Off Topic A place for you car junkies to boldly post off topic.

1999 mpg

  #1  
Old 10-25-2018, 04:33 PM
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 45
Default 1999 mpg

Bought a 1999 Accord 2.3L 5MT last month. I have a company van, so don't drive it a lot. Filled the tank last month and again today. The car is rated for 28mpg highway. With maybe 20% highway I averaged 27mpg. I could tell it was going to be way better than the Subaru Forester I had, but didn't expect mpgs to be that good. I wonder does anyone typically exceed the EPA mpg rating on their car?
 
  #2  
Old 10-25-2018, 09:36 PM
shipo's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 2,444
Default

Originally Posted by Stevek66 View Post
Bought a 1999 Accord 2.3L 5MT last month. I have a company van, so don't drive it a lot. Filled the tank last month and again today. The car is rated for 28mpg highway. With maybe 20% highway I averaged 27mpg. I could tell it was going to be way better than the Subaru Forester I had, but didn't expect mpgs to be that good. I wonder does anyone typically exceed the EPA mpg rating on their car?
I've never had a car which didn't handily exceed EPA ratings, and that includes BMWs (2), Hondas (2), Chrysler Minivans (4), Mazdas (3), and VWs (3).
 
  #3  
Old 10-25-2018, 09:51 PM
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 45
Default

More so with the manual trans. it seems owners see better than EPA results - but your Chrysler minivans had to be auto! I actually had a 1985 Dodge Caravan with the 2.2L 4, and a 5 speed manual. I guess it depends how you drive. The Dodge Caravan company van I have now averages 22-23 with the 3.3V6. Newer vehicles now tend to do a bit better with automatics, but in the era of the gen 6 Accord the manual was rated as getting slightly better mpgs. Looking on fuelly.com you'll see the 1999 Accord typically gets much better mpgs with the manual.

I like the way the '99 feels like it's geared tall compared to other manuals I had. The shifting in general feels better than my 2002 Subaru Forester, and the 2002 Camry 5MT (yes they made that!) I test drove. Also like the large tank for the size car - I was a bit under 1/8 of a tank after going 384 miles.
 
  #4  
Old 10-26-2018, 06:24 AM
shipo's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 2,444
Default

Originally Posted by Stevek66 View Post
More so with the manual trans. it seems owners see better than EPA results - but your Chrysler minivans had to be auto! I actually had a 1985 Dodge Caravan with the 2.2L 4, and a 5 speed manual. I guess it depends how you drive. The Dodge Caravan company van I have now averages 22-23 with the 3.3V6. Newer vehicles now tend to do a bit better with automatics, but in the era of the gen 6 Accord the manual was rated as getting slightly better mpgs. Looking on fuelly.com you'll see the 1999 Accord typically gets much better mpgs with the manual.

I like the way the '99 feels like it's geared tall compared to other manuals I had. The shifting in general feels better than my 2002 Subaru Forester, and the 2002 Camry 5MT (yes they made that!) I test drove. Also like the large tank for the size car - I was a bit under 1/8 of a tank after going 384 miles.
Hmmm, well my minivans, all 3.8 liter Gen3 and Gen4 vans, were easily capable of 25 mpg on the highway; the best was on a run from southwest of Port Huron Michigan, through the Blue Water Bridge toll queue and again through the Canadian immigration queue, then a 10-mile/1-hour crawl in Hamilton due to road construction, the Niagara Falls toll and immigration queues, and then finally the long run down the New York Thruway to Albany. This was a distance of 504 miles on one tank of gas; the OBC showed 28.9 mpg, however the tried and trusted miles divided by gallons only yielded a figure of 28.3 mpg.

On my Gen 6 Accord (a V6 Auto) the best I could accomplish at ~72 mph (with A/C running) was 32 mpg, my Gen 3 TL (with a 6-Speed Manual) easily gets 33 mpg on the highway, and occasionally I get upwards of 35.
 
  #5  
Old 10-26-2018, 09:10 AM
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 45
Default

Originally Posted by shipo View Post
Hmmm, well my minivans, all 3.8 liter Gen3 and Gen4 vans, were easily capable of 25 mpg on the highway; the best was on a run from southwest of Port Huron Michigan, through the Blue Water Bridge toll queue and again through the Canadian immigration queue, then a 10-mile/1-hour crawl in Hamilton due to road construction, the Niagara Falls toll and immigration queues, and then finally the long run down the New York Thruway to Albany. This was a distance of 504 miles on one tank of gas; the OBC showed 28.9 mpg, however the tried and trusted miles divided by gallons only yielded a figure of 28.3 mpg.

