ajay711

I know there are a few threads on this, but I wanted to post my recent mileage from a road trip from Atlanta, GA to Boca Raton, FL. The TL never ceases to amaze me with a perfect balance of sport and luxury, power and economy, flash and subtlety. The keys to the ridiculous 35MPG were:

1. Cold Air Intake
2. Tires inflated 6 PSI over recommended 32
3. Very close drafting to Semi Trucks (within 3 feet of their bumper, which is probably not the safest thing!)
4. Avoid hitting the brakes at all costs
5. Build up momentum and apply gas going down a hill, and coast up the hill (combustion engines are much more efficient under low stress)
6. Keep a reasonable, steady speed (65 or so)

Oh, and if I didn't mention yet, I LOVE THE THIRD GEN TL!!!!!!!!!

http://www.facebook.com/editalbum.ph...&id=1273302088

chairguru22

yea... that's not safe at all.

Will Y.

I'd rather get 25 MPG without items 3 & 4 than 35 MPG like that! :shakehead

TonyBui

CAI really does the trick ???

paliknight

^^^not for most people.

but my TL gets around 13 MPG city and 21 MPG highway.

mlody

I second that. the savings in gas will be wasted on fixing paint and rock chips on the windshield

SSFTSX

If you drive a car like Grandma to achieve fuel economy on long drive. It is definitely not economical car.
On long drive i floored by TSX as much i want permitting traffic conditions with speeds between 1.5 to 1.8 times yours still getting between 32 to 35mpg. Wind/Tire/engine noise is completely hushed.

ajay711

Ha! I am by no means saying the TL is an economy car, it just has nice balance of power and economy. Anyway, the trip down to Florida was really used more as an experiment to see what kind of mileage I could get out of the
TL. It wasn't really for cost savings or anything like that, just for the heck of it. I will be driving like a "normal" person on the way back up to Atlanta today, and will see what the results are.

darksky

1. I don't think this will help the mileage but will actually decrease it. At best it's mileage neutral.

2. Perhaps, but dangerous for a number of reasons outlined here, here, here, discussed here, and just google this.

3. and 4. You're kidding right? Particularly #3.
5. and 6. Good advice.

SSFTSX

It is not nice balance of power and economy. Let suppose you want to drive at speeds above normal person will drive. Normal will be 75 to 85mph. and above normal is 90 to 120 mph. depending on time and traffic flow conditions.
Its true TL can get 0-100mph in 16 to 17 seconds and TSX will take 19 to 20 seconds.
but what difference couple of seconds makes in 5 to 10 hr long drives. when you cannot floor TL as much as TSX. it is the scream of VTEC engine in sports mode that i like the most.

LaCostaRacer

I can easily acheive 32MPG with a loaded car (4 passengers) with luggage going 70-75MPG with just a few simple techniques:

1. Keep speeds reasonable (< 80 MPH) and stable
2. Keep a SAFE distance behind car ahead of you so you simply coast when you see brake lights instead of slamming on the brakes every time the the car ahead of you has the brakes on.
3. Don't use Cruise on hills or traffic conditions. It guns the motor on hills and doesn't allow for #2 above.

I would expect the TSX to get about 20% better economy simply because it has 20% less displacement and 1/3 fewer cylinders and less weight too. I think the TL is very efficient for the type of car it is.

SouthernBoy

The best mileage I have recorded on a road trip was in September '05. A/C was used the entire time (outside temp was 86) and the traffic was moderately heavily. Speeds ranged from 62 to 78 MPH. I did none of what the OP did and managed 33.94 with my '04 manual TL.

SSFTSX

2G TSX has more frontal width and height than 3G TL.
They have about same interior space.
2G TSX Navy Auto weighs 3500lbs. 3G TL about 3650lbs.
If i am not mistken 2G TSX has bigger Gas tank of 18.5 gallons.
201 bhp vs 258 bhp.
TL 232 ft-lb torque is produced higher in rpm range
Its plain simple which one is more efficient design for sustain higher speeds and less time at gas pump. i was doing 3400rpm @100mph. Only 2500rpm @80mph.
this thing is for those who make purchase decision between similar priced 08 TL and 09 TSX.

