Drive Accord Honda Forums banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all,

I would appreciate some feedback. I just got a 2019 Accord Sport 2.0T. About 3rd time filling up the tank and every fill up the fuel range keeps dropping. First fill up ~320, second ~300, now ~285. Car only has about 600 miles on with 70% highway 30% city. I don’t drive it hard and it’s mostly on Eco. Is this normal or is something wrong?

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
For the 27th time I have posted this - 3 fill ups is not a good sample size for fuel consumption measuring. Drive the car for a few thousand miles and see what you get. Do the calculation yourself - don't rely on the car.

Or stop worrying about MPG. You bought a 2.0 as I did. I assume MPG is not your top priority or you would have gone with the 1.5. I changed the screen to the tach full time and rarely look at the MPG. Give it a shot - it will probably help you relax a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thanks for the feedback. Coming from a 2016 Accord Sport I was used to seeing 300+ range and high 20s MPG. At some point I'll tune it and have fun with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,274 Posts
Thanks for the feedback. Coming from a 2016 Accord Sport I was used to seeing 300+ range and high 20s MPG. At some point I'll tune it and have fun with it.
I've found the range estimator to be conservative overall, so don't worry too much. As other say, calc your actuals and (adding) put them in a spreadsheet and look at them after 10 tanks... also mind that as the weather gets cooler, mileage will drop a little.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Hi all,

I would appreciate some feedback. I just got a 2019 Accord Sport 2.0T. About 3rd time filling up the tank and every fill up the fuel range keeps dropping. First fill up ~320, second ~300, now ~285. Car only has about 600 miles on with 70% highway 30% city. I don’t drive it hard and it’s mostly on Eco. Is this normal or is something wrong?

Thanks
I have the same 2019 2.0 Sport but manual, but changed wheels/tires to 17' right on delivery day, after 3k miles I can get easily 450 miles range on the hwy, my average based on onboard comp is 34mpg, based on ~40%hwy/60%city, on hwy I can gest easily 36mpg, I drive on eco at hwy speeds 70-75mph
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
I drive on eco at hwy speeds 70-75mph
Have you seen a mpg difference at highway speeds with eco on? I know the HVAC is dumbed down with eco on, but I'm guessing it doesn't make much of a difference in efficiency at highway speeds.

Also -- I have to ask -- did you switch to 17" wheels just to get better mpg? It would be an odd choice to go with the 2.0T and then get smaller wheels to try to offset mpg loss...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Have you seen a mpg difference at highway speeds with eco on? I know the HVAC is dumbed down with eco on, but I'm guessing it doesn't make much of a difference in efficiency at highway speeds.

Also -- I have to ask -- did you switch to 17" wheels just to get better mpg? It would be an odd choice to go with the 2.0T and then get smaller wheels to try to offset mpg loss...
reason for switching to 17" was mainly for comfort and softer ride, I had previously on 2014 Sport 18" wheels/tires and didn't like the rough ride, it's now much better, milage was not really a reason but can't complain about this milage I get,
I drive so far on eco, so can't comment on how it would be with eco off
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
I don't understand buying the 2.0 and driving in eco. I guess if you really hate CVTs, but otherwise why not go with the 1.5?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
Let me add something else just to keep you awake at night: I do not know when you bought the car, but it is possible since then the refineries switched from summer to winter blend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
I mean you buy the bigger engine with better performance and then mute it with the eco button. I'm just trying to understand why not go with the more fuel efficient engine/transmission combination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Thanks for the feedback. Coming from a 2016 Accord Sport I was used to seeing 300+ range and high 20s MPG. At some point I'll tune it and have fun with it.
Two different sized fuel tanks. The 2016 has a larger tank so even with slightly worse MPG’s you are going further per tank compared with the new gen
 

·
BriGuy5
Joined
·
178 Posts
I don't understand buying the 2.0 and driving in eco. I guess if you really hate CVTs, but otherwise why not go with the 1.5?
At least with the sport version, the 2.0T also gets you all the EX goodies like a sunroof and blind spot monitoring, cross traffic warning, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,274 Posts
Two different sized fuel tanks. The 2016 has a larger tank so even with slightly worse MPG’s you are going further per tank compared with the new gen
Hmm. I'm going much further per tank on the 10th gen with a smaller tank than my previous Accord with its larger tank ... (2003 2.4 L).

I've gone over 500 miles between fills a few times, and per the amount of fuel put in, going to 500 is possible on almost every tank. (1.5L LX). On the best mileage tanks my highway speeds were in the 60 - 75 mph range, leaning higher whenever safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Hmm. I'm going much further per tank on the 10th gen with a smaller tank than my previous Accord with its larger tank ... (2003 2.4 L).

I've gone over 500 miles between fills a few times, and per the amount of fuel put in, going to 500 is possible on almost every tank. (1.5L LX). On the best mileage tanks my highway speeds were in the 60 - 75 mph range, leaning higher whenever safe.
Yes indeed very interesting. Using the data from EPA and fuel tank size, you should be able to get 464 city miles and 636 highway miles from a 2016 accord 2.4l with a 17.2 gal tank.
The 2018 1.5l turbo CVT should achieve 444 city and 562 miles before running dry.
In summary, 74 miles of highway range and 20 miles of city only driving range MORE with a 2016.

One other point, whereas the original poster was comparing a 2016 model, the 2003 has a similar predicament. With its lower epa as compared to the 2016 model, it still had a 17.1 gal tank taking it 19 miles further in highway only driving.
I do recognize EPA and actual are two different beasts but it’s hard to overcome more gas carrying capacity unless you are comparing a F250 to a Prius.
queue the “I hate that our cars only hold 14.8 gals of gas” comments now. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,274 Posts
Yes indeed very interesting. Using the data from EPA and fuel tank size, you should be able to get 464 city miles and 636 highway miles from a 2016 accord 2.4l with a 17.2 gal tank.
The 2018 1.5l turbo CVT should achieve 444 city and 562 miles before running dry.
In summary, 74 miles of highway range and 20 miles of city only driving range MORE with a 2016.
Good points. What I was really on about is the huge difference between the OP's miles per tank and what he should get with appropriate 'ish' for the myriad variables. Full tank? A ¼ tank fetishist? What kind of tank, really?

Civic? Wha?
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top