[AlanTheBeastV2]

Well the 1.5T doesn't "awe the community" according to one member of these august precincts, however it is delivering the sort of outstanding performance that some of us are seeking...

To whit, while still on the very first tank of gas, almost 500 km before the "broken in" point, I got a noteworthy door-to-door 4.9 L/100 km consumption today on my drive to work... (48 MPG).

Speed over most of that was a calm 85 km/hr. Noted that a VW Jetta pulled in behind me and stuck there for most of that but he pulled out 2 exits before me... another value performance fan I guess...

I'll test it at 100 km/hr going home tonight...

On the attached photo, at the end of the 25 km highway portion...

 

[Markus]

No doubt these 10th gens can be fuel sippers, but a 25km journey at fairly low speeds is meaningless as I'm sure you know. Just about any car can be coaxed into sipping fuel over such a short distance on the highway.

 

[2018TwoPointOh]

That's great news, but don't count on that being accurate. Other than calculating your mileage after filling up, every thing else is a scientific guess.

 

[Markus]

That's great news, but don't count on that being accurate. Other than calculating your mileage after filling up, every thing else is a scientific guess.

I find fuel consumption figures over short distances one-way to be fairly meaningless. Fuel consumption figures, calculated manually, over several tanks of fuel, are closer to real-world figures.

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

That's great news, but don't count on that being accurate. Other than calculating your mileage after filling up, every thing else is a scientific guess.

When driving at higher speeds it's indicating pretty much "Honda claim" L/100KM.

Further, Trip A is "first tank" so I'll be able to compare actual mileage to the car computer and we'll see how well they match or not.

Of course that tank will be the average of many speed, acceleration, stop-go combos, etc. so won't be as lean as this am's drive.

As time (and tanks of gas go by) I'll have more and more accurate/representative values. (I keep all this in an excel spreadsheet ...). And after the summer goes then I'll know the "summer" performance. And as the seasons change, well... I could also add an independent GPS logger and write some s/w to correlate it all with recorded OBS II data ... nice project to do. My current OBD logger (iPhone based) would not be ideal, alas.

A nice feature of the car is the trip log that resets on fill up. So I'll have a backstop to the data collection.

All that to say, yeah, I know how to calculate these and the more interesting (and realistic) data is a few tanks down the road.

I find fuel consumption figures over short distances one-way to be fairly meaningless. Fuel consumption figures, calculated manually, over several tanks of fuel, are closer to real-world figures.

Completely agree. OTOH, the figure above did correlate well with the "blue" meter in the car as the consumption asymptotically converged towards the blue meter without getting there so I'm pretty confidant in it. OTOH, hard to keep to this "diet" of driving over a full tank... the issue remains about how accurately the car can actually measure fuel flow.

See my other reply as well ...

 

[InTotalAccord]

As a side comment, on "one-way" fuel consumption:

It is about a five mile drive for me to go to our town's "downtown" area (each way). The elevation of downtown is around 300 feet above sea level. My house is on a bit of a hill, and is somewhere in the 800-900 feet above sea level range.

My car is a 2018 Accord Hybrid.

As I drive to town, I always see the trip mpg slowly increasing. And then it starts decreasing on the way home. In looking at the record of each drive, the last time I looked it was 63 mpg going to town, and 35 mpg going home. Quite difference for a 500 feet or so elevation change (over five miles of driving distance)!

I see a similar, but smaller effect on my commute, which is 35 miles each way. House is at 800-900 feet, there is one point on the drive where I get to a bit over 1,000 feet, and then I end up at sea level (very close to SF Bay). Mileage going to work is always slightly better than coming home.

I don't know when I will try it, but it will be interesting to see what mpg I get in driving up to Lake Tahoe. Once you get past Sacramento, which is only a hundred feet or so above sea level, it is a steady uphill drive to the Donner Pass, at 7,000 feet (then a bit downhill to the Lake). The gas engine will be on the entire time, basically. But coming home it is all downhill, and the gas engine will be off until nearly in Sacramento.... But the battery pack will be fully charged very early on, and so a lot of energy will be wasted to some extent....

 

[slickshift6]

Well the 1.5T doesn't "awe the community" according to one member of these august precincts, however it is delivering the sort of outstanding performance that some of us are seeking...

To whit, while still on the very first tank of gas, almost 500 km before the "broken in" point, I got a noteworthy door-to-door 4.9 L/100 km consumption today on my drive to work... (48 MPG).

Speed over most of that was a calm 85 km/hr. Noted that a VW Jetta pulled in behind me and stuck there for most of that but he pulled out 2 exits before me... another value performance fan I guess...

I'll test it at 100 km/hr going home tonight...

On the attached photo, at the end of the 25 km highway portion...

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

As a side comment, on "one-way" fuel consumption:

It is about a five mile drive for me to go to our town's "downtown" area (each way). The elevation of downtown is around 300 feet above sea level. My house is on a bit of a hill, and is somewhere in the 800-900 feet above sea level range.

My car is a 2018 Accord Hybrid.

As I drive to town, I always see the trip mpg slowly increasing. And then it starts decreasing on the way home. In looking at the record of each drive, the last time I looked it was 63 mpg going to town, and 35 mpg going home. Quite difference for a 500 feet or so elevation change (over five miles of driving distance)!

I see a similar, but smaller effect on my commute, which is 35 miles each way. House is at 800-900 feet, there is one point on the drive where I get to a bit over 1,000 feet, and then I end up at sea level (very close to SF Bay). Mileage going to work is always slightly better than coming home.

I don't know when I will try it, but it will be interesting to see what mpg I get in driving up to Lake Tahoe. Once you get past Sacramento, which is only a hundred feet or so above sea level, it is a steady uphill drive to the Donner Pass, at 7,000 feet (then a bit downhill to the Lake). The gas engine will be on the entire time, basically. But coming home it is all downhill, and the gas engine will be off until nearly in Sacramento.... But the battery pack will be fully charged very early on, and so a lot of energy will be wasted to some extent....

Case for which the car was not designed ... at least it's a free trip downhill - not even idle. I guess you could turn on every possible gadget, charge your phones, ipads, laptops, etc. all on the downhill side... although that 100 miles will go by faster than the ability of those devices to charge...

 

[gadgtfreek]

I just drove 300 miles on rural back roads today on a trip. You know varying speed, cruise around 60 or 65mph, and I ended at my hotel with 40.9 miles to gallon. Very nice!

 

[meowcat]

I find fuel consumption figures over short distances one-way to be fairly meaningless. Fuel consumption figures, calculated manually, over several tanks of fuel, are closer to real-world figures.

Yup, very meaningless. Heck, if I were to go by that measure, I could claim my V6 gets 47mpg!! :0

 

[buddy_maynard]

48 mpg is pretty good. I was really happy with the 39.4 mpg that my 2.0T got on a 150 mile trip. I was probably averaging 75 mph.

I was shocked to see 39.4. The previous best was 37.6.

 

[HondaBre]

To whit, while still on the very first tank of gas, almost 500 km before the "broken in" point, I got a noteworthy door-to-door 4.9 L/100 km consumption today on my drive to work... (48 MPG

It looks like 1.5T is a great car, gas consumption wise...
- I see your cruise is set to 85km/h but actual speed is higher. Did you go downhill at that moment or cruise does not keep speed steady?
- Were you at that moment actually keep pressing gas pedal or not? As doing 85-87km/h at 1500 rpm is really great.

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

Yup, very meaningless. Heck, if I were to go by that measure, I could claim my V6 gets 47mpg!! :0

What were the conditions?

It looks like 1.5T is a great car, gas consumption wise...
- I see your cruise is set to 85km/h but actual speed is higher. Did you go downhill at that moment or cruise does not keep speed steady?
- Were you at that moment actually keep pressing gas pedal or not? As doing 85-87km/h at 1500 rpm is really great.

Level ground, steady-state.

Parallax I guess. I was seeing it as 84 km/hr. But the camera (iphone) was held lower so saw the needle a bit higher.

This AM I was seeing 85 km/hr as a tad over 1500 RPM.

48 mpg is pretty good. I was really happy with the 39.4 mpg that my 2.0T got on a 150 mile trip. I was probably averaging 75 mph.

I was shocked to see 39.4. The previous best was 37.6.

Once at steady state the consumption really drops... I'm surprised you got that at 75mph though...

Downhill with a nice tailwind perhaps?

 

[meowcat]

What were the conditions?

In all honesty, it was a setup. As I sat at an eternal red light that enters a freeway on-ramp, I shut off the engine. I started the engine back up upon the green and slowly accelerated to 70mph for the next 22 miles. As I got off the freeway, I coasted the extended off-ramp until I got that number. It is not a realistic number, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

^ yeah, it did have sniff issues...

 

[DiLioPi]

My real world mileage for my 1.5T is 28.5 after two fill ups while the computer says an average of 30.4. I use it for mostly city driving with hills as I live on the plateau.

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

My real world mileage for my 1.5T is 28.5 after two fill ups while the computer says an average of 30.4. I use it for mostly city driving with hills as I live on the plateau.

Just filled my first tank last night:

Average of 7.37 L/100 KM (31.9 MPG).

The computer said 7.1 over that tank so it's under reading (indicating more efficient) by about 4%. We'll see how that goes over several tanks.

Per the actuals, when the fuel light comes on, there are about 8 litres left - about 107 km. This is very similar to my prior Accord in terms of usable range left when the light comes on.

In similar driving my 2003 was getting about 9 L/100 KM. Really pushing the efficiency (85 km/h rounds to work) I could get it down to 7.64 L/100 km).

 

[quise2024]

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

That's neat.

I do it all in an excel spreadsheet - can derive more info, keep notes, etc., plus a sheet for maintenance record...

 

[jackpine]

That's neat.

I do it all in an excel spreadsheet - can derive more info, keep notes, etc., plus a sheet for maintenance record...

I do the same thing, Alan. It lets me know if something is going wrong (a sudden big drop in fuel mileage), and, for my truck, I track the mileage separately when I'm towing and when I'm not, as well as the overall (lifetime) mileage. I also track the current cost per mile (for fuel) using the same spreadsheet.

My new Hybrid is giving me 42.9 mpg over 967 miles so far. I live in the "mountains" (big hills, really) in Arizona, so most of my driving is up and down over twisty roads.

- Jack