Pilot vs. Jeep Commander

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by artspilot


I just filled mine up. 260 miles / 16.6 gal giving me a pathetic 15.6 MPG. 100% low speed stop and go traffic and short trips... the bad stuff.

The best I've calculated is 19.

I understand the 19, we were driving like maniacs at 90+ MPH w/ two bikes on the roof on a State Highway and up through N GA Mountains (not at 90 MPH).

Maybe the car needs to break in a bit more... only has 2200 miles on it.

The newly adjusted epa mpg test results for the Pilot are 15 / 20 mpg city / hwy. Of course, if you are in a hilly area, drive at excessive speeds, drag race at stops, etc, you will get even less. I get 15/20 mpg for BOTH our Pilot and my Chevy 5.3L V8 Crew Cab. Of course the Crew cab weighs quite a bit more and has higher hp/torque.

[artspilot]

I guess I'm doing better than average then...
but I didn't get the AWD which will make it somewhat worse.

Oh well, at least I don't have a 40 mile commute. I'm lucky to to 10K/Year.

I thought my window sticker said 18/25... which would be great.

My dad claims to get about 20MPG avg in his Murano; but he has to use premium fuel... and he doesn't have a trunk [worth a shtick]

It's still better than my Wrangler... and I can carry people AND stuff.

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by artspilot
I guess I'm doing better than average then...
but I didn't get the AWD which will make it somewhat worse.

Oh well, at least I don't have a 40 mile commute. I'm lucky to to 10K/Year.

I thought my window sticker said 18/25... which would be great.

My dad claims to get about 20MPG avg in his Murano; but he has to use premium fuel... and he doesn't have a trunk [worth a shtick]

It's still better than my Wrangler... and I can carry people AND stuff.

2wd:

[giwan1259]

Originally posted by jl_ss


The newly adjusted epa mpg test results for the Pilot are 15 / 20 mpg city / hwy. Of course, if you are in a hilly area, drive at excessive speeds, drag race at stops, etc, you will get even less. I get 15/20 mpg for BOTH our Pilot and my Chevy 5.3L V8 Crew Cab. Of course the Crew cab weighs quite a bit more and has higher hp/torque.

MMMM are you sure about that? V8, weighs more, yet gets better gas mileage. Do you drive the two so differently? Otherwise I have a hard time buying it. I can say I get 24 hwy on my Pilot, 15 in city.

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by giwan1259



MMMM are you sure about that? V8, weighs more, yet gets better gas mileage. Do you drive the two so differently? Otherwise I have a hard time buying it. I can say I get 24 hwy on my Pilot, 15 in city.

Absolutely sure, I've compared the two repeatedly (same driver, same route, same conditions, same speeds/etc) enough to know I am getting 15/20 with both. I cannot break 20 with the Pilot on the hwy no matter how grandmotherly I drive - that may be because we live in a somewhat hilly area. One of the reasons that the Chevy gets similiar mpg is torque/gearing. For example, under some conditions the Chevy doesn't break a sweat or downshift, while the Pilot has to downshift to or rev higher to keep up. It's similiar to the reason that our CRV did not get all that better mpg than our Pilot. The CRV spent all it's time at redline keeping up with traffic with the a/c on, while the Pilot keeps the same pace with ease. Chevy's 5.3L V8 is also one of their more efficient engines.

[giwan1259]

Well aware of gearing, and the CRV does not need to redline. Still don't buy it sorry.

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by giwan1259
Well aware of gearing, and the CRV does not need to redline. Still don't buy it sorry.

Have you tried to merge an automatic 1999 CRV onto a busy highway with the A/C on?

Max Horsepower: 146 hp @ 6200 rpm
Max Torque: 133 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm
Weight: Approx 3500 lbs. with 1 passenger
A/C robbing enough power to cool an SUV (not a car)

Believe me, I've nailed it and started praying plenty of times. There's a reason they kept upping the torque/hp in newer models.

I don't really care whether you buy it or not. It's what I'm gettting and I have no reason to lie about it. When you own both, you can tell me that I'm wrong.

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by giwan1259
Well aware of gearing, and the CRV does not need to redline. Still don't buy it sorry.

Does this help you believe any? The original epa for the truck is 15/18. I get 15/20. Of the actuals, the lowest reported city is 14. So my 15 is no where near out of line and the epa calculated adjustment is then probably conservative for the Silverado. I do manage to get 2 mpg better than the actuals on the hwy - probably because I am stuck doing the speed limit on our congested highways. Try supporting any opposing argument with facts rather than just saying you don't buy it.........

[krygny]

Originally posted by artspilot


I just filled mine up. 260 miles / 16.6 gal giving me a pathetic 15.6 MPG. 100% low speed stop and go traffic and short trips... the bad stuff.

