[martyn1075]

^^^ Eggszactly.

As I stated earlier, people tend to lie (by addition or omission either maliciously, accidentally, or due to ignorance) and/or exaggerate to impress the world or themselves. That's why I generally disregard reports from "Chicken Littles" complaining about only getting 12 MPG or bragging about getting 28 MPG - those are outliers. By now, there have been enough Fuelly reports to establish reliable enough data that individual reports can be dismissed. According to real-world data, the 2017 averages 4 MPG more than the 2014 so far - which matches my personal experience.

4mpg is quite high if thats actually true. Computers are misleading quite large margin then. However would you then feel that RTP2017 computer is just being honest or there is something odd going on because ultimately thats what we are trying to do. Lol perhaps his computer is under estimating and mine is overestimating. I think its perhaps a little low or again maybe he has one honest computer reading.

 

[martyn1075]

I drive what I consider real easy and conservative normally. In the busier part of the suburbs with more frequent stop light, under my "normal conservative" driving I get 14-15MPG with/without eco mode on. When I want to, sometime I drive like my great grandmother pissing everyone else off on the road, a lot of anticipating and coasting to red lights, I can get 19-21 on the same roads with the eco mode on.

Frequent stop and goes and how you stop and go is the main driver of MPG it appears.

Freeway at 55MPH I can get the computer to say 29. 65MPH at 27. 75MPH at 24-25. 85MPH 23.

For that this long drive with 95% highway I calculated 26mpg.

I've driven full tanks before 90% busy suburbs, lots of lights, driving how I normally drive (not aggressive at all but also not making a point to achieve hight MPG and I get a calculated 14MPG.

You may consider the way you drive conservative, but is probably still aggressive compared to how honda drove during their certification.

I keep the odometer page up on my display with the "live" fuel use bar. If during city driving and you make a point to try coasting with the meter at or above the 30-40 mark most of the way, and minimum time spent accelerating below the 10 mark.

I am the same way as you these days. Your readings are exactly where I feel they should be other than eco mode is not implemented on my truck. This is why I think RTP2017 is a little low. My findings "different vehicle" more or less match your driving almost exactly. Maybe we are not getting that number 100% by the end of any given tank, but I think its within reason.

 

[zroger73]

4mpg is quite high if thats actually true. Computers are misleading quite large margin then. However would you then feel that RTP2017 computer is just being honest or there is something odd going on because ultimately thats what we are trying to do. Lol perhaps his computer is under estimating and mine is overestimating. I think its perhaps a little low or again maybe he has one honest computer reading.

It's actual and it's factual. Here are the actual fuel economy calculations for my 2010, 2014 and 2017 Ridgelines:

Also, I document what the trip computer reports in the "Note" field of each fill-up. That's how I know the trip computer in my 2017 reads 1.75 MPG higher than actual.

EDIT: My 2017 is actually averaging 4.8 MPG more than my 2014, not 4 as I stated earlier. I was rounding down based on the historic fact that the fuel economy in every vehicle I've ever owned tends to go down after the new wears off. It never recovers or increases after it is "broken in" or has its first oil change. My best fuel economy is achieved in my first few tanks before it decreases a bit and levels off from that point forward - and I've got records to prove it.

Interestingly, my 2010 Ridgeline was rated at 1 MPG less, but averaged 0.3 MPG more than my 2014 Ridgeline.

 

[second]

^^^ Eggszactly.

As I stated earlier, people tend to lie (by addition or omission either maliciously, accidentally, or due to ignorance) and/or exaggerate to impress the world or themselves. That's why I generally disregard reports from "Chicken Littles" complaining about only getting 12 MPG or bragging about getting 28 MPG - those are outliers. By now, there have been enough Fuelly reports to establish reliable enough data that individual reports can be dismissed. According to real-world data, the 2017 averages 4 MPG more than the 2014 so far - which matches my personal experience.

4mpg is quite high if thats actually true. Computers are misleading quite large margin then. However would you then feel that RTP2017 computer is just being honest or there is something odd going on because ultimately thats what we are trying to do. Lol perhaps his computer is under estimating and mine is overestimating. I think its perhaps a little low or again maybe he has one honest computer reading.

