The 4 cylinder Accord is fast enough for me. I was hoping for a hybrid
that can get 40 to 50 mpg. I think the hybrid companies should stop
tuning for speed and go for max fuel economy with decent acceleration.

Any chance the diesel Accord might come to America? What is the gas
mieage in U.S gallons? I know in UK Imperial gallons which are about
20% more it gets something like 54 mpg.

 

Reginald Prat-Jones wrote:
> The 4 cylinder Accord is fast enough for me. I was hoping for a hybrid
> that can get 40 to 50 mpg. I think the hybrid companies should stop
> tuning for speed and go for max fuel economy with decent acceleration.
>
> Any chance the diesel Accord might come to America? What is the gas
> mieage in U.S gallons? I know in UK Imperial gallons which are about
> 20% more it gets something like 54 mpg.
>

Maybe after 2007 when in theory we finally will get low sulfer diesel
fuel in the US. For most applications a diesel will be much more cost
effective than a hybrid.

John

 

On 11 Oct 2005 21:33:19 -0700, Reginald Prat-Jones wrote:

> Any chance the diesel Accord might come to America? What is the gas
> mieage in U.S gallons? I know in UK Imperial gallons which are about
> 20% more it gets something like 54 mpg.

I've had my 2005 Accord i-CDTi 2.2 for just over a month and have done
approx 1600 miles. I'm getting 46 to 48 mpg (UK imperial).

I think you would have to drive very carefully to average 54 mpg in the
real world!

--
Richard

 

Any idea what that would be in U.S. gallons? I heard the UK Imperial
is about 20% more?

46-48 mpg (UK) x 0.80???? = or 36.8 to 38.4 mpg (US)???

Pretty good mileage for a good sized car. The mid size diesel Merc we
can get in the States now gets about the same mileage

My guess is as you break in the engine, your fuel mileage should go up
a bit. I always heard that brand new engines get lower fuel mileage
until they get over 4,000 or so miles. Maybe that is a myth.

How do like it? How is the acceleration?

 

Reginald Prat-Jones <x007member@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129168399.293661.282200@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> Any idea what that would be in U.S. gallons? I heard the UK Imperial
> is about 20% more?
>
> 46-48 mpg (UK) x 0.80???? = or 36.8 to 38.4 mpg (US)???
>
> Pretty good mileage for a good sized car. The mid size diesel Merc we
> can get in the States now gets about the same mileage
>
> My guess is as you break in the engine, your fuel mileage should go up
> a bit. I always heard that brand new engines get lower fuel mileage
> until they get over 4,000 or so miles. Maybe that is a myth.
>
FWIW, I tracked the mileage on a Ford Escort Pony from day one to nearly death.
It steadily increased (sorry, the numbers died with a disk drive that I may
still be able to resurrect) through 40k miles.
Stayed steady for about 10K then declined slowly til I stopped tracking around
120K. Was still better than new IIRC.
My son and then daughter killed it at 144 by neglect.

 

Reginald Prat-Jones wrote:
> Any idea what that would be in U.S. gallons? I heard the UK Imperial
> is about 20% more?
>
> 46-48 mpg (UK) x 0.80???? = or 36.8 to 38.4 mpg (US)???
>
> Pretty good mileage for a good sized car. The mid size diesel Merc we
> can get in the States now gets about the same mileage
>
> My guess is as you break in the engine, your fuel mileage should go up
> a bit. I always heard that brand new engines get lower fuel mileage
> until they get over 4,000 or so miles. Maybe that is a myth.
>
> How do like it? How is the acceleration?
>

Litres in US = 3.78, UK = 4.54
Multiply the UK mpg by 0.83 to get US. 46mpg (UK) = 38mpg (US)

OT: Miles per gallon is an outdated and ambiguous measurement. A
standard (e.g. litres/100km) should be adopted worldwide.

 

Jez wrote:

> Litres in US = 3.78, UK = 4.54
> Multiply the UK mpg by 0.83 to get US. 46mpg (UK) = 38mpg (US)
>
> OT: Miles per gallon is an outdated and ambiguous measurement. A
> standard (e.g. litres/100km) should be adopted worldwide.

