bad mileage!
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 609
From: New Mexico
Re: bad mileage!
Originally Posted by jahwerx
Oh yeah,and release the e-brake
j/k but I know someone who did this and wondered why her car was smoking from the back.g/l
Me: "391 to base"
Base: "Go ahead 391"
Me: "I have a severely smoking bus."
Base: "Is the smoke coming from the engine compartment?"
Me: "No, from the rear of the bus"
Pause...
Base: "391, is your parking brake on?"
Longer pause...
Me: "391 is underway, over and out."
I took a lot of crap for that one. Even better is the time I accidentally left the flashing red lights on when I went into burger king for a snack and a smoke, I came out and there were about 50 cars lined up behind my empty bus parked on the shoulder. Oops. :-)
Last edited by zimbop; Sep 2, 2005 at 07:46 AM.
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,518
From: New England
Re: bad mileage!
Originally Posted by zimbop
Funny, I wanted a manual, but the only used one available was a CVT. I ended up getting the CVT and being excited about it because I figured they would have programmed it to favor fuel mileage over performance and therefore do better at economy than a manual because it could choose whatever gear ratio it wanted at any time. If it were optimized for economy rather than performance then it should do better than a manual for the added brain power of the computer control. I suppose we are finding that's not true.
Anyway, for the record, I drive mine much like I drove my regular cars before, except I coast down long downgrades, take it easy on uphills, and drive 75 instead of 80. Otherwise I use cruise and AC (in econ mode) whenever I feel like it, and for the most part drive like anyone else. My lifetime mileage after 2500 miles now is 42. Not as high as some people report but it's 20% better than my commuting buddy's regular civic gets on the same daily trip, and it's 60% better than I get in my Forester. I'm happy with that. I could do better, but my time and energy are worth something too - if they weren't I could walk 80 miles to work and use NO gas. So I found a compromise that saves gas without giving up significant amount of time and energy.
Remember that the EPA doesn't use hypermiler techniques in their test, so whatever your driving style you should expect to get proportionally as close to the EPA mileage in this car as you did in any other car you owned.
Anyway, for the record, I drive mine much like I drove my regular cars before, except I coast down long downgrades, take it easy on uphills, and drive 75 instead of 80. Otherwise I use cruise and AC (in econ mode) whenever I feel like it, and for the most part drive like anyone else. My lifetime mileage after 2500 miles now is 42. Not as high as some people report but it's 20% better than my commuting buddy's regular civic gets on the same daily trip, and it's 60% better than I get in my Forester. I'm happy with that. I could do better, but my time and energy are worth something too - if they weren't I could walk 80 miles to work and use NO gas. So I found a compromise that saves gas without giving up significant amount of time and energy.
Remember that the EPA doesn't use hypermiler techniques in their test, so whatever your driving style you should expect to get proportionally as close to the EPA mileage in this car as you did in any other car you owned.
Again, I think Honda engineers could have done a better job with the drive by wire system on the CVT equiped HCH. The econ button could have been the "mode" that regardless of how you press the throttle, the computer would optimize towards fuel economy.
Having said all that... my driving habits came from the feedback of the car. I didn't have to learn to drive the way I do, it sort of came naturally. When I hear people getting under 42 in a HCH, I just don't get it. The reason is, I don't drive slowly or to save fuel. I get to a destination in the same amount of time that I would in a non-hybrid car. I have taken road trips with 3 adults, and had the A/C on the entire time and still manage to get way over 42 mpg and make record time. So the EPA can't be that off.
Last edited by livvie; Sep 2, 2005 at 09:10 AM.
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 11
From: Emmett, ID
Re: bad mileage!
It sounded like the EPA tests are done on a treadmill for consistency. Is this true?
If that's the case then it would not be factoring in any elevation changes nor wind drag which would have a big effect on highway fe. My mileage is always way better suburban areas despite the stop-n-go because at high speeds the wind drag makes it so that you can't let up on the gas much and maintain speed.
Also, while the epa does a 'city driving' test, I don't think it includes a real traffic jam situation that occur in most large cities.. another killer of fe.
If that's the case then it would not be factoring in any elevation changes nor wind drag which would have a big effect on highway fe. My mileage is always way better suburban areas despite the stop-n-go because at high speeds the wind drag makes it so that you can't let up on the gas much and maintain speed.
Also, while the epa does a 'city driving' test, I don't think it includes a real traffic jam situation that occur in most large cities.. another killer of fe.
Hybrid True Believer
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 881
From: Baltimore, MD
Re: bad mileage!
I've found that the AC has been the biggest drain on fuel economy. The EPA doesn't test cars with the AC running. It also doesn't account for wind resistance, road incline, or pavement quality. Thus the EPA figures are "optimal", while real-world driving is frequently less than optimal.
Of course, nor-hybrids also get less FE than the EPA predicts. However, most standard vehicles don't have digital FE gauges. Because of this, hybrids get picked on more than regular cars.
Of course, nor-hybrids also get less FE than the EPA predicts. However, most standard vehicles don't have digital FE gauges. Because of this, hybrids get picked on more than regular cars.
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 550
From: Phoenix, Arizona
Re: bad mileage!
Originally Posted by Sirkut
It sounded like the EPA tests are done on a treadmill for consistency. Is this true?
If that's the case then it would not be factoring in any elevation changes nor wind drag which would have a big effect on highway fe. My mileage is always way better suburban areas despite the stop-n-go because at high speeds the wind drag makes it so that you can't let up on the gas much and maintain speed.
Also, while the epa does a 'city driving' test, I don't think it includes a real traffic jam situation that occur in most large cities.. another killer of fe.
If that's the case then it would not be factoring in any elevation changes nor wind drag which would have a big effect on highway fe. My mileage is always way better suburban areas despite the stop-n-go because at high speeds the wind drag makes it so that you can't let up on the gas much and maintain speed.
Also, while the epa does a 'city driving' test, I don't think it includes a real traffic jam situation that occur in most large cities.. another killer of fe.
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 11
From: Emmett, ID
Re: bad mileage!
Originally Posted by AshenGrey
I've found that the AC has been the biggest drain on fuel economy. The EPA doesn't test cars with the AC running. It also doesn't account for wind resistance, road incline, or pavement quality. Thus the EPA figures are "optimal", while real-world driving is frequently less than optimal.
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6
From: Houston, TX
Re: bad mileage!
It is an interesting idea to visit with the hypermiler from League City. I live near downtown Houston. I'll PM when I'm back from a vacation.
However, I think the key point I wanted to make was that there might be something about the manufacturing process for the CVT that depresses mileage for some vehicles relative to others. Driving habits, tire pressure, AC use, etc. of course matter, but can they really explain the difference between 35 mpg and 55 mpg (both of which are reported for the CVT)? I think not.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I definitely AM a lead foot - just that IF I'm convicted of said crime, it isn't relevant to my broader point which is made by comparing the universes of reported MPG of different vehicles.
However, I think the key point I wanted to make was that there might be something about the manufacturing process for the CVT that depresses mileage for some vehicles relative to others. Driving habits, tire pressure, AC use, etc. of course matter, but can they really explain the difference between 35 mpg and 55 mpg (both of which are reported for the CVT)? I think not.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I definitely AM a lead foot - just that IF I'm convicted of said crime, it isn't relevant to my broader point which is made by comparing the universes of reported MPG of different vehicles.
Last edited by woodland518; Sep 2, 2005 at 02:28 PM. Reason: another thought
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,045
From: Coquitlam, B.C.
Re: bad mileage!
Driving habits and driving environment (mountains etc) sure can explain the huge gap. I can easily take a car out and get terrible mileage if I'm not careful, and at the same time I can get superb mileage if I concentrate on it. Driving style and technique is the single biggest factor in mileage. It's a bit harder to consume as much gas in a manual than in an automatic or CVT because if you floor it in a manual it's only going to accelerate as fast as it can in that gear, in an automatic it will always change the ratio, so fuel consumption jumps up, along with acceleration.
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 335
From: Jacksonville, FL
Re: bad mileage!
Originally Posted by woodland518
Driving habits, tire pressure, AC use, etc. of course matter, but can they really explain the difference between 35 mpg and 55 mpg (both of which are reported for the CVT)? I think not.
