'02 Accord V6 Mileage [24-25]

[Jon]

I've got an '02 Accord V6. Largely very happy with the car, and I'm a pretty picky guy. The car has just shy of 50,000 miles on the clock. New plugs at 30K, new air filter recently, always maintained well, 5W-20 oil.

My commute doesn't vary much, and I get a very consistent 24-25 mpg. I would say it's 50/50 highway/city, but even when I go 100% city (although it's rarely especially bad) the mileage doesn't really change.

The best I've ever seen was 31 mpg on a 6+ hour highway trip at 55-60. 29-30 at 65 for 4 hours (interstate).

Recently, my mom's 2000 Maxima developed an O2 Sensor code, so we replaced the O2 Sensor (not sure if more than one was replaced). Her mileage is currently averaging 37-38 at 55-60, and hers is also a 3.0L V6.

I'm getting right in the middle of what Honda thinks I should be getting, but honestly I'm not too pleased. My questions are:

1. is the mileage I'm getting reasonable?

2. what, if anything, could I do to improve it (I already run +1 or +2 PSI tire pressure, keep it tuned, drive *sanely*, etc...)

3. would new O2 Sensors help me out

 

[CBDFrontier06]

WAIT....Your mom is getting 37 mpg with a MAXIMA? Maybe others on here have heard of that, but I never have. The mileage you're getting with your Accord sounds much more on-par to me.

But to answer your question, it sounds like you're doing everything you can to squeeze every last MPG out of the Accord. Not sure O2 sensors are going to improve that much.

 

[Jon]

Yeah - over two tanks, very accurately measured, with Shell V-Power. Hers has a knock sensor and mine doesn't. Actually she got 37.5 and 38. Granted, this is the first two tanks after the new O2 Sensors and after the ECU was reset or whatever.

 

[Dave H]

For your Accord, I'd guess that would probably be about right. Especially if it is right in the middle of what Honda estimates the car for.

For your Mom's Maxima, I'd say that is freakishly high. Mine (a '97 with the VQ30) gets a consistent 21mpg around town. When I throw in a couple of 70 mile Interstate trips at 75mph, it goes to about 24 mpg (taking the driving to 50/50 city/highway). On one tank of all Interstate at about 70 mph I got just over 29mpg. The rest of that long trip was consistent 28.x mpg.

As for your O2 sensors, I doubt they're bad or lazy at 50,000 miles. It could be possible, I just doubt it because you're getting the Honda estimated mileage. I wouldn't change them out because it would take an awful lot of fuel savings to offset the cost of new sensors. I don't think you'd re-coup the cost.

Sounds like you're doing all you can for mileage. Increasing tire pressure much more probably won't give you anything measurable.

Dave

 

[Jon]

I was told my a mechanic that the "new" O2 sensors spec'd for the Nissan series apparently make a really big difference, they are "not the same" as the ones shipped with the cars. I'll ask again for more details. Oh well. If mileage was my primary concern, I'd have a prius or one of those honda thingers.

 

[CBDFrontier06]

I can't help but wonder if the Maxima isn't running a bit too lean. She's approaching the same mileage as a gently driven Corolla.

 

[Jon]

Dunno. The O2 Sensors *are* brand-spanking new. I guess we'll see. Honestly, I really don't care for the Maximas. I really love my Honda but the recent rattles, combined with fuel dilution issues (minor but annoying), cold-start stumble that *won't* trip the CEL but can easily be felt by anyone (annoying), non-working cruise control in cold weather (very annoying), and mediocre gas mileage makes me question whether my next vehicle should be a Honda or not. I love the way it handles and rides (especially with Michelin Pilot Exaltos) and the V6 really is sweet (power and sound and smoothness), but I'd be just as happy with an inline 4.

I'm thinking about trading it in on a smaller Kia/Hyundai or Toyota/Scion. I might consider a Civic if one could be found for less than the same-weight price as platinum.

 

[mechtech2]

Hondas used to be simple and light.
Yours is heavy and complicated.
Gas mileage suffers.

