 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Acura Cars / September 2004Fuel consumption
Hi, Just wonder if a new 2004 Acura 1.7 EL Premium can really run up to 800 KM/50 Litre of gas (full tank)? 800km/50litre = 37.8 mi/gal. My 92 Integra 1.8 routinely gets 36 mi/gal highway (avg 60 mph). Your EL is about the size of an Integra and with a smaller and probably more efficient engine. > Hi, > > Just wonder if a new 2004 Acura 1.7 EL Premium can really run up to 800 > KM/50 Litre of gas (full tank)? On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 20:51:07 -0400, "Batong Buhay" <batong.buhay@comcast.net> waived the right to be silent and professed: >800km/50litre = 37.8 mi/gal. My 92 Integra 1.8 routinely gets 36 mi/gal >highway (avg 60 mph). Your EL is about the size of an Integra and with a >smaller and probably more efficient engine. I get 36 MPG on the highway with my 3.2TL. -- Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. On 9/6/04 6:36 AM, in article 7tioj0l54b2bhqsdgic06gjot2bgm8sbao@4ax.com, > On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 20:51:07 -0400, "Batong Buhay" > <batong.buhay@comcast.net> waived the right to be silent and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. What year TL is that? 36 is pretty high for a TL unless you only drive 55 on the highway. >On 9/6/04 6:36 AM, in article 7tioj0l54b2bhqsdgic06gjot2bgm8sbao@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >What year TL is that? 36 is pretty high for a TL unless you only drive 55 >on the highway. It's a 2001. Doing 120-130 kph, which is about 75-80 mph. At 120 kph, it's at 2000 rpm. -- Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. On 9/6/04 4:31 PM, in article 7llpj0171mbq95h9072n2uavi9fddti82c@4ax.com, >> On 9/6/04 6:36 AM, in article 7tioj0l54b2bhqsdgic06gjot2bgm8sbao@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. The best my '00 TL has never done was 33 MPG, and that was only once and involved driving out an entire tank of gas non-stop from fillup to empty on the Interstate with the cruise control set at 79, the AC off and the windows & sunroof open. Otherwise, on the highway it gets 28-30 and around town 20-23. >The best my '00 TL has never done was 33 MPG, and that was only once and >involved driving out an entire tank of gas non-stop from fillup to empty on >the Interstate with the cruise control set at 79, the AC off and the windows >& sunroof open. Otherwise, on the highway it gets 28-30 and around town >20-23. I agree with your best -- 33 at 78 w/o A/C. Back and forth to work, I average between 24 and 26. I read somewhere that, on recent model (better streamlined) vehicles, at high speeds you may get better mileage with AC-on/windows-closed that you would with AC off/windows-open. It explains that open windows disturbs the streamlining greatly increasing the drag to the point that it draws greater engine power than the AC. I haven't tried it myself - just wondering if you folks have experienced this. > >The best my '00 TL has never done was 33 MPG, and that was only once and > >involved driving out an entire tank of gas non-stop from fillup to empty on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I agree with your best -- 33 at 78 w/o A/C. Back and forth to > work, I average between 24 and 26. >I read somewhere that, on recent model (better streamlined) vehicles, at >high speeds you may get better mileage with AC-on/windows-closed that you >would with AC off/windows-open. It explains that open windows disturbs the >streamlining greatly increasing the drag to the point that it draws greater >engine power than the AC. I haven't tried it myself - just wondering if you >folks have experienced this. Yes. That study is true. If I drive over 50 mph, I close the windows to keep the car as streamline as possible. If it's too hot, the A/C goes on -- it's still more fuel efficient than opening the windows. I've read that too. It doesn't seem to pan out in real life. This car has make the same trip with the windows closed and the AC on. The result was 3 mpg worse mileage. Apparently, at least with this TL, the increased drag from having the windows open requires less energy to overcome than the increased load on the engine from the AC. On 9/7/04 12:47 PM, in article t-ydnTNgRs-yaaDcRVn-rw@comcast.com, "Batong Buhay" <batong.buhay@comcast.net> wrote: > I read somewhere that, on recent model (better streamlined) vehicles, at > high speeds you may get better mileage with AC-on/windows-closed that you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> I agree with your best -- 33 at 78 w/o A/C. Back and forth to >> work, I average between 24 and 26. I drive an 87 automatic 5-door and get between 24-26 mpg on an average fill up. When I was in high school, I got about 20 mpg climbing over the really steep hill back and forth to school. I've had about 32 mpg drivin' interstate from one gas station to the next gas station. I think it really depends on the elevations in the terrain, your driving style, and whether you have the AC on all the time. For me, though, AC is a non issue since when I got the car the pump didn't work, it had no freon, and I'm sure the hoses have gone the way of the dodo without use for 6 years. >I drive an 87 automatic 5-door and get between 24-26 mpg on an average > fill up. When I was in high school, I got about 20 mpg climbing over [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > had no freon, and I'm sure the hoses have gone the way of the dodo > without use for 6 years. You could always try one of those $35 kits from K-mart that converts an old system to the new one. It also recharges and has some stuff in it to stop slow leaks. I used one on a '79 Toyota Cressida and it lasted a couple of years before I junked it. --Art |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.