Hi,

My accord'93 LX did 580KM (mixed highway and city) in 49L.

So it comes to

(49 % 3.785 = 12.94 US Gallons)
(580 % 1.6093 = 360.4 Miles)

360.4 % 12.94 = 27.85 Miles/Gallon


Is this good?

(It has 195K KM on it and I recently had it tuned.)

Thanks.

 

"yahmed" <ahmedyassir@yahoo.com> wrote
> My accord'93 LX did 580KM (mixed highway and city) in 49L.
>
> So it comes to
>
> (49 % 3.785 = 12.94 US Gallons)

12.95, rounding off correctly...

> (580 % 1.6093 = 360.4 Miles)
>
> 360.4 % 12.94 = 27.85 Miles/Gallon

Let's call it 27.8 mpg.

> Is this good?
>
> (It has 195K KM on it and I recently had it tuned.)

www.fueleconomy.gov says for a 93 Accord:

-- manual trans., 24/31 city/highway mpg
-- auto trans., 22/28 city/highway mpg

I think, but am not certain, these will rise a bit with the car's age, then
possibly decline if the car is not well maintained. This is based on my
experience with my 1991 Civic, which at 40 to 43+ mpg does a lot better than
what this web site says (31/35 mpg). Other 1991 Civics I see discussed here get
over 40 mpg, too.

If your car is auto trans., then I'd say a reasonable guess is that your car is
doing really well. If it's manual trans., it's still doing well, but you might
want to check (or just replace) the PCV valve and oxygen sensor. These parts are
my latest focus in ensuring good fuel economy on my car. Severe clogging of my
car's PCV valve drops the MPG at least 10%. I have been reading more on O2
sensors and am also more inclined to recommend it as a "preventive maintenance
item," for optimal fuel mileage. That is, don't wait until it fails. Arguably or
definitely, the O2 sensor's performance does degrade over time. Some owner's
manuals seem to take this position, too. (Mine does not.) I'm thinking maybe
replace at 100k miles with an OEM Denso (for my 91 Civic) sensor (purchased
online to save mucho bucks).

Keep following your gas mileage, as regular tabulation of the car's mpg (as
opposed to the results from a single tank of gas taken every so often) will of
course eliminate various physical 'roundoff errors' and tell you somewhat more
about how the car's mileage is doing.

Hope you'll post back about whether your car is auto or manual transmission. :-)

 

The records that I have on my '92 Accord 5 speed that I bought new are:
1993 21555 miles on 640.37 gal. = 33.66 mpg
1994 21601 miles on 647.29 gal. = 33.37 mpg
1995 20494 miles on 606.79 gal = 33.77 mpg
1996 23125 miles on 688.38 gal = 33.59 mpg
1997 19896 miles on 598.32 gal = 33.25 mpg
1998 23345 miles on 701.72 gal = 33.26 mpg
1999 19840 miles on 590.2 gal = 33.61 mpg
2000 17216 miles on 487.2 gal = 35.34 mpg
2001 13747 miles on 459.76 gal = 29.90 mpg
2002 15607 miles on 480.34 gal = 32.49 mpg
2003 8841 miles on 282.6 gal = 31.38 mpg

Your mileage may vary. bob

 

In article <9b1229.0406030802.2d2d9567@posting.google.com>,
ahmedyassir@yahoo.com (yahmed) wrote:

>Hi,
>
>My accord'93 LX did 580KM (mixed highway and city) in 49L.
>
>So it comes to
>
>(49 % 3.785 = 12.94 US Gallons)
>(580 % 1.6093 = 360.4 Miles)
>
>360.4 % 12.94 = 27.85 Miles/Gallon
>
>
>Is this good?
>
>(It has 195K KM on it and I recently had it tuned.)
>
>Thanks.

I'd consider that decent.

In my 91 Accord LX Coupe w/At, I averaged 28.4 over 35k miles.
Best individual fill up was 36.26 during summer, on a trip that was 99.8%
steady highway cruising. Usually stayed within 5 MPH of the speed
limit-Max 75 MPH and probably 72-73 typical Max.
Worst was 21.26 during a winter cold spell (for W. Orygun) with probably
about 50-50 mixed highway/city (10 mile commute to work).

 

Thank you Caroline...

It is Mannual transmission. I used to change gears between 2500RPM to
3000RPM. (but never paid attention to MPG then). Once I read in this
group that one should change gears between 3000RPM to 4000RPM. I have
started doing it and I try to change gear at 3500RPM.