 

[milwaukee]

I find it amusing that your accord gets similar mileage to a Ford Crown Victoria.

 

[RTexasF]

I get 27 in town with a 2.4l 5 speed manual Accord. I'd say your MPG is right on the money.

 

[rpn453]

The EPA rating on that accord is 18/26, so I don't think you should be concerned.

Quote:

---

I find it amusing that your accord gets similar mileage to a Ford Crown Victoria.

---

It's about 15% better. You must be easily amused.

 

[milwaukee]

My 1996 Mercury Grand Marquis was capable of 21 mpg city and 28 hwy.


Doesn't seem too different to me. I still find it amusing that a domestic land yacht with a v8 gets similar mileage to a "high tech" car that is smaller in every area and has a smaller engine.

That is amusing.

 

[M1Accord]

I get 24 mpg in mix driving with the same model running M1 5W20. On straight highway, I get about 33 for 55-60 mph range and about 30-31 for 70-75 mph range, which is my prefer range in order to stay awake in this toaster.

 

[Quattro Pete]

I had an '00 Accord V6. I would get around 21 mpg in town, and about 30 on the hwy. It was like that since new. I would say your Accord's mpg is right on the money.

My current 530i gets about 30 on the hwy at 75 mph. It's a manual though and takes premium gas.

 

[rpn453]

Quote:

---

My 1996 Mercury Grand Marquis was capable of 21 mpg city and 28 hwy.


Doesn't seem too different to me. I still find it amusing that a domestic land yacht with a v8 gets similar mileage to a "high tech" car that is smaller in every area and has a smaller engine.

That is amusing.

---

You must also find it amusing that the Accord's 3.0L engine makes more power than your Mercury's 4.6L, yet the Accord still gets 15% better mileage under identical driving conditions.

The Crown Vic/Grand Marquis gets decent mileage for a large vehicle, but the Accord's mileage is on par with similar 2002-model domestic or import vehicles. A 2002 Taurus with a 3.0L, for example, is rated 18/25 with either 155 hp or 200 hp.

 

[milwaukee]

If a crown vic gets "decent" mileage for a large vehicle then a Accord v6 gets poor mileage for a mid size car.

An Accord v6 is not a very efficient vehicle IMO.

 

[linkman]

My 97 maxima avg'ed 35-37 on long trips at 55-60 and 24 nyc city wise traffic on premium gas with redline oil/ d4 atf.

 

[cousincletus]

Quote:

---

If a crown vic gets "decent" mileage for a large vehicle then a Accord v6 gets poor mileage for a mid size car.

An Accord v6 is not a very efficient vehicle IMO.

---

The Impala is also a larger car in every dimension, base engine has similar torque to Honda's optional V-6 and the Impala outhandles the Accord (barely). I get 26-28 mpg going to and from work 60/40 highway/city and a best ever of 34 mpg. Regularly gets 32 on a trip. As I found out the hard way (had a 2006 Cobalt that got similar gas mileage as the much larger Impala) the size of a car doesn't necessarily correlate w/fuel mileage.

 

[cousincletus]

http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimCompare.jsp?acodes=USB40HOC011D0,USB40CHC131A0

 

[rpn453]

Quote:

---

If a crown vic gets "decent" mileage for a large vehicle then a Accord v6 gets poor mileage for a mid size car.

An Accord v6 is not a very efficient vehicle IMO.

---

The size difference isn't as big as you're making it out to be. The fuel economy difference is exactly what one would expect it to be given the difference in weight and frontal area.

Weight
Accord V6: 3250 lb
Grand Marquis: 3800 lb
Difference: 17%

Frontal Area (HxW)
Accord V6: 3859 in^2
Grand Marquis: 4419 in^2
Difference: 15%

EPA Combined Mileage
Accord V6: 21
Grand Marquis: 18
Difference: 17%

I think the Accord is the more efficient transportation any time that there are less than five people in the vehicle and less than a full trunk.