04TLinSYR

I was curious about your statement that the 2G TSX is the same size inside as the 3G TL. Some of the specs I read on Edmunds dispute this.

TL Wins
Wheelbase (this affects interior space and handling):
TL: 107.9 TSX: 106.6
Front Head Room:
TL: 38.7 TSX: 37.6
Rear Head Room:
TL: 37.2 TSX: 37
Front Shoulder Room:
TL: 58.3 TSX: 57.8
Front Leg Room:
TL: 42.8 TSX: 42.4
Rear Leg Room:
TL: 34.9 TSX: 34.3

TSX Wins
Rear Shoulder Room:
TL: 55.6 TSX: 56.1
Rear Hip Room:
TL: 53.8 TSX: 54.2

Same in both cars
Front Hip Room
TL: 56.2 TSX 56.2

Does anybody have a spec for total interior space (cubic feet) for the 2 cars?

Seems to me the 3G TL is bigger inside, but the new TSX is pretty close.

SSFTSX

Hiproom and shoulder room are more important measure of space.
Headroom matter but there is hair splitting difference. Car can have acre of useless space behind the rear seats or dashboard.

LaCostaRacer

The 2nd gen TSX is definitely larger and closer to the TL in size. One way to compare size is using Passenger volume in cubic feet. The 3rd Gen TL has 98 .vs. 2nd gen TSX with 95 .vs. 1st gen TSX with 91 based on fueleconomy.gov. Quoting MPG at 100mph is completely irrelevant in the US and has more merit in Europe than here. FuelEconomy.gov reports average real world mileage as follows: TL MPG at 22.4 MPG, 2nd gen TSX at 25.3, and 1st gen TSX at 28.4. So the TSX actual mileage appears to have dropped a bit- presumably due to the increase in size and weight. The big improvement for the 2nd gen TSX is the carbon footprint which decreased to 7.3 from the 1st gen's 8.0! The TL has a 8.7 carbon footprint (tons of CO2)

While the TL has the 22% larger engine, higher horsepower and better 0-60 performance it gets within 10% of the mileage. For people like myself, it was a no-brainer picking the TL over the 1st-gen TSX. The 2nd gen TSX makes the decision a little tougher, but I would still pick a 3rd gen over the TSX especially with the current gas prices low like they are now.

SSFTSX

Your comparing broken down TSX avg fuel mileage data with New TSX.
New TSX is more economical when it is broken down.
Auto TSX is more economical than manual TSX.


1G TSX achieves 0-100mph in 19.5 seconds.
2G TSX achieved 0-100mph in 18.8 seconds (despite having heavier and larger car with less peak power)
3G TL 2004 achieve 0-100mph in 15.9 Seconds. I think 08 TL is heaver than 04 TL.



2009 TSX.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6833



2004 TL Manual
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...2004172540.pdf

2004 TSX Manual
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...subaru-pg1.pdf

darksky

...getting a bit off topic don't you think?

LaCostaRacer

^ Yes- I definitely agree- I'm out of this one

srhewes

I have around 51,000 miles on my '04 with Auto.

Highway Mileage
On trips is usually 34MPG. Typically have the A/C off (weather permitting, since I live in OH) and set the cruise at 70. No drafting or other unsafe practices. Accelerate evenly. With the A/C running (always on Auto) I get around 32 on the highway.

City Driving
Usually around 26+ in the summer months and about 24 in the winter. I have learned that the key is slow to accelerate and maintain as constant a speed as possible.

All the above with those OEM Turanza EL42's (which I just replaced yesterday with Bridgestone Potenza 960RE A/S Pole Position).

imj0257

iTrader: (1)

nice mileage. but no way would i even attempt 3 feet from a semi... one sudden break from him and you are

shooter

I tend to agree with all your points except number 3 .... to achieve higher MPG at what cost ? Is it worth it ?

YeuEmMaiMai

let me key you in on something.......driving in the middle of a train of cars yeilds the same results.......I got 34.8 MPG on my last road trio while driving an average of 75mph being in the middle of a train of cars for most of the trip.....in 2002 CLS

overinflating tires and riding a semi's ass = good way to f yourself up not to mention all the damage you get from rock chips.......

darksky

Hehehe, kiss your 34 MPG goodbye with the addition of the Potenza 960's Please report back of your MPG after a few tanks with the new tires.