Replacing PCV valve and oxygen sensor is a good idea. I am not sure
how much would it cost and I may have to wait a couple of months for
it. (I recently spent $900 on timing belt, alternator and steering
belt, new rear brakes and major tuneup service)

There is some discussion that climate/temperature changes effect MPG.
I live in Calgary, AB (about 1000m above sea level and a few (less
than 100) km from rocky mountains. So I am assuming air is thinner
here??? Can it be a factor as well?

Looking forward to futher comments...




"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<kDIvc.323$uX2.9@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>...
> "yahmed" <ahmedyassir@yahoo.com> wrote
> > My accord'93 LX did 580KM (mixed highway and city) in 49L.
> >
> > So it comes to
> >
> > (49 % 3.785 = 12.94 US Gallons)
>
> 12.95, rounding off correctly...
>
> > (580 % 1.6093 = 360.4 Miles)
> >
> > 360.4 % 12.94 = 27.85 Miles/Gallon
>
> Let's call it 27.8 mpg.
>
> > Is this good?
> >
> > (It has 195K KM on it and I recently had it tuned.)
>
> www.fueleconomy.gov says for a 93 Accord:
>
> -- manual trans., 24/31 city/highway mpg
> -- auto trans., 22/28 city/highway mpg
>
> I think, but am not certain, these will rise a bit with the car's age, then
> possibly decline if the car is not well maintained. This is based on my
> experience with my 1991 Civic, which at 40 to 43+ mpg does a lot better than
> what this web site says (31/35 mpg). Other 1991 Civics I see discussed here get
> over 40 mpg, too.
>
> If your car is auto trans., then I'd say a reasonable guess is that your car is
> doing really well. If it's manual trans., it's still doing well, but you might
> want to check (or just replace) the PCV valve and oxygen sensor. These parts are
> my latest focus in ensuring good fuel economy on my car. Severe clogging of my
> car's PCV valve drops the MPG at least 10%. I have been reading more on O2
> sensors and am also more inclined to recommend it as a "preventive maintenance
> item," for optimal fuel mileage. That is, don't wait until it fails. Arguably or
> definitely, the O2 sensor's performance does degrade over time. Some owner's
> manuals seem to take this position, too. (Mine does not.) I'm thinking maybe
> replace at 100k miles with an OEM Denso (for my 91 Civic) sensor (purchased
> online to save mucho bucks).
>
> Keep following your gas mileage, as regular tabulation of the car's mpg (as
> opposed to the results from a single tank of gas taken every so often) will of
> course eliminate various physical 'roundoff errors' and tell you somewhat more
> about how the car's mileage is doing.
>
> Hope you'll post back about whether your car is auto or manual transmission. :-)

 

Sounds decent to me.

yahmed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My accord'93 LX did 580KM (mixed highway and city) in 49L.
>
> So it comes to
>
> (49 % 3.785 = 12.94 US Gallons)
> (580 % 1.6093 = 360.4 Miles)
>
> 360.4 % 12.94 = 27.85 Miles/Gallon
>
>
> Is this good?
>
> (It has 195K KM on it and I recently had it tuned.)
>
> Thanks.

 

My 2004 Accord EX (4-cyl), auto is doing little more than 8k/liter, or about
20mpg... all city driving. It has about 4500 Km in the odometer (about 2800
miles).

I recall it doing about 11.5 k/l, or about 27mpg on pure highway driving.

I wonder how Honda got the Accord can do 34mpg...

-Indirecto



"yahmed" <ahmedyassir@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9b1229.0406030802.2d2d9567@posting.google.com ...
> Hi,
>
> My accord'93 LX did 580KM (mixed highway and city) in 49L.
>
> So it comes to
>
> (49 % 3.785 = 12.94 US Gallons)
> (580 % 1.6093 = 360.4 Miles)
>
> 360.4 % 12.94 = 27.85 Miles/Gallon
>
>
> Is this good?
>
> (It has 195K KM on it and I recently had it tuned.)
>
> Thanks.

 

That sounds about right. I had a 92 Accord 4 Dr. automatic, which had about
the same fuel economy. My 93 Accord EX 2 Dr, 5-spd has 210k miles, and can
do 30+ mpg now, but most of my driving are highway. So I guess your mileage
is about right which is on par with my wife's 02 Accord 4dr.

 

"yahmed" <ahmedyassir@yahoo.com> wrote
> Thank you Caroline...
>
> It is Mannual transmission. I used to change gears between 2500RPM to
> 3000RPM. (but never paid attention to MPG then). Once I read in this
> group that one should change gears between 3000RPM to 4000RPM. I have
> started doing it and I try to change gear at 3500RPM.

