Please check my Calculations
 

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.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

"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. :-)

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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).

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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. :-)

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

"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.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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. :-)

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

"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

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

"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.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

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.
>
>

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

Caroline wrote:
> "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


Well, we could argue about what is least significant, but it would be a
useless exercise. As far as gas mileage is concerned, I would think a
single decimal place would be proper, as the error is small.

The 12.94, that would be rounded to 12.9, keeping it constant if it is
decided to use 3 significant digits, which would yield a 27.9 final tally.
Either way, both numbers are <.2% off from the 27.85 figure. This margin of
error could be deemed acceptable. Without having an actual tolerance, it is
impossible to tell what really is least significant.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

J M wrote:
> 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

No need to round a "0". It's already there.

>
>
>
> "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.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:<zTUvc.16724$bVw1.8088@news01.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com>...

> 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.

Ah, good one, thanks. I'd used google's calculator a time or two for
simple expressions but didn't know it could accept equations. You've
prompted me to read a bit more about it, and it seems quite flexible.
From your example above,

11.86km/l=?mi/gal

and

11.86km/l in mi/gal

give the same result, and for example

32c=?f

or

32c in f

converts 32 degrees Centigrade into degrees Farenheit. But how do we
know which units are convertible? From

http://www.google.com/help/calculator.html

"The calculator understands many different units, as well as many
physical and mathematical constants. These can be used in your
expression. Many of these constants and units have both long and short
names. You can use either name in most cases. For example, km and
kilometer both work, as do c and the speed of light.

Feel free to experiment with the calculator as not all of its
capabilities are listed here."

Ha! Ah well, perhaps they'll add a units key soon. I'd been using

http://www.onlineconversion.com

but access to Google is quicker.

-------
NB: If response to this post does not concern the calculator, please
delete k12.ed.math and sci.math newsgroups from your post, thanks.

(Mutter, mutter, now lessee, 2 mi = ? nautical miles...ah, works.
Hmm, what about deg-min-sec to UTM...)

--
submissions: post to k12.ed.math or e-mail to k12math@k12groups.org
private e-mail to the k12.ed.math moderator: kem-moderator@k12groups.org
newsgroup website: http://www.thinkspot.net/k12math/
newsgroup charter: http://www.thinkspot.net/k12math/charter.html

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

1000 meters will cut your horsepower output by 11%. I lived at 3000
feet for 5 years and that was the concensus in the automotive world
there. Atmospheric O2 pressure is essentially a logarithmic function
of the altitude, so it is not proportional and you can't "eyeball" the
power loss at other altitudes using this figure.

The altitude will not directly affect your mileage, at least on modern
FI cars. But, since you have to rev the engine harder to keep up
decent torque, there will be small additional friction losses due to
the higher rpm. Also its harder on your ears to drive this way, so
maybe some people will settle for lower engine output in the first
place.

JM

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

Indirecto wrote:

> 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...

IIRC Honda didn't get that, the EPA did. Overall my '03 Accord EX sedan
w/automatic has gotten 26 mpg (12,500 miles). I consistently get > 30
mph on the highway, with a max going to NC of 34 mpg (absolutely NO city
driving & no A/C).

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

You are getting terrible mileage out of your 04 Accord. 8km/l (or
12.5litres/100km) is 18 mpg, which is far below the fuel efficiency of
an Accord 4-cyl.

My 01 Prelude (which is far less fuel efficient than a 04 Accord)
consumes about 11 litres/100km (21.4mpg), in city driving. On the
highway I am getting about 9 litres/100km (26.1mpg). My old 94 Accord
EXR was getting slightly better numbers than my 01 Prelude.

So there is either something wrong with your car, or you are a very
agressive driver.

Cosmin

Indirecto wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

"JM" <jmattis@attglobal.net> wrote
> 1000 meters will cut your horsepower output by 11%. I lived at 3000
> feet for 5 years and that was the concensus in the automotive world
> there.

What I'm seeing generally supports this. For the interested car enthusiast, see
for example:

1.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm and
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm, along with the pointers from these sites.

2.
"The correlation between altitude and power goes like this: a gasoline engine
loses three percent of its horsepower output for every thousand feet of
altitude, a function of relative oxygen scarcity as the altimeter needle
climbs."
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8074 But again,
this was for racing cars, presumably operating at maximum possible horsepower.

> Atmospheric O2 pressure is essentially a logarithmic function
> of the altitude,

For the same temperatue and relative humidity but two different altitudes, air
pressure varies very close to perfectly inversely with altitude, at least for
altitudes from sea level to 15,000 feet. I believe the percent oxygen that air
contains is fairly fixed with altitude (again, assuming constant temperature and
relative humidity).

> so it is not proportional and you can't "eyeball" the
> power loss at other altitudes using this figure.

After experimenting with the numbers and calculator above, the 3% hp lost/1000
feet of altitude appears to me to be a "not bad" rule of thumb.

> The altitude will not directly affect your mileage, at least on modern
> FI cars. But, since you have to rev the engine harder to keep up
> decent torque, there will be small additional friction losses due to
> the higher rpm.

So small as to be negligible, at least for my move from sea level to a mile
high.

> Also its harder on your ears to drive this way, so
> maybe some people will settle for lower engine output in the first
> place.

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

Thanks,

I am a fairly aggressive driver (not that much, tho), and the kind of
driving is pure stop & go. Absolutely no highway. (Not a good combo).

I tried "premium" gas to see if it helped. It didn't, so I am back to
regular now.

Still, I'll talk to the dealer when it goes to its 5000K checkup.

-Indirecto


"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:O%dwc.26966$bVw1.2217@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> You are getting terrible mileage out of your 04 Accord. 8km/l (or
> 12.5litres/100km) is 18 mpg, which is far below the fuel efficiency of
> an Accord 4-cyl.
>
> My 01 Prelude (which is far less fuel efficient than a 04 Accord)
> consumes about 11 litres/100km (21.4mpg), in city driving. On the
> highway I am getting about 9 litres/100km (26.1mpg). My old 94 Accord
> EXR was getting slightly better numbers than my 01 Prelude.
>
> So there is either something wrong with your car, or you are a very
> agressive driver.
>
> Cosmin
>
> Indirecto wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

OK, I looked at this further, & at meaningful automotive altitudes I
agree you can loosly approximate it at 3% per thousand feet. It has a
much bigger effect at higher altitudes. My bad.

JM

Re: Please check my Calculations
 

"JM" <jmattis@attglobal.net> wrote
> OK, I looked at this further, & at meaningful automotive altitudes I
> agree you can loosly approximate it at 3% per thousand feet. It has a
> much bigger effect at higher altitudes. My bad.

Hey, no bad. I didn't think anything meaningful happened at high altitudes. On
the contrary, your first observation about the consensus where you live being
"hp lost is about 11% at 3000 feet" is a great guideline.

I figure most folks who have any Western mountain driving experience know the HP
is going to get worse--but not unmanageable--at the usual driving higher
altitudes. It's better at lower altitudes. So it seems a bit intuitive that HP
variation with altitude is very crudely (but still usefully) linear.

Shoulda figured this from my summer running a little cross-country near Boulder,
Colorado.