Mine overestimate by 2mpg

 

[martyn1075]

Mine overestimate by 2mpg

I'm sure mine does as well. Its what they do it seems. Highway is very good even with the overestimate factor, city ok but can be evil at times.

 

[martyn1075]

It's actual and it's factual. Here are the actual fuel economy calculations for my 2014 and 2017 Ridgelines:

Also, I document what the trip computer reports in the "Note" field of each fill-up. That's how I know the trip computer in my 2017 reads 1.75 MPG higher than actual.

EDIT: My 2017 is actually averaging 4.8 MPG more than my 2014, not 4 as I stated earlier. I was rounding down based on the historic fact that the fuel economy in every vehicle I've ever owned tends to go down after the new wears off. It never recovers or increases after it is "broken in" or has its first oil change. My best fuel economy is achieved in my first few tanks before it decreases a bit and levels off from that point forward - and I've got records to prove it.

Ah gotcha on on the 4mpg. For my own entertainment I have been recording off and on my findings more or less for fun but also to gain better understand of how my truck burns fuel. Overall been fairly accurate. I have even used the premium fuel (93 no ethanol) in one tank which seems to be doing a bit better so far. If I get the 31mpg highway reading I know right away it will not be that good by the time I settle into a residential or city situation to finish off the trip. However at the end of a mix driving it always is nearly the same on the same routes I drive almost everyday. One way or another it averages out.

 

[Shineaholic]

By now, there have been enough Fuelly reports to establish reliable enough data that individual reports can be dismissed.

:surprise:
WHAT! I can't believe you said that. Road conditions, traffic conditions and driving ability is so different from location to location and person to person, there is no way to disregard any individual results.
I can't wait to get my hands on a truck to get 30+, hand calculated and photo/video verified.

 

[martyn1075]

:surprise:
WHAT! I can't believe you said that. Road conditions, traffic conditions and driving ability is so different from location to location and person to person, there is no way to disregard any individual results.
I can't wait to get my hands on a truck to get 30+, hand calculated and photo/video verified.

Do you mean to get 30mpg plus hands down average miles combined? or just 30mpg at some point of the calculation.

 

[Shineaholic]

Do you mean to get 30mpg plus hands down average miles combined? or just 30mpg at some point of the calculation.

hand calculated on a tank, BUT not in normal driving. My sole purpose is to get 30+ ... I am not talking hypermiling, just driving with no traffic or bad weather

 

[Sparkland]

It's actual and it's factual. Here are the actual fuel economy calculations for my 2014 and 2017 Ridgelines:

Also, I document what the trip computer reports in the "Note" field of each fill-up. That's how I know the trip computer in my 2017 reads 1.75 MPG higher than actual.

EDIT: My 2017 is actually averaging 4.8 MPG more than my 2014, not 4 as I stated earlier. I was rounding down based on the historic fact that the fuel economy in every vehicle I've ever owned tends to go down after the new wears off. It never recovers or increases after it is "broken in" or has its first oil change. My best fuel economy is achieved in my first few tanks before it decreases a bit and levels off from that point forward - and I've got records to prove it.

I agree Zroger. My 2008 Ridgeline averaged 17 for the bulk of my ownership. Never got much more and rarely got less.

 

[zroger73]

hand calculated on a tank, BUT not in normal driving. My sole purpose is to get 30+ ... I am not talking hypermiling, just driving with no traffic or bad weather

Assuming you're not joking, I truly don't believe that's possible. Over a several-mile stretch of flat, straight FM road at a constant 55 MPH, the highest I've seen on the trip computer is 28 MPG, which is about 26 MPG for me. I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd bet you a hefty sum you can't get 30 MPG out of a tank.

 

[jim1234567]

I've had an RTL-E for 1 week tomorrow and am still on my first tank of gas but...... even on echo mode I can't seem to get over 13.5 MPG? AC is on but it's not that hot here (80 degrees). At this point I'm hoping that its a break-in period issue.

