Honda Accord type-s owners please.. why such bad mpg ?

bobert50

bobert50

bobert50

Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2007
Posts
4,430
Well, not specifically the type-s but the people with the 03-08 plate 2.4 honda accords.

I've seen in threads before people saying they only get early 20 mpg on a run, is this accurate for everyone? that sounds shocking tbh and would point to silly low mpg for in town driving and so on.

What i'm after really is to know for definate what sort of mpg these things can get, especially on a motorway run @ 70-75 with cruise if taking it easy but also what they're like on shorter town style driving.

I'd even find 30mpg on a run to be acceptable but early 20's @ 75mph on longer journeys but to me..a 2.4 with 190bhp getting 20mpg or just over on a run sounds ludicriously bad to me.

So..whats the story with this? No exaggerating please! just after accurate facts from people who own them or have owned them in the past.
 
the K24 is quite an efficient engine, if you are frugal with the throttle you should be getting at least 30mpg highway I would imagine.
 
I've never had more then 30mpg out of mine, think the best I've ever had is around 28mpg but tbh it's more to do with the way I tend to drive, get bored of 56mph within a few minutes.
 
a bit like 320 bmws, some small engines just like to drink.

30mpg on a motorway from a 2.4 4 pot is a joke... look at what fox gets in his 530
 
Matt82 said:
a bit like 320 bmws, some small engines just like to drink.

30mpg on a motorway from a 2.4 4 pot is a joke... look at what fox gets in his 530
Click to expand...

Yeah but Fox is like benjamin button really,born an old man:p

It is a particulary thirsty engine the 2.4, Honda, it seems, just cant be arsed with decent petrol engines for the Accord, even the 2.0 is woeful, the new 2.2 diesel is only one they seem to be spending any time or effort on.
 
wohoo said:
Yeah but Fox is like benjamin button really,born an old man:p

It is a particulary thirsty engine the 2.4, Honda, it seems, just cant be arsed with decent petrol engines for the Accord, even the 2.0 is woeful, the new 2.2 diesel is only one they seem to be spending any time or effort on.
Click to expand...

I used to get roughly the same mileage from my previous Accord 2.0 auto as I do with the Type-S manual, so from that point it's a bonus but yes I am shocked how poor the mileage is. For the 2.0 I had a guy with a similar car to mine come over when I was filling up to ask if I was getting bad mileage, he'd apparently complained to Honda at each service of the car.
 
Well the 2.0 doesn't feel underpowered imo and it pulls high 30's on a run.

I thought the 2.2 diesel i drove recently was fantastic, felt really like a petrol too.

2.4 seems the odd one of the bunch :(
 
the 2.4 is a great engine...isn't it the same as the USDM TSX? I have a buddy with a k24 from a tsx that's fully built NA with 13:1 c/r and an ITR head, he had it tuned and it made 280 to the wheels on 91 octane on a mustang dyno. :) k-series = win
 
By previous accord 2.0 auto..do you mean the previous shape or the same shape?

I have a 2.0 accord 98-03 auto atm and i'm pulling 35mpg in the winter weather on a run even though it only has 4 gears. The newer shape 2.0 auto has 5 gears so i'd expect that to be better economy than my current one.

Maybe this is a driving style thing?
 
bobert50 said:
By previous accord 2.0 auto..do you mean the previous shape or the same shape?

I have a 2.0 accord 98-03 auto atm and i'm pulling 35mpg in the winter weather on a run even though it only has 4 gears. The newer shape 2.0 auto has 5 gears so i'd expect that to be better economy than my current one.

Maybe this is a driving style thing?
Click to expand...

Yeah, previous shape, it was a 2.0 ES auto SSS on a T plate, was a company car, hated the thing myself as I always found it would select the wrong gear for my driving style, it had a pseudo manual type shift which is what I always used but the gearing for 3rd and 4th was way too long.
 
bobert50 said:
Ah i see.

I may be wrong but isn't a 2.0 es the generation before the 98-03 ones? sounds like one of the last ones from the older shape ?
Click to expand...

No mine was 1 of the first shape previous to the current shape, I'm not including the current facelifted, flaired wheel arches jobbie. The ES was the top of the range when it was release, thing they changed to the SE moniker later on. The car was pretty much loaded to the hilt with leather and Bose sound system etc....

This is what I had but mine was a saloon http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C62695
 
Hi , thanks for replying.

I tried to catch you on msn actually a few weeks back but before i realised you'd accepted you probably blocked me! :p

Thats odd because that car is remarkably similar to mine and i find the mpg "very reasonable" with how i tend to drive it (pretty soft).

Do you tend to belt it around then in the 2.4 even on the motorway? I can't help but think 28mpg on a run is incredibly poor.
 
Last edited:
gurusan said:
the 2.4 is a great engine...isn't it the same as the USDM TSX? I have a buddy with a k24 from a tsx that's fully built NA with 13:1 c/r and an ITR head, he had it tuned and it made 280 to the wheels on 91 octane on a mustang dyno. :) k-series = win
Click to expand...

I believe this is the first time that JDM and EU gets de-tuned engines running lower C/R, a lower redline and less power than the USDM ones.
 
My 98 accord 2.0ise costs a bloody fortune to run.

luckily i dont do major mileage, and although I dont have a little display telling me, im sure it is around 20mpg
 
regardless of cylinders it's a 2.4 so never gonna be that economical, just spread out between 4 large cylinders instead of six small ones...with less frictional losses a 4 should be more economical than a six, but breathing and torque may be better on the 6 pot...
 
Last edited:
bobert50 said:
Hi , thanks for replying.

I tried to catch you on msn actually a few weeks back but before i realised you'd accepted you probably blocked me! :p

Thats odd because that car is remarkably similar to mine and i find the mpg "very reasonable" with how i tend to drive it (pretty soft).

Do you tend to belt it around then in the 2.4 even on the motorway? I can't help but think 28mpg on a run is incredibly poor.
Click to expand...

I've been off for the last week so no MSN but I'm back on Monday.

I tend to drive so that I minimise the coke/carbon build up in my engine and as the government seems to think it's fair to tax on emissions regardless of annual mileage I make sure I get my monies worth from from my road tax :D

I'm 2 different people really, too and from work I drive like an arse, a safe arse, never ever take risks but an arse nevertheless, weekends with the family I'm a Sunday driver :)
 
bobert50 said:
Well the 2.0 doesn't feel underpowered imo and it pulls high 30's on a run.

I thought the 2.2 diesel i drove recently was fantastic, felt really like a petrol too.

2.4 seems the odd one of the bunch :(
Click to expand...

Underpowered is probably the wrong word, Imj used to oodles of power and torque, which is why the diesel just felt better and more willing.

Im fairly sure the Accord well be my next car, simply because the rear view cam and the voice activated everthing, is uber :cool::p.

I really must grow up:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom