|
|
|
|
 |
ezshift5
 |
|
Fuel economy notes for the last month just prior to rolling over 90,000 miles. Not much different from the first fill - - - 5 years ago.
2027.7 miles/70.938 gallons. 28.6 MPG. Range: 23.6 - 30.8. Median: somewhere between 29.5 and 26.8. Mode: 26.5.
Eight fillups: 30.83/30.04/29.93/29.54/26.83/26.41/26.07/23.6
Still using OEM pads at 90k. No complaints, ez.....................
|
owequitit
 |
|
Very nice. I am still disappointed with VCM. Our 2009 sedan keeps getting marginally better, but it still can't touch the 06 at all, and it was much more responsive and visceral.
I just got 33MPG out of my Si for the last two tanks, and am pretty happy about that, but I just don't like some of the MPG technology Honda has implemented. I think owners would be happier with the non VCM 6 (even if detuned) and a 6AT.
|
danielgr
 |
|
ezshift5 wrote:
Fuel economy notes for the last month just prior to rolling over 90,000 miles. Not much different from the first fill - - - 5 years ago.
2027.7 miles/70.938 gallons. 28.6 MPG. Range: 23.6 - 30.8. Median: somewhere between 29.5 and 26.8. Mode: 26.5.
Eight fillups: 30.83/30.04/29.93/29.54/26.83/26.41/26.07/23.6
Still using OEM pads at 90k. No complaints, ez.....................
|
Thanks for sharing !
It seems that you are tracking your FE pretty closely, why not participating in TOV's real world FE database so that we can keep track of it and see how it compares with other cars ? [we still have no Accord in there :) ]
|
danielgr
 |
|
owequitit wrote:
Very nice. I am still disappointed with VCM. Our 2009 sedan keeps getting marginally better, but it still can't touch the 06 at all, and it was much more responsive and visceral.
I just got 33MPG out of my Si for the last two tanks, and am pretty happy about that, but I just don't like some of the MPG technology Honda has implemented. I think owners would be happier with the non VCM 6 (even if detuned) and a 6AT.
|
Well, to be honest you haven't try putting your old J30 on your new considerably bigger and heavier Accord to see how responsive it would be and how good FE would it get...
Given the fact that even the VCM J35 makes more power through the whole rev-band than the J30 did (the difference is small at low revs, increases considerably at higher revs), it was likely to feel even slower and less responsive. Same would happen with your stellar FE, with the old engine having to work harder to move your new car, and therefore using more gas (also in the highway thanks to the larger front area and any up-downhill you may experience).
Besides, to get VCM engines FE benefit you have to drive your car at low loads (i.e. "slow" and "smooth"). Maybe you aren't really doing that (because maybe you don't want to, and you are in your perfect right to do it, just saying that's normal that you don't get better FE in such case); that's up to the user to decide.
Finally, your J30 wasn't rated P-ZEV, which may have also something to do with it.
In the end though, I have the feeling you dislike more the weight and bulkiness of your new car than its engine.
|
owequitit
 |
|
danielgr wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Very nice. I am still disappointed with VCM. Our 2009 sedan keeps getting marginally better, but it still can't touch the 06 at all, and it was much more responsive and visceral.
I just got 33MPG out of my Si for the last two tanks, and am pretty happy about that, but I just don't like some of the MPG technology Honda has implemented. I think owners would be happier with the non VCM 6 (even if detuned) and a 6AT.
|
Well, to be honest you haven't try putting your old J30 on your new considerably bigger and heavier Accord to see how responsive it would be and how good FE would it get...
Given the fact that even the VCM J35 makes more power through the whole rev-band than the J30 did (the difference is small at low revs, increases considerably at higher revs), it was likely to feel even slower and less responsive. Same would happen with your stellar FE, with the old engine having to work harder to move your new car, and therefore using more gas (also in the highway thanks to the larger front area and any up-downhill you may experience).
Besides, to get VCM engines FE benefit you have to drive your car at low loads (i.e. "slow" and "smooth"). Maybe you aren't really doing that (because maybe you don't want to, and you are in your perfect right to do it, just saying that's normal that you don't get better FE in such case); that's up to the user to decide.
Finally, your J30 wasn't rated P-ZEV, which may have also something to do with it.
In the end though, I have the feeling you dislike more the weight and bulkiness of your new car than its engine.
|
B.S. B.S. and more B.S. I have looked at the dyno graphs. I hardly call about a 10-20HP difference all that significant, since it works out to less than 10%.
Also, the VCM engine is no stronger in the bottom end, and considering the relatively large displacement gain, and the MPG drop, it is far from worth it. Then you add in the lazy PCM programming, and it is even more lethargic.
Truth be told, the 09 pulls ever so slightly better than the 06 at speeds approaching 90MPH, but it is not significant enough to worry about. We are talking inches.
More importantly, we were ROUTINELY getting 26-27MPG city out of the 2006, whereas 21MPG out of the 09 in the EXACT same conditions is a chore. Sorry, but 150lbs wouldn't account for that much of a difference in MPG. We also ROUTINELY ran 33-36MPG on the highway, whereas the 09 is lucky to get 25-26 under the EXACT same conditions.
As for the difference in emmissions, I am pretty sure the real world results would be significantly similar due to the decrease gas usage (even if the amount of pollutant per gallon was higher), and I am not totally certain our 2009 is actually P-ZEV. If it is, I bet it is largely a paper excercise like EPA ratings.
Sorry Daniel, but I know a thing or two about engines, and the VCM unit sucks comparatively speaking. Especially when the non-VCM units are far more powerful and responsive and are also returning significantly better MPG numbers.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
|  |
|