Honda Pilot - Honda Pilot Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Does anyone have any data for the older pilots in terms of speed vs. fuel consumption?

I would like to determine the optimal long range cruise speed and compare it to high speeds to see how significant the drop in endurance becomes. I know this will vary with environmental and weight variables but a ballpark would be nice.

Thx.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,140 Posts
The slowest you can go in top gear. ;)

No one here is going to have anything more than guesses based on assumptions and anecdotal measurements.

Some here may believe their information is better then that. They would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

Lots of people point to a US Gov chart showing 55 MPH (Wow, go figure)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Your low speed optimal MPG is driven by your gearing and engine speed while your high speed MPG is driven my wind resistance. As you can see in the graph below the peak MPG is about 45 to 55mpg and after that is goes downhill. This is why the EPA adjusted all the automobile fuel economy stickers because of the faster highway speeds.

When I travel I notice a marked improvement in fuel economy outside MT where I typically cruise at 80MPH.

The bigger question is what is more important to you, getting there faster or saving a few $$$. Dropping your speed from 75 to 65 could save a bit on a long run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuel_economy_vs_speed_1997.png
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Wow. That is great info. Thanks for the help. I have always had a need to go fast regardless of the cost but it is just a matter of actual benefit now.

Just a gee whiz- The Air Force recently required us to start flying at Mach .740 instead of our typical Mach .760. The time loss is literally 2 or three minutes for an overseas trip however the fuel savings is in the thousands of pounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
I typically drive through an entire tank of gas on the highway without stopping.... Set the cruise on 77 and get 23+ mpg... Was 24 when it was new now around 23.7....

Tire pressure set at 38....

JJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,140 Posts
raleighpilot said:
I typically drive through an entire tank of gas on the highway without stopping.... Set the cruise on 77 and get 23+ mpg... Was 24 when it was new now around 23.7....

Tire pressure set at 38....

JJ
Try taking the TP up a few LBs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,140 Posts
chuzie said:
38 on the TP? How does that effect your treadwear?
Unless your tires are very wide or bias-ply, you will not lose any life going all the way to the max.

The center may wear faster then the edges, but overall the center will wear no faster then it would at a lower pressure and it will run cooler and have less squirm both reducing overall tread wear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
raleighpilot said:
I typically drive through an entire tank of gas on the highway without stopping.... Set the cruise on 77 and get 23+ mpg... Was 24 when it was new now around 23.7....

Tire pressure set at 38....

JJ
Your optimal speed depends on where you are driving. CC can suck mileage out of your car. My last trip from MN to NY I was averaging 25-27 mpg, TP at 32 and the car full of gear. No CC the entire way, just used the premise of keeping constant speed on the flats, speed up on downhills, and let the car slowly slow down on uphills (prevent an upshift). CC will upshift and accelerate in certain situations which will kill your MPG. Also, when entering back on the freeway do it slowly. I had a tank where I got 28 mpg and very slow acceleration the entire time. The next tank I was at 23 because I had two instances where I had to accelerate relatively quickly.

CC is great if you're driving all flat roads and that is about it IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,388 Posts
chuzie said:
Does anyone have any data for the older pilots in terms of speed vs. fuel consumption?

I would like to determine the optimal long range cruise speed and compare it to high speeds to see how significant the drop in endurance becomes. I know this will vary with environmental and weight variables but a ballpark would be nice.

Thx.
I have no scientific data nor did I keep any statistics with my '03 Pilot whenever I was on the highway, but what I found was that when you keep your RPM just below the 2K mark in the 5th gear, meaning keeping my cruising speed at or just below the 100KMH/60MPH, I found that my Pilot provided great fuel mileage for the speed you get.

The higher you have your RPM at your cruising speed, the less marginal your fuel mileage it becomes compared to the speed you gain. IOW, you burn much more fuel at a much quicker and higher rate the higher you maintain your RPM even at cruising speed.

So, if you maintained a cruising speed of say 130KMH/80MPH, even though that's a 30% increase from 100KMP/60MPH in speed, you'll have consume your fuel at a higher rate than 30%. In other words, you'll end up having used more than 30% of fuel than a person who traveled the same distance at 100KMH/60MPH. Hope this makes sense.

Again, I have no scientific data to back this up, but I had traveled the same stretch of highway totaling around 400miles/640km between metropolitan San Francisco and Los Angeles in the middle of the night without too much interruptions with my CC and I found this to be the case.

