Fuel tank mileage range discussion (continued)
This other thread from a couple weeks ago was closed: https://www.crvownersclub.com/threads/fuel-range-way-below-advertized-2019-crv-touring-awd.201165/
My OCD is kicking in big time tonight. I went for my first fill up on my LX and drove exactly 1.1 miles after the CPU's remaining range went from 1 to 0.
I pulled into the gas station, and it only took 12.325 gallons! It initally clicked off at 11.987 and then I squeezed the pump lever a little more a few times. This is going to cause me headaches! With a 2+ gallon buffer and only a 14 gallon tank, I can only put in a little barely over 12 gallons at a time. That means to get a minimum of 300 miles on a tank, I have to average a minimum of 25mpg. Easy with the turbo engine, not so easy with the 2.4.
Picked up car from dealer with 18.5 miles and a full tank of gas. Filled up at 333.9 miles. I got 25.59mpg on the first tank (by real math, not dash calculation info), which is ok, assuming I can always time my trips to the gas station when the remaining range is between 0 and 5.
Oy!
I guess I should be thankful this is the worst of my problems. Most new cars get poor gas mileage for the first 2-3 tanks, plus it's on winter blend right now. Hopefully by spring, I'll be getting 27mpg routinely and I'll be able to stop driving myself up the wall.
My OCD is kicking in big time tonight. I went for my first fill up on my LX and drove exactly 1.1 miles after the CPU's remaining range went from 1 to 0.
I pulled into the gas station, and it only took 12.325 gallons! It initally clicked off at 11.987 and then I squeezed the pump lever a little more a few times. This is going to cause me headaches! With a 2+ gallon buffer and only a 14 gallon tank, I can only put in a little barely over 12 gallons at a time. That means to get a minimum of 300 miles on a tank, I have to average a minimum of 25mpg. Easy with the turbo engine, not so easy with the 2.4.
Picked up car from dealer with 18.5 miles and a full tank of gas. Filled up at 333.9 miles. I got 25.59mpg on the first tank (by real math, not dash calculation info), which is ok, assuming I can always time my trips to the gas station when the remaining range is between 0 and 5.
Oy!
I guess I should be thankful this is the worst of my problems. Most new cars get poor gas mileage for the first 2-3 tanks, plus it's on winter blend right now. Hopefully by spring, I'll be getting 27mpg routinely and I'll be able to stop driving myself up the wall.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
First tank from dealer is never a good mpg record. Even Fuelly.com intentionally avoids including that first tank in your record.
it's routine now to expect lower mpg in winter. Not onky due to winter gas, but also I reckon many more short trips. New cars loosen up as miles are added.
it's routine now to expect lower mpg in winter. Not onky due to winter gas, but also I reckon many more short trips. New cars loosen up as miles are added.
I am pretty sure that this has been stated elsewhere by others but the way I see it is this:
When the low fuel alert comes on, I fill the tank (within reasonable miles after the alert appears). I get over 300 miles of travel per tank, even though it may say 400+ after fill up. To me, 300+ miles is plenty between fill ups. It's obvious that we can drive considerable farther after the low fuel alert comes on and that is comforting in the case of an emergency.
When the low fuel alert comes on, I fill the tank (within reasonable miles after the alert appears). I get over 300 miles of travel per tank, even though it may say 400+ after fill up. To me, 300+ miles is plenty between fill ups. It's obvious that we can drive considerable farther after the low fuel alert comes on and that is comforting in the case of an emergency.
I agree with everyone. All good points.
In addition to all the factors already listed, I'm very conscientious of varying speed during the new vehicle break-in period, so I'm doing more unnecessary (albeit light) acceleration than usual. Getting over 25mpg on the first tank is actually rather impressive for this car with this engine, especially since they may have filled it (and probably not topped it off) at 3 miles and then driven it 15 to get to the showroom where I picked it up. My calculation excluded the first 18.5 miles.
The range calculator on my old Nissan was just the opposite. It would show an available range of well under 300, usually 271 or 268, upon starting the engine after filling up. Then as I burned a gallon or two, it would recalculate and increase the number accordingly. It got much more accurate as the tank became closer to empty. I once got 560 miles on a single tank while hypermiling. Actually I went through six tanks in a row of 500+ miles back in 2014.
Yesterday was also the first time it got significantly dirty from driving on wet and salty roads, so that was triggering my OCD as well.
In addition to all the factors already listed, I'm very conscientious of varying speed during the new vehicle break-in period, so I'm doing more unnecessary (albeit light) acceleration than usual. Getting over 25mpg on the first tank is actually rather impressive for this car with this engine, especially since they may have filled it (and probably not topped it off) at 3 miles and then driven it 15 to get to the showroom where I picked it up. My calculation excluded the first 18.5 miles.