I hope someone else will comment on this. I think your Accord engine manual
transmission is too different from my Civic's for me to do so. On my 1.5 liter
Civic, I try to shift between 2500-3000 RPM. This "feels right." I think in 1991
some kid salesman from whom I bought the car said I was shifting too low, but I
never bothered to research this. I get great mileage and don't fret over it.

> Replacing PCV valve and oxygen sensor is a good idea. I am not sure
> how much would it cost and I may have to wait a couple of months for
> it. (I recently spent $900 on timing belt, alternator and steering
> belt, new rear brakes and major tuneup service)

First and foremost, after reading others' MPG for their circa 1993 Accords, I
gotta say your car may very well be running its best, given the cold climate in
which you drive it. So if you replace any of the following, it might not make a
bit of difference, though these are items that generally do either fail or get
replaced as "preventive maintenance" after 100k miles or more.

If you buy your parts online and OEM (original equipment manufuacture), you'll
probably save well over 15%.

https://www.automedicsupply.com/ wants $85 for the OEM O2 sensor for your car.
Shipping will be free. It's the site that has the best price by far for my
Civic's O2 sensor. Majestic online wants $167 for the O2 sensor, which is closer
to what I expect a dealer would charge.

Majestic online wants about $15 + shipping for the PCV valve and its grommet.
See http://tinyurl.com/3ctxv . The dealer price for this part is probably close
to $25.

Both of these items are among the easier do-it-yourself repairs. You can borrow
an oxygen sensor wrench for a fully-refundable deposit at Autozone. A drawing of
the O2 sensor location appears at
http://tinyurl.com/2jedr

Autozone's site www.autozone.com probably has step-by-step instructions for a
quick check of the PCV valve and replacing it, if needed. Same for the O2 sensor
replacement. Click on "Repair Info" on the left and follow the pointers.

> There is some discussion that climate/temperature changes effect MPG.

Cooler temperatures cause the engine to run cooler. The car's computer gets
inputs that monitor the engine temperature, among other things. Below certain
temperatures, the car's computer runs the engine somewhat richer (fuel-wise) to
bring the car up to and maintain normal operating temperature.

Some other items cause the car to be less efficient ( = lower mpg) in the cold,
but the above is one of the big ones. I'd say figure on at least a 10% drop in
mpg or more in the deep winter in the Northern U.S.

> I live in Calgary, AB (about 1000m above sea level and a few (less
> than 100) km from rocky mountains. So I am assuming air is thinner
> here??? Can it be a factor as well?

I recently moved from sea level to a city a mile high. I agree the air is
thinner; one could say the air pressure is lower and there's less O2 for each
"lungful" of air taken. I too was wondering if this would make a difference in
my car's MPG. It does not.

I suppose the effect of the lower air pressure etc. is either negligible or the
car's computer adjusts immediately. I did some research on this but I don't
recall finding anything conclusive.

> Looking forward to futher comments...

I'd take a cue from NE Ohio Bob and figure maybe, but not definitely, that you
could improve your mileage to what he's getting with a little maintenance.
www.fueleconomy.gov shows your and his Accords have the same engine size. Bob's
car is supposed to get 24/30 city/highway mpg.

OTOH, maybe you are simply getting worse, but still pretty good, mileage than he
because of your colder climate. (I assume Bob really does live in NE Ohio.)

I'd say just keep an eye on your mileage. If it starts to decline, maybe try one
or both of the above part replacements.

 

Caroline wrote:
> "yahmed" <ahmedyassir@yahoo.com> wrote
>> My accord'93 LX did 580KM (mixed highway and city) in 49L.
>>
>> So it comes to
>>
>> (49 % 3.785 = 12.94 US Gallons)
>
> 12.95, rounding off correctly...
>
>> (580 % 1.6093 = 360.4 Miles)
>>
>> 360.4 % 12.94 = 27.85 Miles/Gallon
>
> Let's call it 27.8 mpg.

Actually, correct rounding would make this 27.9 (unless the 27.85 is rounded
up from something between 27.8-27.8499.......)

>
>> Is this good?

Not bad for a 12 year old car car, mixed highway/city driving.