I am in Canada, where litres/100km is used. And I think it's a downright
stupid measurement. km/litre would be better, but I'll stick to mpg, thank
you very much.

 

"Jez" <jeremy@ainsworth.me.uk> wrote in message
news:PJmdnYBBacdOxdPeRVnyhA@pipex.net...
>
> OT: Miles per gallon is an outdated and ambiguous measurement. A standard
> (e.g. litres/100km) should be adopted worldwide.

That's a crock! Being able to see at a glance how many miles I can travel is
a lot easier than having to think about the conversion to a useless Metric
measurement.

Brian

 

"High Tech Misfit" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:qkbvsyeiio2v.dlg@hightech.misfit...
>
> I am in Canada, where litres/100km is used. And I think it's a downright
> stupid measurement. km/litre would be better, but I'll stick to mpg,
> thank
> you very much.

I agree, mpg is a much easier measure to use.

 

On 12 Oct 2005 18:53:19 -0700, Reginald Prat-Jones wrote:

> Any idea what that would be in U.S. gallons? I heard the UK Imperial
> is about 20% more?
>
> 46-48 mpg (UK) x 0.80???? = or 36.8 to 38.4 mpg (US)???
>
> Pretty good mileage for a good sized car. The mid size diesel Merc we
> can get in the States now gets about the same mileage
>
> My guess is as you break in the engine, your fuel mileage should go up
> a bit. I always heard that brand new engines get lower fuel mileage
> until they get over 4,000 or so miles. Maybe that is a myth.

The fuel consumption is about what I was expecting, if it does improve over
the next few thousand miles that will be a bonus

>
> How do like it? How is the acceleration?

I'm very pleased with the car. The acceleration is very smooth and
progressive allowing easy & safe overtaking. It also pulls cleanly from low
revs for example 1200 - 1500 rpm in third gear meaning you have to change
gear less often in slow town traffic.

The ride is also very good - not too soft so it doesn't roll much going
round corners yet not so firm that it becomes uncomfortable.

--
Richard

 

Brian Smith wrote:
> "Jez" <jeremy@ainsworth.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:PJmdnYBBacdOxdPeRVnyhA@pipex.net...
>
>>OT: Miles per gallon is an outdated and ambiguous measurement. A standard
>>(e.g. litres/100km) should be adopted worldwide.
>
>
> That's a crock! Being able to see at a glance how many miles I can travel is
> a lot easier than having to think about the conversion to a useless Metric
> measurement.
>
> Brian
>
>

I'm not disputing the fact that mpg is useful for some people on a local
basis. When you drive miles and fill up with gallons it makes sense to
use Miles Per Gallon.

My point (which I didn't make clear) is that it's not suitable as an
international measure because it's impossible to tell whether or not US
or Imperial gallons have been used in the calculation. If I said that my
car can do 46mpg, how do you know if it can really do 46 or 38 in your
country?

 

"Jez" <jeremy@ainsworth.me.uk> wrote in message
news:-_adne-qGMWv9tLenZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> I'm not disputing the fact that mpg is useful for some people on a local
> basis. When you drive miles and fill up with gallons it makes sense to use
> Miles Per Gallon.

We use litres and kilometres. But I grew up using miles and gallons
(Imperial), so that is how I continue to view my vehicle's fuel consumption
and mileage.

> My point (which I didn't make clear) is that it's not suitable as an
> international measure because it's impossible to tell whether or not US or
> Imperial gallons have been used in the calculation. If I said that my car
> can do 46mpg, how do you know if it can really do 46 or 38 in your
> country?

It's easy enough to do when someone mentions what their mpg rate is, a
simple question (if they haven't offered the information already) would give
you the knowledge of what size gallon they are using. Dealing in an
international forum such as this one, it only makes sense for participants
here to make it clear as to what unit of measure they are using. I try to
make it clear that when I say that my V6 Accord's fuel consumption ranges
between 29 and 42 mpg, that I am using Imperial Gallons.

Brian