On my Gen 6 Accord (a V6 Auto) the best I could accomplish at ~72 mph (with A/C running) was 32 mpg, my Gen 3 TL (with a 6-Speed Manual) easily gets 33 mpg on the highway, and occasionally I get upwards of 35.
Geez! 504 miles on one tank... and in a minivan! And I thought I was doing exceptionally well with the CV (cargo van) Caravan! It is loaded with telecom equipment though. Gotta say those Chrysler V6s are decent, we had a 2005 Caravan with 305k miles. Followed my co-worker to the junkyard with it. Ran fine, we were concerned about the extreme rust.

Getting 28mpg with your minivans - the best my Subaru Forester ever did with about 75% highway was 27mpg. You must have some type of efficient technique. Low rpms aren't always a factor - ironically that can sometimes mean higher fuel consumption. With this Honda, to me geared on the tall side - I'll leave it in 4th at 40mph, that's 2000rpm. The engine seems efficient at that speed. I try not to let it get down to 1500 like I'd do with the Subaru. Maybe it would be Ok, don't know - it's been a long time since I've had a manual trans. Honda.
 
  #6  
Old 10-26-2018, 09:22 AM
shipo's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 2,444
Default

Originally Posted by Stevek66 View Post
Geez! 504 miles on one tank... and in a minivan! And I thought I was doing exceptionally well with the CV (cargo van) Caravan! It is loaded with telecom equipment though. Gotta say those Chrysler V6s are decent, we had a 2005 Caravan with 305k miles. Followed my co-worker to the junkyard with it. Ran fine, we were concerned about the extreme rust.

Getting 28mpg with your minivans - the best my Subaru Forester ever did with about 75% highway was 27mpg. You must have some type of efficient technique. Low rpms aren't always a factor - ironically that can sometimes mean higher fuel consumption. With this Honda, to me geared on the tall side - I'll leave it in 4th at 40mph, that's 2000rpm. The engine seems efficient at that speed. I try not to let it get down to 1500 like I'd do with the Subaru. Maybe it would be Ok, don't know - it's been a long time since I've had a manual trans. Honda.
The 504 mile tank was run on nice open roads (with the exception of the five traffic snarls previously stated) at an average speed of about 68 mph. This was on our 3.8 liter 1998 DGC Sport; I was the lone passenger and, other than the three rows of seats, there was nothing else in it except a suitcase. Interestingly enough, the van had about 145,000 miles on the clock at the time.

I'm currently driving my very first Honda (well, Acura) with a manual transmission; as with pretty much all of my other manual cars (fifteen and counting), it doesn't like being lugged, 1,500 RPMs is only for lower gears, fifth I try to keep above 1,800, and sixth I keep over 2,000.
 
  #7  
Old 10-27-2018, 11:58 AM
Been Around A Long Time Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Kimball MI
Posts: 908
Default

My wife's 2000 Accord 2.3L AT gets 27-28 out on the highway (road trips). Most of the time we're rolling along at 80 (cruise control on) with the AC on. Of course this is with the car loaded up with stuff for 3 people for 10 days. With a lot of city driving, the mileage drops to around 25. The last road trip found us topping the car up in Port Huron, and 5 fuel stops later found us in Texas (1300 miles away). I probably could have dropped a fuel stop, but we were getting something to eat, or spending the night, so it would get a top off before we left. Most fuel stops were 13 gallons at a time.
 
  #8  
Old 10-27-2018, 02:21 PM
shipo's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 2,444
Default

Wow, two references to Port Huron in the same thread; what are the odds?
 
  #9  
Old 10-28-2018, 01:24 PM
Been Around A Long Time Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Kimball MI
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by shipo View Post
Wow, two references to Port Huron in the same thread; what are the odds?
Well, I live just outside of Port Huron (it's about 5 miles away). I was surprised to see your reference to it though. And yes, I've been caught in the queue going in both directions crossing over the bridge to Canada/US customs.
 
  #10  
Old 10-28-2018, 04:38 PM
shipo's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 2,444
Default

Originally Posted by The Toecutter View Post
Well, I live just outside of Port Huron (it's about 5 miles away). I was surprised to see your reference to it though. And yes, I've been caught in the queue going in both directions crossing over the bridge to Canada/US customs.
I grew up north of Detroit, and until about a year ago still had family in Oakland County. My brother just sold the Royal Oak house he raised his kids in and bought a 30 acre farm out in Brooklyn. I haven't calculated the difference yet, but I suspect going through Port Huron is no longer the short-cut from New Hampshire it once was. Maybe going through Detroit might be a bit quicker than going through Toledo, but then again, going through Ohio eliminates queuing for the tolls and customs. Not sure how I'll do it next time.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 1999 mpg


Advertising

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.