>>
>> (It has 195K KM on it and I recently had it tuned.)
>
> www.fueleconomy.gov says for a 93 Accord:
>
> -- manual trans., 24/31 city/highway mpg
> -- auto trans., 22/28 city/highway mpg
>
> I think, but am not certain, these will rise a bit with the car's
> age, then possibly decline if the car is not well maintained. This is
> based on my experience with my 1991 Civic, which at 40 to 43+ mpg
> does a lot better than what this web site says (31/35 mpg). Other
> 1991 Civics I see discussed here get over 40 mpg, too.
>
> If your car is auto trans., then I'd say a reasonable guess is that
> your car is doing really well. If it's manual trans., it's still
> doing well, but you might want to check (or just replace) the PCV
> valve and oxygen sensor. These parts are my latest focus in ensuring
> good fuel economy on my car. Severe clogging of my car's PCV valve
> drops the MPG at least 10%. I have been reading more on O2 sensors
> and am also more inclined to recommend it as a "preventive
> maintenance item," for optimal fuel mileage. That is, don't wait
> until it fails. Arguably or definitely, the O2 sensor's performance
> does degrade over time. Some owner's manuals seem to take this
> position, too. (Mine does not.) I'm thinking maybe replace at 100k
> miles with an OEM Denso (for my 91 Civic) sensor (purchased online to
> save mucho bucks).
>
> Keep following your gas mileage, as regular tabulation of the car's
> mpg (as opposed to the results from a single tank of gas taken every
> so often) will of course eliminate various physical 'roundoff errors'
> and tell you somewhat more about how the car's mileage is doing.
>
> Hope you'll post back about whether your car is auto or manual
> transmission. :-)

 

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:B7Svc.39982$3x.16505@attbi_s54...
> Caroline wrote:
> > "yahmed" <ahmedyassir@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> My accord'93 LX did 580KM (mixed highway and city) in 49L.
> >>
> >> So it comes to
> >>
> >> (49 % 3.785 = 12.94 US Gallons)
> >
> > 12.95, rounding off correctly...
> >
> >> (580 % 1.6093 = 360.4 Miles)
> >>
> >> 360.4 % 12.94 = 27.85 Miles/Gallon
> >
> > Let's call it 27.8 mpg.
>
> Actually, correct rounding would make this 27.9

Not when you use the correct figure to four significant digits of 12.95.

> (unless the 27.85 is rounded
> up from something between 27.8-27.8499.......)

Actually, both

(580 / 1.6093) / (49 / 3.785) = 27.8, to the nearest tenth, rounding the final
result correctly.

and

360.4 / 12.95 = 27.8, to the nearest tenth, rounding the final result correctly

If you want to get into the rules of significant digits rounding, feel free. But
I suspect

 

I would like to get into those rules. What do you think of my practice of
rounding numbers that end in 5: even numbers like 85 go down to 8; odd like
75 go up to 8. That way, on average, no bias is introduced.

 

"Misterbeets" <misterbeets@removehotmail.com> wrote
> I would like to get into those rules. What do you think of my practice of
> rounding numbers that end in 5: even numbers like 85 go down to 8; odd like
> 75 go up to 8. That way, on average, no bias is introduced.

This is a test, right?

85 is not an even number. ;-)

Otherwise, whether your rule is useful depends on your mathematical goal.

 

There's an easier way by using the Google calculator. :P For those that
do not know about it, here's how:

1. You need to know how many km/l your car can drive, which is very easy:

580km / 49l = 11.86km/l

2. Go to www.google.com and type in the search box:

11.86km/l = ? miles/gallon

The answer google returned was 27.89 miles/gallon which is very close to
your result. The default in google is in US gallons, but you can specify
Imperial (British) gallons as well.

Give the Google calculator a try, it really comes in handy, and not just
for converting from metric to imperial (and vice-versa).

Cosmin

yahmed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My accord'93 LX did 580KM (mixed highway and city) in 49L.
>
> So it comes to
>
> (49 % 3.785 = 12.94 US Gallons)
> (580 % 1.6093 = 360.4 Miles)
>
> 360.4 % 12.94 = 27.85 Miles/Gallon
>
>
> Is this good?
>
> (It has 195K KM on it and I recently had it tuned.)
>
> Thanks.

 

the reason why the cut off is '5'....

0,1,2,3,4 round down (preceding digit is not advanced)
5,6,7,8,9 round up (preceding digit is advanced)


which gives us an even split



"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qeTvc.1044$uX2.607@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> "Misterbeets" <misterbeets@removehotmail.com> wrote
> > I would like to get into those rules. What do you think of my practice
of
> > rounding numbers that end in 5: even numbers like 85 go down to 8; odd
like
> > 75 go up to 8. That way, on average, no bias is introduced.
>
> This is a test, right?
>
> 85 is not an even number. ;-)
>
> Otherwise, whether your rule is useful depends on your mathematical goal.
>
>