Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner

1 - 20 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Whats the best fuel economy have you achieved between fill-ups with your 1.5? This must be an average on a tank of fuel, not for a short distance going down hill for example. Please specify AWD or FWD, driving conditions and average speeds during that tank of fuel used.

I wonder if an AWD 1.5 could achieve 40mpg average on a tank of fuel during a 55mph highway trip?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I've been around 25.5-26.5 mpg - 2 fill ups AWD EXL mostly highway driving from sea level (Boston) to ski mountain (northern NH) and back. Haven't noticed any benefit from economy mode yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Mid 20s seem low. Perhaps more miles needed for engine break-in, or could be winter fuel blend. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
The biggest thing that economy mode does is limit the throttle response. I have found that I simply push the gas pedal down further when in economy mode so that I can accelerate at my normal rate, whereas with it off I simply don't have to push it down as far and it feels more natural to get the same acceleration. For some people who don't adjust their foot accordingly, it would help gas mileage a bit by slowing down the car's acceleration.

My old MINI Cooper S did the same thing, but it wasn't for fuel economy, but instead it had a 'sport' button. Without it pressed the handling and throttle response were very dull and the car felt sluggish, but with it pressed the handling got heavier (less electric assistance) and the throttle response quickened. That car was so much better with the button pressed.

Back on topic :) I'm surprised by these mpg numbers. There doesn't seem to be an improvement at all over the outgoing 2.4 engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
It is not fair that you guys are comparing MPG numbers. Please note the following:

1. Winter fuel efficiency is the worst out of all the seasons. All gasoline engines burn more gas in colder temperatures, plus the "winter blend" of gasoline used results in poor fuel efficiency.

2. A brand new engine always has poor fuel efficiency until a year or two of driving in order to break in the engine. Previous generation Honda Civics start out 25-30 MPG for the first year and go as high as 40 MPG in the second year of ownership. The same principle applies to the 2017 CR-V.

3. This is all subjective. The guy who floors the accelerator reporting 25 MPG in the CR-V cannot blame the car when it is his driving habits causing the poor MPG numbers. Wait till summer, break in the engine including all the pistons and hypermile the car (i.e. drive it like your grandma) and get back to us about the MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
Enchantedsky, #2 simply is not true.
I had 13 new company cars that I drove 40,000+ per year. The fuel mileage improved gradually until around 15,000 miles on most of them. It wasn't a great difference after the first couple of thousand but it was there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
The poor MPGs aren't too surprising, unfortunately. IIRC, the previous generation vastly under-performed the EPA sticker (at least according to CR), and the Rav4 actually scored much higher than the sticker. Seems like not much has changed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I know for a fact that this is a terrible time of year to test fuel economy. I typically average 16.5-17 mpg or so in my F-150 Ecoboost, but with the temps now it's been closer to 14.5 mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
2. A brand new engine always has poor fuel efficiency until a year or two of driving in order to break in the engine. Previous generation Honda Civics start out 25-30 MPG for the first year and go as high as 40 MPG in the second year of ownership. The same principle applies to the 2017 CR-V.
My best ever trip in my '15 CRV was before it even hit 1,000 miles. Managed almost 41 mpg over 200 miles on a long weekend. I think that the driving conditions (temperature, traffic, winter fuel) and driving habits have a bigger effect on your mpg than the break in. Although I will say that I haven't owned a turbocharged vehicle, so I must leave some room for error.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Let's stay on track :)

Ok, lets keep this thread only about 1.5 owner's best fuel economy numbers averaged over one tank of fuel.

Those who gave their early numbers (winter, new engines) can come back in the future (weeks, months) and edit their original post to provide their latest best MPG numbers averaged over a tank of fuel. This way we can see who much difference more miles and seasonal fuel blend changes have on the 1.5 fuel consumption numbers. Of course we must specify AWD or FWD, miles on car, driving conditions with speeds, road type etc.

As been posted in this forum before, MotorTrend reported 34.2 HWY and I'm hoping to see near 40s MPG with the 1.5 AWD reports here :D. Now this would be about 20% higher than the 33mph HWY rating, but on my current car I do get about a 20% higher fuel economy numbers (averaged over a full tank) than the EPA rating while driving gently on the highway at around 55-65mph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
I think part of the reason for low initial fuel mileage is people playing with their new toy and enjoying the turbo boost. I think the mileage will improve when they get over the initial thrill of the turbo and learn how to drive the car efficiently. You get the best fuel mileage when you don't feel the turbo kicking in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
Ok, lets keep this thread only about 1.5 owner's best fuel economy numbers averaged over one tank of fuel.

Those who gave their early numbers (winter, new engines) can come back in the future (weeks, months) and edit their original post to provide their latest best MPG numbers averaged over a tank of fuel. This way we can see who much difference more miles and seasonal fuel blend changes have on the 1.5 fuel consumption numbers. Of course we must specify AWD or FWD, miles on car, driving conditions with speeds, road type etc.

As been posted in this forum before, MotorTrend reported 34.2 HWY and I'm hoping to see near 40s MPG with the 1.5 AWD reports here :D. Now this would be about 20% higher than the 33mph HWY rating, but on my current car I do get about a 20% higher fuel economy numbers (averaged over a full tank) than the EPA rating while driving gently on the highway at around 55-65mph.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017...-mpg-city-results-exceeds-epa-highway-rating/

Imagine the same engine in the Civic that it has to pull a car that 1K+ lbs heavier. This will kill the mileage and maybe, the durability of the 1.5T engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017...-mpg-city-results-exceeds-epa-highway-rating/

Imagine the same engine in the Civic that it has to pull a car that 1K+ lbs heavier. This will kill the mileage and maybe, the durability of the 1.5T engine.
I am skeptical of this logic.

The article really has nothing negative to say about the powertrain. Other than its city mileage isn't apparently up to EPA rating at least off the showroom floor. However, its Highway mileage actually exceeded the rating. And the article notes that small displacement motors may be more sensitive to driving styles, so there may well be more left on the table.

It says nothing whatsoever about durability - nor should it. If you're going to question the durability of every engine put into multiple weight class vehicles, this is hardly the place to start. You're going to have a long list of powertrains to investigate. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of them have survived without issue for millions of miles, so there is plenty of data.
 

·
Registered
2016 CRV Touring AWD
Joined
·
3,575 Posts
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
Top