The range calculator on my old Nissan was just the opposite. It would show an available range of well under 300, usually 271 or 268, upon starting the engine after filling up. Then as I burned a gallon or two, it would recalculate and increase the number accordingly. It got much more accurate as the tank became closer to empty. I once got 560 miles on a single tank while hypermiling. Actually I went through six tanks in a row of 500+ miles back in 2014.
Yesterday was also the first time it got significantly dirty from driving on wet and salty roads, so that was triggering my OCD as well.
What you describe here is an older way manufacturers calculated and presented "range to empty". Honda does it differently, in that if you are driving under conditions that improve mpg for you... Honda simply holds the "range to empty" static until it's calculation at improved mpg is reached, then it will begin to tick down again. You can over ride that I think by turning off the engine and restarting (though I have not actuyally checked that on a gen5). I have literally seen my CRV keep the "range to empty" static for as long as 50+ miles. In my case that is when I am taking a long trip after my more normal weeks of short trip in town driving.
The other thing to be aware of is when you stop to refuel and then restart your CRV on a full tank.. the CRV uses your last fuel economy calculation from before you stopped at the fuel station as it's metric to calculate "range to empty".
At the end of the day.. the CRV is designed the way it is designed, so your OCD tendencies will simply have to adapt.
Generally, once the mind understands how something works, even if different then the mind is used to, the mind quickly adapts. That is afterall.. how we all moved from crawling to walking as toddlers. In my view, stop worrying and just drive and enjoy your new CRV.
Yes, I realize that. Both the Nissan and Honda operate the same in this one respect. However, after filling up and starting the engine last night, the CPU is calculating the available range based on a 14 gallon capacity. When I saw the number, I believe it said 371 or 389, I don't remember, but it was inflated. Realistically, I don't expect to get any number above 320-330 on my current tank, since I'm only going to be able to use 12 of those 14 gallons before returning to the gas station. 12 gallons at 26mpg would bring me to 312.
The 14 gallons isn't a constant, that was just for that fill. I've seen that value range from 11.6 to 15.6, averaging around 13. I suspect the mpg used to estimate range to empty is over a couple of past fills rather than the one just observed.
Is this on a gen5 CR-V? Based on anecdotal data, it seems rather consistent that the listed 14 gallon capacity in the owner's manual is accurate and cannot be exceeded like in some other vehicles. Have you actually pumped over 15 gallons into the tank of a 5th gen CR-V without overflowing it and without some of the fuel getting sucked back into the pump?
What you are seeing in the discussion is the normal variation results from pumping with auto shut-off on the fuel nozzle. Depending on the rate of flow from the nozzle.. there will be some variation of how and when the auto-shut-off triggers. Fast pumping is likely to trigger the shut-off sooner then a more moderate flow from the pump. This is completely dependent on the fuel dispensing pump at the fuel station and has nothing to do with the CRV (other then possibly the design of the down pipe that takes the fuel).
Honda specs the tank at 14 gallons... and based on my observations.. this does not include the fill pipe down into the tank, just the tank itself. So. if someone wants to do a slow top-off after the intial pump handle cut off.. it would not surprise me if you could squeeze in the better part of another gallon if you were careful about it.
To clarify, the calculation ranged from 11.6 to 15.6 for my history on a 2017 CR-V AWD, EX-L over 85 fillups I had pertinent data for. I was merely pointing out that while your one reported instance showed the car's calculation matching the spec'd tank capacity, it was a coincidence, not a constant value.
As I posted in the previous similar topic, I have never put more than 11.8 gallons in the tank utilizing the pumps' shut offs in over 100 fillups.
This tracks well with my experience too. The way the fuel alerts are set by Honda, they want you to refuel when you are at about 2 gallons remaining (which some owners gripe about.. but Honda, and frankly most manufacturers, consider to be "fuel reserve").
"Baking in" a fuel reserve in the fuel indicators is prudent practice in my view. Otherwise.... manufacturers get a different kind of complaint about high maintenance costs when the owner thinks they can get just a bit further before refueling and then run out of gas and the fuel system is damaged.
Yes, I've definitely noticed this on multiple vehicles for many years.
Agreed on all points, but my gripe is that the 14 gallon capacity is simply too small. How much does a gallon of gas weigh in pounds? Maybe 7-10? If they increased capacity to 17, it would add at most 30 pounds of weight while substantially increasing range per fill-up. I would also gladly sacrifice a couple cubic feet of cargo space for this benefit if necessary (but not the spare tire, LOL).