 

[RTP2017]

I've had an RTL-E for 1 week tomorrow and am still on my first tank of gas but...... even on echo mode I can't seem to get over 13.5 MPG? AC is on but it's not that hot here (80 degrees). At this point I'm hoping that its a break-in period issue.

Sorry to hear that, Jim. Consider tracking you fuel-ups on an app from Fuelly, and pay close attention to your driving style. As someone said above, make a point to see how the instant economy bars react to your accelerations.

Good luck and keep us posted!

 

[martyn1075]

Assuming you're not joking, I truly don't believe that's possible. Over a several-mile stretch of flat, straight FM road at a constant 55 MPH, the highest I've seen on the trip computer is 28 MPG, which is about 26 MPG for me. I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd bet you a hefty sum you can't get 30 MPG out of a tank.

"CANT GET 30MPG OUT OF A TANK"

Again sorry I'm probably not getting it, what do we mean, getting it on occasion, or getting 30mpg done deal fuelly terms. I would agree 30mpg as a fuelly no way, however to get a good highway as you mentioned 28mpg is doable for some but of course the end result is not 30mpg.

I have been fortunate to hit the dirty thirty on few occasions on the highway but as soon as you hit the city or residental I'm back to reality. The reality is good though and depending on where and how you drive sometimes you got some options on your overall MPG. Considering what we drive in my case a larger heavier and bigger engine I don't think we can complain.

 

[Shineaholic]

Assuming you're not joking, I truly don't believe that's possible. Over a several-mile stretch of flat, straight FM road at a constant 55 MPH, the highest I've seen on the trip computer is 28 MPG, which is about 26 MPG for me. I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd bet you a hefty sum you can't get 30 MPG out of a tank.

not joking but i have to add, not a full tank of 300 miles. i live on Long island and that would be impossible to go that far without going in circles. lol. I would say a 30 mpg tank for about 200 miles.

 

[EighteenMPG]

I consistently get 18.1 to 18.3 mpg on our '09 RTL, running the interstates from Denver to Chicago. Hoping for 4 mpg improvement when in the new '17 RTL-T we plan to buy next week.

We run at 5 mph over posted limit, so 500 miles each at 80 and 75 mph.

Always top up to max going click click, then compute with calculator and trip odometer. Onboard computers are for reference only and do not report true.

 

[Sparkland]

"CANT GET 30MPG OUT OF A TANK"

Again sorry I'm probably not getting it, what do we mean, getting it on occasion, or getting 30mpg done deal fuelly terms. I would agree 30mpg as a fuelly no way, however to get a good highway as you mentioned 28mpg is doable for some but of course the end result is not 30mpg.

I have been fortunate to hit the dirty thirty on few occasions on the highway but as soon as you hit the city or residental I'm back to reality. The reality is good though and depending on where and how you drive sometimes you got some options on your overall MPG. Considering what we drive in my case a larger heavier and bigger engine I don't think we can complain.

View attachment 250801

View attachment 250809

View attachment 250817

How did you get your screen to show those options with the temp, etc?

 

[RTP2017]

I stopped by my dealer today and happened to run into the store manager who had driven my RTL-E around for a day before I bought it. I mentioned the poor fuel economy to him and he took me to see the Service Manager.

She's going to check the dealer network (or whatever specific phrase she used, I don't remember) to see if anyone else has reported unusually low mileage on the Ridgeline. I told her my plan to run that loop down to Oceanside and back, and she agreed that'd be useful data.

So at least I've gotten the issue in front of them, and we'll see where that takes me. More to come...

 

[Junopapa]

Im AWD and getting a consistent 27 mpg at 76 mph highway speeds. Moderately loaded. Plunges to 18 mpg with landscape trailer wearing a few hundred lbs. Getting around 21 around town. Mild on the accelerator most times.

 

[Shineaholic]

Im AWD and getting a consistent 27 mpg at 76 mph highway speeds. Moderately loaded. Plunges to 18 mpg with landscape trailer wearing a few hundred lbs. Getting around 21 around town. Mild on the accelerator most times.

I am assuming this is the DIC calculation so at the local speeds and terrain around here, I should be able to get 30MPG. if you get 27 at 76 mph, 30 at 45-50mph should be easy, *IF* you try even just a little.