I almost don't want to do it. My 52.0 tank average is now down to 48.0, and it will only get worse tomorrow

Oh, well, it's for the greater good

 

Hi NASAngineer:

___I know, I was just throwing a little mud into the mix, promise

___At least CGameProgrammer will finally have someone to compare too

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

 

Hills account for the difference, by the way. This car really makes you very sensitive to whether or not you're going uphill; surfaces I'd consider level I end up having to assist to go across one way, and the other way I get unusually high mileage. It's weird.

I never use cruise control so even I am interested in seeing what results NASA gets. Based on our earlier math, my guess is 39-40. But considering that's a 33% speed increase over 60 mph, that's not that bad.

By the way, I have reason to suspect the trip meter is extremely inaccurate! For example, today, with 320 miles on Trip A, I coasted for a quarter of a mile and my trip MPG went from 36 to 43! So it's obviously wrong. And that's far from the first time I've seen that sort of thing -- it changes radically no matter how many miles I have on.

If you still think it's somehow possible for it to be accurate, let me show you in math. If I get 36 mpg over 320 miles then I used 8.89 gallons of gas over 320 miles. If I go a quarter of a mile using no gas then that's 320.25 miles divided by 8.89 = 36.02. So the computer's an idiot. And yes, that was a consistent 36 beforehand. Hell, even coasting 10 miles would give 37 mpg trip.

Maybe mine is broken (the gauge that measures precise fuel flow perhaps?) but it seems to underestimate more than anything else. 38 mpg on my first tank came as quite a shock since the computer for the longest time was suggesting I'd get like 33 mpg at best.

 

Wow, that does sound like a problem somewhere. Mine hops around alot right after a reset, but the more miles it gets, the slower it changes. My trip B (tank) has dropped slowly from 52 to 48 over the last ~150 miles and has not strayed outside that range.

 

Day 3 (80 MPH)

Today's test was somewhat of a bust because I was not able to maintain 80 MPH the whole time due to traffic.

Home -> Work

Trip Mileage: 43.3 MPG
Set Speed: 80 MPH
Temp: 57 (start), 59 (end)
SoC: 88% (start), 100% (end)
Time: 28 minutes
Notes: Speed fluctuated between 70-80, only on CC 50% of the time

Work -> Home

Trip Mileage: 43.4 MPG
Set Speed: 80 MPH
Temp: 64 (start), 70 (end)
SoC: 88% (start), 88% (end)
Time: 30 minutes
Notes: Able to maintain 80 on CC for more time than the ride in, but overall speed varied from 60-80 due to traffic. On CC 75% of the time.

 

I've been following your great reseach!
Looks like the sweet spot for mileage is closer to 60 MPH.
I wish it was faster since like most people here in SoCal, I drive around 75-85.

So at that speed its about twice as efficient as a Cadillac Deville (gets about 24 mpgs)

 

Terrain seems to play a big factor too. CC does better on the flats, but not so great on hills. I'm sure I could do better on my commute by going 60-65 without CC.

Another interesting note: I used my handheld GPS today to compare the speedometer with the GPS speed and they matched exactly. My '99 Accord consistently read 5 MPH lower than the GPS.

 

Try again, perhaps on Friday or this weekend, NASA... you seem to be getting better results than I do, but then your speed varied. My second tank was only 38.5 mpg even though I drove gently, except on the highway when I'd go 75-80, but you report 43.5 mpg on that (assuming accurate trip meter). My trip meter was reading 41.5 mpg when I finished, off by 3.

 

I don't go to work again until Monday, so I'll try then, traffic permitting.

 

if you want to go faster than 60 and get good mileage you first must admit:

a) an uglier car like the prius thanks to its sleek areodynamic design

b) a better crusing engine, and so far honda's the case with this one. toyota's 1.5 litre got owned by a 1.3 haha but **** they have a nice hybrid system!