci Chevy rat engine- yet turning out almost the same net horsepower?

If we had a 6.4 liter engine, with DOHC, it would prolly crank out about 550 HP??

That would be an interesting axle twister. Prolly have to change the tranny everytime we changed the oil. LOL

And it would get about 10 mpg. (I had to say that so it didn't look like I was hijacking this thread.)

SouthernBoy

To Xpditor;

Our engines put out no where near what Chevy's 396 or Pontiac's 389 did in the mid 60's. For example, the 1966 396 L78 engine was VERY conservatively rated at 375 HP and 415 lb/ft of torque. Actually the engine was delivering 430+ HP to the clutch and in the area of 440 lb/ft of torque. This engine in the SS Chevelle would hand a street HEMI Satellite or GTX his lunch.

The 389 in the 1965 and 1966 GTO with tri-power was rated at 360 HP and (436 or 438) lb/ft of torque. While our engines are marvels of design and efficiency, they are no match for a 396 Chevy in terms of raw power and performance. Plus those engines were way more solid and bullet proof than our engines.

Yes, I know you refered to net HP. But a better indicator would be power delivered to the pavement. The SS396/360 L34 Chevelle managed around 280 HP to the rear wheels. And the 396/375 HP version (L78) was getting around 330 HP to the ground. If you were to use today's fuel and ignition ECU managed systems on these engines, some very intesting things may occur, indeed.

Please don't think I'm knocking our engine because I'm not. I'm quite fond, pleased, and happy with my TL and it's performance. It's just that I grew up in those times and I was an original owner one of the honest-to-God real American supercars; a 1966 SS 396/360 L34 Chevelle. I lived at the local drag strips and was in a car club. I well remember those cars and their capabilities. Besides.. there ain't nothing that sounds as good as an American V8 engine.. especially ones from those by-gone days.

SouthernBoy

BTW, if you ever get the chance to research the ZL1 427 Chevy engine, do so. It appeared in two 1969 Corvettes and 69 1969 Camaros. Rated at 430 HP, it was actually putting out over 600 HP. I have a road test of one of the two Corvettes made and it posted a 10.3 second quarter mile at 130 MPH on street tires! This all aluminum 427 weighed only 450 pounds.. 100 pounds less than a 283.

I should also tell you not to believe the magazine articles you might see that show 0-60 times of 7.5 seconds and quarter miles in 15.3 seconds for cars such as the 396/360 Chevelle or the 442 Oldsmobile. Hogwash! Lower 13's in stock trim with tires and a few simple (free) tuning trips were the order of the day for the Chevelle. And 12.4's were normal if you installed thinner head gaskets, heat riser blocks, headers, and rejetted the carburetor(s)... with, of course a seriously lower rear end, like 4.56 gears.

TheDude_RENAMED

Weren't those old figures on horsepower rated differently? I think it was gross horsepower and now it's bhp but I am not sure.

Xpditor

Southern Boy.... it seems we share some history. I thought my post might bring some folks out of the woodwork who remember those cars.

As The Dude said, they rated HP differently back then. That makes direct comparisons difficult.

I had both a 396 Chevy (1969) and a 427ci 435HP Corvette (1966). I have a lot of respect for those engines. I also drove a 426 ci Ford Fairlane for a while (not mine). I had a 389 Pontiac Catalina with a 4 bbl. Bonneville engine. I remember those muscle cars and the fun times that came with them.

It isn't fair to compare a stock TL with a modified anything. If we are going to do so, we need to do stock with stock and street gearing. After all, our cars would perform much differently with intake, headers, and 4.11 gearing instead of the 3.285 that we have in the 6MT.

Like you, I remember those thunderous monsters as nose-bleed fast. I was a regular visiter at the drag strip as well. It was a rare STOCK car, muscle or otherwise, that could get into the 14s. And 13s were very rare for a STOCK car as bought from the dealer. My 389 Pontiac ran about 15 and 90 MPH as I recall and it was one of the quickest cars around at the time. My TL, out of the box today would run circles around it.

There were cars getting into the 12s but they were highly modified and specialized. Most were not licensed for the road. 10 seconds was considered a barrier beyond which no car could go for many years.

As you aluded to, I have read reprints of contemporaneous articles in Hot Rod that tested some of these cars- like the Hemi and the 440 Plymouth only to see that their 1/4 mile and 0-60 times were not materially faster than our frumpy Japanese four door family luxo-boat with 196 ci. That astounds me because, as I said, I remember those cars as being pee-your-pants FAST. Of course, they were also noisy and rough riding.

I agree with what you say, in general. I just am amazed at the performance that is squeezed out of our 196 ci "ricers" and can't help wondering how they would be if Acura built an engine of around 400 ci??? I have wet dreams thinking about it.

I had one last night. (I would have had two, but I fell asleep).

SouthernBoy

To TheDude_RENAMED;

Yes, the cars of which I spoke, while utilizing bhp (means brake horsepower) as a factor, the readings were taken from the engines on stands and not as they were setup for installtion in the car. Modern readings are taken with all of the bolt-ons included (emissions quipment, intake and exhaust, etc.). That's why I also mentioned drive wheel readings since they would make no difference how the engines were rated.. their figures are real world.

