The other day we moved our son back from college. About 95 miles each way. Wife traded the Minivan in on a new CR-V so we had to take two cars.

My Accord is a '14 with the 6 speed manual 2.4. EPA is 24/34. CR-V is a '15 and the EPA says 26/33. Same brand of cars, same engine but different transmissions.

This trip was mostly highway, nice weather, no A/C needed. I got 36.4 and the CR-V got 27.6. That's a big difference for a 1 mpg difference for the EPA highway. The weights are similar, but the body style is way different.

Shouldn't the EPA rating for the highway be about 9 mpgs different?

Any thoughts on this?

 

If CR-V has all-wheel drive, this will reduce gas mileage IMO due to extra drag of differential. There may be a significant weight difference. Wind drag on the CR-V is likely significantly higher than Accord.

Incidently, I have found the gas mileage from the trip computer to be somewhat optimistic, perhaps by 5-10 %. Occasionally, it will be close (< 5%), but never conservative. From what I've read gas mileage is calculated based on mass air flow and pre-determined fuel/air ratio (A/F sensor controlled).

good luck

 

I understand what you are saying, but my Accords computer is usually within a 1/10 or so, understated. So has the CR-V.

The other part I don't understand is are the EPA's numbers. I though they took into account the all wheel drive and much more wind resistance.

 

Even though they have the same engine displacement, many variables come into play when considering mpg as has already been stated

Manual vs. automatic
Body style = wind drag
All wheel drive
Load capacity
Dual or single exhaust
The driver behind the wheel

It should be expected that the Accord with manual trans will get better mpg than a CR-V with automatic

EPA ratings are merely a guide-line

 

The EPA ratings are pretty much useless when it comes to real-world driving, even when it comes to comparing different cars. Said ratings are more formula based than fact based, and can vary rather dramatically compared to what one might expect on the roads.

A few FWIWs:

• I've never had a car I couldn't easily beat the most optimistic EPA ratings.
• While many automatic/CVT/DSG cars now have higher EPA ratings compared otherwise identical cars with manual transmissions; real world reports generally come back showing the cars with three pedals under the dash as delivering better fuel economy.
• There seems to be a general consensus (oft commented on but, to the best of my knowledge, never proven) that the formula used to determine the ratings are skewed in favor of automatic transmission equipped cars over manual, and gasoline fueled engines over diesels. Funny thing; most stick shift cars easily blow away the "better" numbers of their automatic siblings, and most diesel engine cars are capable of obliterating their EPA numbers, by as much as 25% or more.
• I'm not even going to start on the debate surrounding the absurd EPA numbers of hybrids.

 

I always seem to beat the EPA's highway with a stick. Can get close with an automatic.

The EPA needs to try again. Perhaps actually drive the cars on a real road!

 

Perish the thought; real world usages for determining fuel consumption? Never going to happen when the bureaudinks still believe their formula are infallible.