Accord bites the dust

1. as long time contributors to this group, they're known to be straight.
2. their mileage #'s agree with my own experience.

if you're a lead-foot, your mileage will suck. [your comment "it's a
dog in terms of power" tends to point to that being the case.] if you
baby it along, you'll get much better consumption. or you have
something wrong with the car.

real simple.

in the mean time, if you want to learn something, get over yourself.
and hang out here longer before poisoning the air with false accusation
- some people here are long time honda experts and aren't being paid to
take abuse from johnny-come-lately's.

 

No, I simply need to offer it as a datum point.[/QUOTE]

It's not "data",it's a CLAIM to be data.

Again,you're asking him to prove a negative.

 

It's not "data",it's a CLAIM to be data.[/QUOTE]

Ah, that's right.

However, his CLAIM that he has a datum point that proves otherwise
is...somehow stronger than a claim?

<shrug> My datum point is my datum point. If you want to sit and argue
about it, you'll be on your own. Probably with your hands down your
diaper.

 

Had the 2004 EX4, outstanding car. I think you will really notice the
changes made from generation to generation, most are improvements!

My 2007 is still not getting the same mileage ...

I never drove your 1993 vintage (my 87 lasted too long!), but presume
the new engines deliver more power and more smoothly. Again, try it
and see, if you have not already done so.

J.

 

I am posting my data - i have a 2004 accord coupe with the 2.4 liter
four and 5-speed manual. I am a moody person and you can see that in
my mileage:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pEACaHfs_AxA8KQvztfsMNg

:~)>

bob z.
p.s. Elmo, I thought it would be cool to show my proof that this car
CAN reach the 35 mpg pinnacle.

 

Yeah, but don't you know? You just sat down and typed that spreadsheet
up out of your imagination! That's no proof! No, only a's assertion
that you're lying is proof!

</sarcasm>

 

I have an '05 V6 Coupe that seems no matter where or how I drive it 21 is
the best it gets I did see 22.5 on 1 tank though

 

No,if a guy goes to the trouble of compiling his data and posting it,I'm
not gonna accuse him of making it up.
I don't speak for "a",though.

 

I have a '92 Honda Accord LX. I just came back from WV to NYC (rt 78
to 81). Before leaving, I filled up the car and zeroed the counter.
Driving down (60-90mph, air cranking), around town (different
driver). En route back (around Mechanicsburg, for those that know the
area), my front left tire blew, and I had to complete the rest of the
trip on the doughnut (wretched long drive at 47-55mph)ac, off and on,
defogger. Filling up the tank at the NJ side of the Delaware bridge,
we pulled out a calculator, and did the math. 30mpg documented!

Not bad at all, but I don't think I could mosey along at that reduced
speed for so long a distance just to save a couple mpg.

 

Just be aware that fours of that vintage still had a timing belt and the
one you get may soon be due for a belt change.

 

i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't
remember the pita that loose chains can be - perhaps that's why they're
suddenly back in fashion - the old farts are retiring from development
teams.

 

not trying to start an argument... i think the actual car make and
model is what determines whether the chain is more of a PITA than the
belt or vice-versa. :~)>

i am pretty sure the chains are coming back in fashion is because of
their increased longevity. this is only a guess on my part, of
course. i do know the chain in my honda is loud, but it sounds cool!

bob z.

 

belts don't stretch and therefore offer much better long term precision
for valve timing. besides, you only need to change a belt every 100,000
miles!!!

 

I think that's the case. I don't know what the difference is, but I recall
when chains had a shorter service life than belts do today. My Prius has a
chain and there is no recommended service interval for the chain; in the
Prius forums I frequent there are several people who have passed the 200K
mile mark and I have yet to hear of chain problems. In contrast, the '84
Dodge 600 I had with a Mitsubishi engine was not worth repairing when the
timing and balance chains needed to be replaced around 100K. One of them was
chewing on the chain cover. First step: remove engine to allow access to the
timing chain cover.

Mike

 

I agree that it does depend on the manufacturer. Toyota 4-bangers have had
chains for about 10 years now, and I am not aware of any problems with
those. On the other hand, I've heard of some 1st-gen Ford Escorts whose
timing belts broke well within the specified interval.

 

Heck, last year with a 4cyl auto Accord, I got 37 mpg highway driving
doing about 73mph average on a 2 hour plus trip. About a year later
doing the same trip I got about 34 mpg with same car (less load in
car ). Both cases I used cruise control.

And if no one believes me, I don't care. I only point it out because
35 is possible.

 

I'll third that one... my dad bought an '81 Dodge pickup brand new, with
a chain-timed Slant 6 (incredible, indestructible engine)... retired it
in '87 wth 450,000+km. Timing chain was so stretched it was constantly
rubbing on the inside of its cover, but it just kept on going, never a
problem with it.

My '80 GLC had a chain as well... its eventual death by chain slippage
was my own stupid fault for not tensioning it properly after a
head-gasket change.

Conversely, my three '87 Accords have never had timing belt problems...
put well over 300,000km on my first one with only changing the belt
once, and even that was only because I had to change the water pump anyway.

 

fueleconomy.gov suggests it is within the realm of
possibility, IMO. See especially the individuals' reports on
what they're getting for the 2000 Accord.

Furthermore, fueleconomy.gov says my 91 Civic (5-speed
manual tranny, no A/C, 1.5 liter engine) should get 28/33
mpg, with three individuals reporting they get 34-39 mpg .
Year-round my Civic averages 40 mpg, ranging from about
38-47 mpg, depending on whether I am driving around the
'burbs or on the highway. I do not do much city driving. On
the highway, with many tanks of gas etc. used for data, the
car gets about 45 mpg driving at about 65 mph.