My point is simply this. The American supercars of the mid-60s were not only some of the best made cars you could buy in terms of dollar value and strength of materials and components, but they were down right quick. It's really hard to explain to someone what it feels like to be slammed in the back by 450-500 lb/ft of torque LIKE RIGHT NOW. Imagine going from 0-100 in 8.3 seconds. Imagine 12.4 quarter miles at 110 MPH.

But that was then.. this is now. And in my opinion, we have some really fine automotive choices out there for us. Among those is the TL which does a very good job of offering some luxury blended with very good handling and acceleration. I have to tell you, I really like my car. Before this, the most satisfying car I've ever owned was my 2000 SVT Contour. But it looks like the SVT is in danger of maybe loosing that position to my TL. We'll see.

SouthernBoy

To Xpditor;

Please don't think ill of me, but I have to correct a few things here.

Chevrolet didn't offer the 1966 Corvette with a 427/435 HP engine. They offered three engines for 1966 'Vette in '66; two were advertised and one was not.. it was an LPO engine. They offered the L35 390 HP version with hydraulic cam, medium rise cast iron manifold, 10.25:1 compression, small valve heads, and the single feed Holley 660 CFM carb. Then there was the L72 425 HP version (the most popular) with a solid lifter cam, hi-rise aluminum intake manifold, 11.00:1 compression, 2.19 heads, and the R3310 780 dual feed Holley. Finally, the L74 LPO engine at 450 HP with a hotter solid cam, open plenum intake, 850 CFM Holley, not sure of the compression ratio. The 427/435 was made available in the 1967 Corvette. It had tri-power with the L72 solid lifter cam and heads, and 11.00:1 compression.

Ford never made a 426 engine.. they did make the 427 NASCAR side-oiler available in a VERY limited production run of 1967 Fairlanes to qualify it for drag racing. This engine was one of Ford's and Detroit's best wedge head engines.

As for "It was a rare STOCK car, muscle or otherwise, that could get into the 14s", not so. I have magazine after magazine which proves otherwise, but more importantly, I have experience.. both at the track and during the times. Box stock supercars in the mid-60's easily broke the 13-second barrier with nothing more than a set of slicks, the timing advanced, and some simple carb tuning tricks. Totally stock supecars were in the VERY low 14's (like 14.1).

And to get into the 12's did not require "highly modified and specialized" engines. Trust me on this, a box stock 1966 427/425 HP Corvette running the stock OEM tires and a 3.36:1 rear with the Muncie M21 tranny (not a good combination since a 3.36 rear is too high with the close ration M21) would turn a 12.8 at 112 MPH. The L74 with slicks and a 4.56 gear was a very low 11 street machine.

I lived the period and I have very vivid memories of the times. Believe me, if a TL were to challenge something such as, say, a 1966 Chevy II SS L79, the TL would be more than embarrassed.. he'd be eaten alive. Said L79 was a 327/350 and was generally considered to be one of the sleepers of the 1966 model year. In fact, it went on to win the WinterNationals at Pomona in A-stock running against Jerry Stahl's 1966 Plymouth Satellite 426 HEMI. A little 327 mouse motor whipping a 426 HEMI. Just goes to show how good "Grumpy" Bill Jenkins was at tuning the little Chevy.

My 1966 SS 396/360 L34 Chevelle with tires, timing advance, and the Holley's secondary throttle arm pinned with the vacuum diaphram spring clipped, and distributor weights lightened managed the 13.2's. No headers, no car switch, no thinner head gaskets, just 3.73's out back. That car was quick.

TheDude_RENAMED

Imagine what manufacturers could accomplish today with no worries about gas mileage, engine size/under the hood room, smog regulations, etc... Those muscle cars were examples of a no-holds-barred horsepower race. Today's engines are very different having many different goals to meet. There's not a doubt in my mind those muscle cars of yesteryear could be equaled and beaten given a relaxing of regulations or even without if there was a market for them.

Sadly, there's more of a demand for ridiculous gas guzzling SUVs with chrome 24" wheels. Downright depressing. At least the "ricers" enjoy driving and driving fast and handling well at that. I think they're the spiritual successors to the hot rod generation or at as close as we're going to get.

Xpditor

I don't think ill of you at all. I thank you for the corrections. Your memory is better than mine about the Ford Fairlane. You are correct: it was a rare 427 "Hemi Killer".

Either I hit the wrong key or had a brain fart on the Vette. 425HP made it extremely quick. It was a ball to drive.

I remember well the Chevy II 350 HP 327. There was one who used to take on all challengers at the road leading to the Coast Guard Base off Fuhrman Blvd. every Friday night.

Those cars were the monsters of the day and few and far between. If you lived in a small town, you probably never saw one but only heard about them.

More commonly, and more mass produced muscle cars/pony cars that I was thinking of like the (was it 1966?) Ford Mustang with the 271 "Hi-Po" 289 and 4 speed. That was something you could buy off the Ford lot without special order. And they made a bunch of them. Since I remember that HP number, it was that regularly available car I was thinking of in comparison with the TL. That car weighed a lot less and was said to have 271 HP. But when tested by Motor Trend, it did 7.5 sec 0-60 and 15.7 quarters.

When Car & Driver tested a TL, they got 5.6 0-60 and mid 14 quarters. That's a huge difference.

Now that won't, as you point out, keep up with that purpose built Chevy II, of course. But which one would you rather take the family on a trip to Disney World?

I guess it's the whole package that impresses with the TL. The sterling performance is an added bonus.

Do you still have any of those cars or have you restored any?