I don't think that's a great idea for a couple reasons, one of which you stated in the previous discussion. I don't want fuel sloshing around the top of the neck near the capless filler, possibly escaping to the area between the opening and the inside of the fuel door.
Also, when I'd top off my old Nissan, which was not at every fill-up (but most of the time), I'd make sure to burn off at least 3/4 of a gallon immediately so that if any of the excess fuel (comparing the approximate 16.8-17.3 gallons I'd pumped to the listed tank capacity of 15.9) got into the charcoal canister or any other area where it wasn't supposed to be, the system would have some space opened up to recover before I parked and let the car sit, sometimes for several days. For this reason, I usually tried to buy fuel at least 15 miles away from home. I learned to trust that the Nissan could handle this and I never had any problems.
On the Honda, I'm a little frightened about overfilling. I also don't want to spill fuel all over my shiny new black paint just to test out how much I can actually squeeze in there after the first click-off. I did a modest increase from 11.987 at first click to 12.325 the other night.
On the Nissan, I'd typically put 2.0-2.2 gallons in after the first click, depending on the pump. On my old first generation Camrys, it would take 0.5-0.6. On the third generation Camry, it was more like 0.8-1.0.
Also, when I'd top off my old Nissan, which was not at every fill-up (but most of the time), I'd make sure to burn off at least 3/4 of a gallon immediately so that if any of the excess fuel (comparing the approximate 16.8-17.3 gallons I'd pumped to the listed tank capacity of 15.9) got into the charcoal canister or any other area where it wasn't supposed to be, the system would have some space opened up to recover before I parked and let the car sit, sometimes for several days. For this reason, I usually tried to buy fuel at least 15 miles away from home. I learned to trust that the Nissan could handle this and I never had any problems.
On the Honda, I'm a little frightened about overfilling. I also don't want to spill fuel all over my shiny new black paint just to test out how much I can actually squeeze in there after the first click-off. I did a modest increase from 11.987 at first click to 12.325 the other night.
On the Nissan, I'd typically put 2.0-2.2 gallons in after the first click, depending on the pump. On my old first generation Camrys, it would take 0.5-0.6. On the third generation Camry, it was more like 0.8-1.0.
double post, sorry
A gallon of gas weighs ~6 lbs +/- some variation due to the components in the blend. Hehe.. winter fuel with butane should be lighter... right?
It's not about weight, but space in my view. And if there is one thing CRV designers are mercilessly focused on is space management.. and they want the space for the owners needs in an SUV ... not the tank. In the old days, a lot of companies put the fuel tank under the back seat or similar configuration, right? That defeats major design objectives in a CRV though.. with the need for seat down flat cargo capacity... just to site one example.
Realistically, most vehicles fuel capacity is designed around the expected low end mpg of the vehicle in conjunction with calculating and applying a generally acceptable range-2-empty capacity. In other words... the designers balance the space required vs the range-2-empty to meet the broadest set of owners needs/wants. Of course any population of owners has variation in preferences and wants.. but they try to dial in for an solution that can please the most, and ignore the corner case owners.
From my viewpoint.. we get better fuel economy in gen5 CRVS.. so with the tank staying essentially the same size as prior generations... we actually got a bump in range-2-empty AND continue to get best in class interior space.
The new generation Accord, by the way..... 14.8 gallon tank. And again.. it's driven by space management... because if you ever look inside the trunk of an Accord it is much larger then it would appear from the outside... and they still have a spare under the trunk floor too.
Point taken, but I think those small side areas behind the wheels are a waste. They also make the dual-level adjustable cargo floor board a little awkward when its in the raised position, since they sit lower, but they sit flush with the floor board when it's in the lower position, making the small plastic dividers unnecessary in that position. I wish they had used that space to put a subwoofer on one side (on all trim levels) and increased fuel capacity on the other. I'm just venting. I know no car is ever going to be perfectly designed according to my personal preferences, at least not at the price point of a typical non-luxury name brand vehicle.
I've been fine with the fuel tank capacity on all of my CR-Vs, the 1999, the 2006, and now the 2014.
Some comparisons:
2020 CR-V - 14 gallons
2020 RAV4 - 14.5 gallons
2020 Rogue - 14.5 gallons
2020 RDX - 17.1 gallons
2020 Forester - 16.6 gallons
2020 Tucson - 16.4 gallons
Some comparisons:
2020 CR-V - 14 gallons
2020 RAV4 - 14.5 gallons
2020 Rogue - 14.5 gallons
2020 RDX - 17.1 gallons
2020 Forester - 16.6 gallons
2020 Tucson - 16.4 gallons
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