Your post caught my eyes because I recall asking a similar question quite a while back in here when I used to visit this site often. I wanted to post a link to it, but I can't find it using the search function. :8:

Some wise member in here gave me a similar advice then and have adhered to it because I did notice the big difference in fuel consumption when I cruised at a considerably higher speed. Anyway, happy and safe cruising! Safety is all that matters in the end :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
iivtecracerii said:
scangauge...
the scangauge is indeed a good tool to help you develop driving habits indicative of fuel economy, but it is not the end all in determining the best MPG. The scangauge calculates instant MPG (which is also used to calculate average MPG) by monitoring the duty cycle of the fuel injectors. The real problem with this is that it is based on the assumption that lower RPM always indicates better fuel economy, when in fact your engine has a fairly narrow range to achieve max. efficiency. What this means is that at low RPM when your engine is very inefficiently converting chemical energy into mechanical motion, scangauge can show the best instant mileage, even though you are really expelling mostly heat from combustion.

Just food for thought.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
ceraboy said:


The real problem with this is that it is based on the assumption that lower RPM always indicates better fuel economy, when in fact your engine has a fairly narrow range to achieve max. efficiency. What this means is that at low RPM when your engine is very inefficiently converting chemical energy into mechanical motion, scangauge can show the best instant mileage, even though you are really expelling mostly heat from combustion.

Just food for thought.......
Hello, first post here. I'm thinking about buying an 04 Pilot, and have been doing some research. This thread caught my eye, this post in particular. I always thought that the faster you were going, while keeping the RPM's relatively low, was the best indication of saving gas. Low RPM's at higher speeds, means higher gears, means better MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,140 Posts
akhenax said:


Hello, first post here. I'm thinking about buying an 04 Pilot, and have been doing some research. This thread caught my eye, this post in particular. I always thought that the faster you were going, while keeping the RPM's relatively low, was the best indication of saving gas. Low RPM's at higher speeds, means higher gears, means better MPG.
The problem is there are lots of "Rules of Thumb", but few ways to accurately measure your MPG and no way to account for all the variables.

IN GENERAL;
The slower the engine turns, the better the efficiency (within limits)
The slower the vehicle is traveling the less the aerodynamic loss.
The slower the vehicle is traveling the less the friction loss.

SO, (IN GENERAL) you want to go real slow in a high gear. (within limits).
Of course with a modern automatic transmission, if you are too slow in a high gear, you are likely to unlock the torque converter and lose efficiency there.

Good luck playing hypermiling games.

I drive fast because (in general) my time is worth more than any amount of fuel saving!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,153 Posts
There was an English car mag that plotted mph v MPG for every car it tested. Its long since disappeared from the racks.

For a typical car 45 to 50mpg worked out as the most economical speed. IT was always measured in the highest gear. Most of their cars were stick shifts. With auto's you have to wait to lock the torque converter to get the highest gear.

Above that the aerodynamic forces (ie drag) started to multiply so much that mpg dropped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
I found through using the scangauge that I lose about 1% of fuel economy for every 1 mph inrease between 58mp and 70 mph.
I've been running tires at about 36psi and think it's also helping fuel economy.

The other thing about the scangauge is you will quickly see how you cannot fuel up your tank consistantly to read mileage. You have to average your fills over a longer time period.
The scangauge is a fun and entertaining tool for us anal retentive people. It also probably kept me from selling my 07 awd because I perceived my mileage to be horrible. Once getting 36 psi in the tires and learning a bit about good speeds to drive I've probably picked up about 10% better econ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Does anyone have any data for the older pilots in terms of speed vs. fuel consumption?

I would like to determine the optimal long range cruise speed and compare it to high speeds to see how significant the drop in endurance becomes. I know this will vary with environmental and weight variables but a ballpark would be nice.

Thx.
I drive routinely at about 50-55 with CC. 87 octane gas. pretty loaded most of the time. In the city I can get 20-22 mpg and on the interstate I get 24-26 with good driving conditions. I get horrible mpg in the city with frequent stop and go 14-18 mpg. I have gotten 34 mpg only once with a stiff tail wind. I don't see a lot of fuel consumption difference between 50 and 55 mph as long as I stay steady on speed. Hope this helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,461 Posts
My commute is 70% HW at 65 m/h on cruize control and 30% city. Averaging 22 mpg.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top