Efficiency: 90-93 Accord 2.2L 4cyl

That is awesome.

New England salt will finish mine off long before she sees 300k miles
(although I wouldn't be surprised if the drive train were ready to do it)

Keep it up!
-Arthur

 

Andrew-

You and I are brothers - this is my situation exactly...except you've got
the automatic AND you drive with the AC on! Bizarre.

Hey, since I can't figure that one out, how does your AC work? You say you
use the car around the city, and use the AC a lot. Do you find that when
you're in stop and go traffic your AC sucks?

-Arthur

 

| I also don't use aftermarket stuff.

You're wrong, your obsolete Sumitomo plug cables ( 8.9k ohm/ft ) have low
efficiency www.magnecor.com/magnecor1/truth.htm . My buddy's 9-97 CRV'
s plug cables are no match to a set ( 2 ohm / ft ) I gave him : torque rose by
15%, exhaust noise dropped by 30%. If resistance is 240 ohm/ft
http://2003bg.primediaautomotive.com/products_category.php?bucketid=12&categoryid=9
, your plug gap can be 2mm to get even more torque, if 2 ohm/ft then 3mm, if
not then ignition timing will be too early unless advance is reduced. U will be
able to use higher gears @ lower rpm, & save fuel.

Honda presribes toe-in for my '90 accord, I ignore this & set to zero, to
minimise rolling resistance (rr). Michelin has lower rr than Goodyear / Dunlop.

Engine oil Bardahl ( model 22361XP ) has low resistance. If oil qty reaches
dipstick's maximum mark, then torque will be much lower.

My distributor had no gasket, dust got in & blocked current flow & reduced
spark size.

If u fit a solar charger, or remove doors / boot / key bulbs & clock to maximise
battery charge, battery will draw fewer amps fr alternator then plugs will get
more amps & give bigger sparks = more torque.

 

Oh GAWD, it's our clueless Malaysian sniper again.:-[]

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

The funny thing is in a bizzaro-parallel universe where Superman has a
backwards S on his shirt, there is a thought flow here. I'm wondering if
the model numbers are made up...I wouldn't be surprised if they were real,
stirred in to a strange mythical story.

I'm (also) perplexed...
-A

BTW: I never *DID* figure out how to get the heater temp control to not
bind up, so I have to periodically mess around with my control knob to
avoid breaking it. I think it's binding inside the duct-box with the air
flow control doors. I'm never going to fix it, either. Darn.

 

OK, the refuel light is on, so tomorrow morning or at lunch I'll be filling
up! (I know, you're as excited as I am) My plan is to (still) not wind it
up, but shift later than I have been. In fact, I'm going to follow the
Owner's manual.

So, I need help here. The Owner's manual says something which doesn't make
much sense to me. It has a section talking about how to shift for maximum
fuel economy, which has two tables in it. The first is straightforward...it
is titled "Normal acceleration", and says:
Shifting from Speed (mph)
------------- -----------
1 to 2 15
2 to 3 28
3 to 4 41
4 to 5 52
Fine. I understand this. I think these points put me at about 3000rpm but
I'll make a note of it.


*BUT* the manual has a second table which is titled "Cruise from
acceleration", and it says:
Shifting from Speed (mph)
------------- -----------
1 to 2 7
2 to 3 22
3 to 4 33
4 to 5 48
First of all, what is "cruise from acceleration"? Is this supposed to be a
minimum downshift point, or just an even more aggressive upshifting schedule?

Anyway, I'm planning to follow the first table for now, since I think I
understand it. Of course, since I'll be shifting later, I'll have to make
extra-special care to not actually accelerate any faster than I was before
(meaning I'll have to have an even lighter foot) Ugh. I'll post back with
results but it will take 15-20 days!

-Arthur

 

By the way, here are the shift points in RPM, as well as the resulting RPM
after the shift. I measured these during today's commute. I'll try this
schedule for this tank of gas, in "grandma mode"...hopefully I'll see a
marked improvement over 26.5mpg.
It looks like Honda doesn't want you "normally accelerating" with the
engine turning less than about 2000rpm.

Normal Acceleration Measured Measured
Upshift from Speed (mph) From RPM To RPM
------------ ----------- -------- --------
1 to 2 15 3500 2100
2 to 3 28 3500 2100
3 to 4 41 3000 2100
4 to 5 52 2500 2000

==

Here are the same RPMs for the _other_ table, as interpolated from the
above ratios. The upshift from 1-2 leave you in an especially luggy
situation...much lower than I was ever going to. I think I was typically
shifting so that after the shift, the engine was at about 1500 or so.

"Cruise from Acceleration" (interp) (interp)
Upshift from Speed (mph) From RPM To RPM
------------ ----------- -------- --------
1 to 2 7 1650 980
2 to 3 22 2750 1650
3 to 4 33 2400 1650
4 to 5 48 2300 1850

 

Where I started:
"normal" - upshift at probably 3k, accelerate and drive spiritedly, cruise
as 80-85 (yikes). 22-24 mpg. (2 tanks)

"lugger" - Shift as early as possible to still not lug the engine (despite
what the name says), accelerate less aggressively (and early shift points
means it's not peppy which helps), cruise at 75-80. 26.5mpg (1 tank)

- this thread started here -

"grandmother, late shifts" - follow Owner's Manual shift points (later than
normal), accelerate very gently, cruise at 80.
Results: 25.4mpg (1 tank)

Not very impressive. I think that if I don't need the performance, the
later upshift points aren't helping at all.

So, my new experiment: "slower lugger" - shift early again, accelerate
gently (but more than grandmother mode), but drive at 70 on the expressway.
I'm half way through the tank, and the odometer's looking good.
Results: coming this week probably

 

Other then the rolling resistance of the tire, everything else regarding your post
seems highly questionable. In my last highway trip, which involved driving on a one
lane highway with occasional spirited passing maneuver into oncoming traffic which
usually involved high rpms in third gear. I managed to get 42 mpg. That's from a 1.6L
DX Engine with 175,000km (110,000 miles). Except for the spark plugs and air filter
(NGK and Honda Filter) everything else is original (e.g wires, battery). Also, my car
is loaded down with 4 x 160 watts speakers, 100 watt amp and subwoofer, 6 pack CD
changer, and 4 x 35 Watts alpine receiver. My suspension system is modified and
lowered with my alignment slightly out of speck (I believe toe-out). Even with all the
mentioned addition, I'm still able to get an amazing 42 mpg (which is about
5.6L/100km).

I believe my H-rated, Directional, 195/50/15 Toyo Proxes FZ4 and light weight Konig
mags is one of the only factors that made a noticeable difference with gas mileage (A
very slight difference, but still noticeable).

Pars
98 DX Hatch