[asspennies]

I owned a 2014 Accord before I had this 2020 Accord. The 2014 Accord had a 17.1 gallon tank while the 2020 has a 12.8 gallon tank. I understand how this only really means I'll have to stop for gas more often (the MPG is still pretty much the same between the two) but it makes me wonder what reasons they had for going with such a significant cut. I used to get nearly 440 miles on a tank, and now I'm doing about 320ish.

My thinking is either that Honda thinks that the average driver perception is that the bigger tank means more money to fill it, and the added cost makes these people instinctively think it's less fuel efficient, even though it's not? Or, the 10th gen fastback design gives designers that huge back row seating room and great trunk space, but leaves less room for a larger tank?

So basically, is the reason for chopping the tank so significantly between 9th and 10th gen down to design, managing customer perception, or maybe both? I guess only the Honda designers can truly answer that question, but I'm interested in hearing any thoughts.

 

[Fired00d]

Was "12.8" tank capacity a typo?? They actually hold 14.8 gallons.

Never thought about why but some of your thoughts may be spot on... by design to get more backseat room, less fuel could reduce weight increasing fuel efficiency, no more six cylinder so no need for the extra capacity to reduce fuel stops. Personally by the time I would have gone through a tank non-stop I'm ready for a bathroom break anyway.

 

[asspennies]

Yeah, thanks for catching that, typo for sure, should read 14.8 instead of 12.8

 

[herotheday]

I owned a 2014 Accord before I had this 2020 Accord. The 2014 Accord had a 17.1 gallon tank while the 2020 has a 12.8 gallon tank. I understand how this only really means I'll have to stop for gas more often (the MPG is still pretty much the same between the two) but it makes me wonder what reasons they had for going with such a significant cut. I used to get nearly 440 miles on a tank, and now I'm doing about 320ish.

My thinking is either that Honda thinks that the average driver perception is that the bigger tank means more money to fill it, and the added cost makes these people instinctively think it's less fuel efficient, even though it's not? Or, the 10th gen fastback design gives designers that huge back row seating room and great trunk space, but leaves less room for a larger tank?

So basically, is the reason for chopping the tank so significantly between 9th and 10th gen down to design, managing customer perception, or maybe both? I guess only the Honda designers can truly answer that question, but I'm interested in hearing any thoughts.

Are you still in the break-in period? 320 seems a bit low, I do mostly city driving in my 2.0T Touring and I'm closer to 400 miles per tank. It did surprise me a bit that the tank was that much smaller, but I just wrote it off as it being a 4-cyl and not a 6-cyl engine. Of course if you look at the estimated MPGs for the largest engines in the 2017 and the 2018 models there really isn't much difference at all.

 

[gn842]

Over 6500 miles my total mpg was 30.6 on the 2019 Accord with CVT. In my previous Toyota Corolla (a much less nice car) it was 27, and that's what it was in my 2014 Accord. 27 mpg is "general all around mixed use." I do/did better in all my cars on long open road trips. What am I getting at? It's pretty simple. 30.6/27=1.13. So we multiply 14.8 x 1.13 = 16.7 gallon equivalent. That's about 4/10ths of a gallon less in practical terms. Does it matter? Well sometimes I find that I need to get fuel a little earlier than I'm used to. It depends on what kind of driving I'm doing. When I'm hanging around in the burbs the driving is more stop and go, slower speed. MPG goes down. When I'm commuting to work I have some highway, mpg goes up. Anyhow, it is true, the tank is smaller. But it is also true that the vehicle range is about the same, and the more time you spend on highway the more true that will be.