SouthernBoy

Yep. The 33.94 MPG I reported on this thread was when I still had the stock EL42's on the car. Those tires do a fine job for highway mileage (they should - they're Grand Touring tires), but not much good for anything else. When I installed my current tires in the spring of '06 (Michelin Pilot Sport A/S), mileage dropped to the lower 32's on the highway.. in general around a 1.75 MPG drop for city and highway. Rolling resistance was so noticeable that my car would not coast out of my garage with those tires where it did with the EL42'S.

cotmfk

Definitely off topic... TL or TL-S looks a lot better than TSX (which got hit with that 2009 Acura ugly stick!), has close gas mileage, has great power, etc, etc, etc. I'd gladly give up a tiny bit of gas mileage (worth maybe $100 a year lol) for all the other benefits!

imj0257

iTrader: (1)

Random... but I just got 330 miles to the tank mostly city driving and about 1/2 my reserve tank used up. k thnx.

bimmerman

I average around 24, but see around highway 28-33 depending on my cruise speed. I normally have the cruise set around 80-85 and with this I see 28-29 mpg.

con5tant

iTrader: (4)

i hit 37mpg one time on the freeway. im regularly in between 28-34 on the freeway. i have none of those above tips.

Babnik

I wonder why cruise contrl systems are designed to so diligently maintain the exact same speed up and down hills? They should be designed to slow down slightly up hills, this way it wouldn't need to burn so much more gas up hills.

erick3

3. - that'll get your car dinged up...sand blasted!

SouthernBoy

Unless you're driving in the mountains or a lot of hill country and/or are in 6th gear (manual), the TL cruise control does not "gun" the engine. The "sling shot" effect does not take place with this car. You tend to see that in 4-cylinder cars because of their lack of torque. The TL engine makes enough torque at normal driving RPMs to virtually eliminate this problem. The drive-by-wire is also more precise than a cable throttle and that is what is used with the cruise control system.

Also, if it allowed the car to slow down too much, you could be opening yourself up to a traffic citation for failure to maintain speed and/or impeding the flow of traffic.

YeuEmMaiMai

2nd gen CLS owner here and the cruise is very accurate on the cruise control as well the only time it gets on the throttle is when you are significantly below the set speed and you re-engage it.....

carguyrob

I am surprised no one has mentioned the need to manually calculate your gas mileage when filling up (gallons used divided into miles driven). The trip computer on the TL is much better than some of my previous cars as it is usually only about 1 mpg optimistic, but it has been off by 2-3 mpg a couple times.

cotmfk

This is how I calculate mine all the time. I don't trust the trip computer!!

SouthernBoy

You will notice that I reported 33.94 MPG in my first post on this thread. That figure cannot be determined by using the on-board system. One has to do the tradition MPG calculation to arrive at it. I never determine MPG using the on-board system. I use that as a guide and as a curiosity thing, not to record or establish actual mileage. And as far as distance on a tank via the on-board system, to me that is meaningless. I do the calculations in my head and rely on those figures instead.

But I will say the on-board system is a good one.

LaCostaRacer

Good we got back on topic.

We have a Honda Pilot with a 3.5L version of this motor. When I set this on cruise (lets say 75mph), I notice the tranny will kick down on a moderate grade hill (not mountains). I believe the cruise is programmed to stay within a few MPH of set speed which is great on flat lands. I have noticed the TL will do similar behavior as well but I don't drive the TL as often on those types of roads. I'm sure the TL is less likely to kickdown in this situation compared to a heavier and less aerodynamic Pilot.

I'm just saying the cruise is less tolerant of speed variations in hills where I might be more flexible and let the speed drop maybe 5mph and save the kick down. In my example, I would drop to possibly 70 mph and be right in the speed range and not impede any traffic.

If you have the Trip Computer hack for the navigation, you'll see how much your instant MPG drops on a grade as well as a resulting kickdown of the tranny. Higher RPMs means more fuel consumed in this scenario. My general statement holds for people wanting highest MPG - avoid the cruise when there are lots of moderate hills.