The best I've calculated is 19.

I understand the 19, we were driving like maniacs at 90+ MPH w/ two bikes on the roof on a State Highway and up through N GA Mountains (not at 90 MPH).

Maybe the car needs to break in a bit more... only has 2200 miles on it.

I did a round trip one day from Long Island, through the Catskills, to Oneonta, NY on a single tank. The light came on about 5 miles from home. 423 miles on 16.3 gallons (~26 mpg). I also once took about 4 hours to go 27 miles through a snowstorm, never getting out of 2nd gear and using about 3/4 of a tank (good thing it was full ).

I read here about some people never getting better than 16 mpg. If they don't have a lead foot, there's something wrong. They should have the car analyzed by Honda service. Most of my driving to and from work is highway and I plan it so I rarely get stuck in traffic. Once I tried deliberately driving "aggressively" for a tankful and I only got about 16 mpg.

[artspilot]

Originally posted by krygny

I also once took about 4 hours to go 27 miles through a snowstorm, never getting out of 2nd gear and using about 3/4 of a tank (good thing it was full ).

Unfortunatly, I think this is my commute.
It's only about 4.5 miles, though it never snows in Atlanta, but it's bumper to bumper almost the entire way... ambling along at 15 MPH isn't the Pilot's forte.

I think I'll reserve judgement on the Gas Mileage until I actually drive somewhere.

I did drive to the airport (about 50 miles round trip) and thinking it didn't use much gas... I got 300 miles on that tank instead of the usual 250, so I know being on the highway helps a bunch.

[larryziegler]

Originally posted by jl_ss
It's similiar to the reason that our CRV did not get all that better mpg than our Pilot. The CRV spent all it's time at redline keeping up with traffic with the a/c on, while the Pilot keeps the same pace with ease. Chevy's 5.3L V8 is also one of their more efficient engines.

I tend to think its the terrain you live in. I just traded in my 01 CR-V LX 4WD and I'll agree, it doesn't have the power of the Pilot, but the high revving 2 liter motor was better than lots of other 4 bangers in the acceleration dept. I easily got 20 mpg in stop and traffic with it....sometimes 22mpg if I drove it just right, or 19mpg on its worst tank, which was rare. At 80 mph on the freeway it got 24 mpg. At 70 mph, which is the speed my wife typically drives, it got 29 mpg. So far my Pilot at 75 mph avg, gets 22 mpg in solid freeway driving. My guess would be that a conservative freeway speed could yield 24-25 mpg. I also agree Chevy trucks are capable of 20-22mpg on the highway, as I have multiple friends who can get those numbers with their Chevy trucks. With a heavy vehicle, smaller engines have to wrok harder, while larger v8's don't have to work as hard, so the mileage isn't much different....its always been like that, even with the 1970 Ford Bronco I had 30 some odd years ago. The 302 got the same mileage as the 170 6 cyl.

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by larryziegler


I tend to think its the terrain you live in. I just traded in my 01 CR-V LX 4WD and I'll agree, it doesn't have the power of the Pilot, but the high revving 2 liter motor was better than lots of other 4 bangers in the acceleration dept. I easily got 20 mpg in stop and traffic with it....sometimes 22mpg if I drove it just right, or 19mpg on its worst tank, which was rare. At 80 mph on the freeway it got 24 mpg. At 70 mph, which is the speed my wife typically drives, it got 29 mpg. So far my Pilot at 75 mph avg, gets 22 mpg in solid freeway driving. My guess would be that a conservative freeway speed could yield 24-25 mpg. I also agree Chevy trucks are capable of 20-22mpg on the highway, as I have multiple friends who can get those numbers with their Chevy trucks. With a heavy vehicle, smaller engines have to wrok harder, while larger v8's don't have to work as hard, so the mileage isn't much different....its always been like that, even with the 1970 Ford Bronco I had 30 some odd years ago. The 302 got the same mileage as the 170 6 cyl.

My original point was that smaller engines/less weight don't always equal much better mpg. The issue got muddled in comparing two different vehicles. It's definately terrain related - I believe I mentioned that somewhere along the line - it's the 4 cylinder having to work harder in a heavy vehicle. A better example that I usually use is the RAV V6 versus the 4cyl version. That keeps the vehicle the same and shows the difference in mpg strictly due to the engine power/gearing. The V6 gets 21/28 while the 4 cyl gets 23/27. And those are epa ratings. Once you start to approach real life driving conditions, I've found that the larger engine estimates will be closer to the epa estimate than the smaller engines because they don't have to work as hard and don't have to downshift as much. Looking at the RAV4, the V6 actually gets better hwy mpg, but even thought the city rating of the 4 cylinder is rated 2 mpg higher, I would bet there is really little difference in real life driving.