Honda Car Forum

a wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> a wrote:
>>> L Alpert wrote:
>>>> a wrote:
>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>> In article <_FRii.14820$Io4.11389@edtnps89>, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog
>>>>>>> in terms of power...
>>>>>> I had an 00 Accord 4 cylinder, and it was a fantastic car with
>>>>>> PLENTY of power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Course, I outfitted mine properly: with a manual transmission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road
>>>>>> trip, AC on full blast, going through the mountains.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong - mine is a 5 speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're 35mpg is horse shit, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>>
>>>> Why is that? My '04 V6 gets a tad over 30MPG on the highway, and
>>>> I'm usually around 75MPH.......
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again - "If my Auntie had bullocks, she'd be my Uncle!"
>>>
>>> WTF does your experience in a different car, different engine,
>>> different city different state, different country(?), different
>>> driving style, different fuel... have to do with his mpg?
>>>
>>> a
>>
>> stop being a prick. your "experience" is different because you're
>> either being a hotrod or there's something wrong with your car. don't
>> call people liars when they're not.
>
> Uh, how do you *know* that they are not liars?
>
> a

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.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-5B45AB.10140305072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> In article <Xns99646434D8735jyanikkuanet@64.209.0.85>,
> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>> > Since you're the fool who is disputing our claims, the onus is on
>> > you to prove us wrong.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry,it doesn't work that way;the one who made the claim of 35 MPG
>> is the one who needs to show proof.
>
> No, I simply need to offer it as a datum point.

It's not "data",it's a CLAIM to be data.
>
> Evaluate the other data points, and see what you get.
>
> Let's see....you're the only one who's disputing it, so...
>
>

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

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article <Xns99646BF563D13jyanikkuanet@64.209.0.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

> > No, I simply need to offer it as a datum point.
>
> It's not "data",it's a CLAIM to be data.

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.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:10:52 -0500, Elliot Richmond
<xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

>Consequently. we are in the market for a newish 2004 - 2006 Accord
>with roughly equivalent trim (EX). I am leaning toward the 4 cylinder
>V-Tech engine as the 4 cylinder was more than adequate for the Accord
>we had and the new ones are not that much bigger.

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.

On Jul 5, 11:03 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <e...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> <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.

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?k...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.

In article <1183688448.830935.270440@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>,
bob zee <bobzee1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 5, 11:03 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <e...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> > <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.
>
> 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?k...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
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-9AAE54.23231404072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <WgXii.21784$tB5.9972@edtnps90>, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Why would you think I'm bending the truth? Do you have different
>> > experiences with a similar car?
>> >
>>
>> Yes.
>
> What's your experience?
>
> Further, if you were one out of 30, for example, who had the bad
> experience, would you insist that the 30 must be lying--because plainly
> your experience is the norm, not an exception?
>
> Why is the world supposed to accept YOUR experience as the norm?
>
> I posted a single datum point: in that particular car, I got that
> mileage. I make no claims otherwise. I don't insist that everyone else
> is getting that.
>
> You have a datum point--but you insist that yours is representative of
> every similar car out there, bar none.
>
> I let my datum point lie there as a number. Others will kick in with
> their experiences. You are part of the others.
>
> If your datum point lies statistically outside where the others lie,
> well, statistics is a well known science.
>
> In the meantime, let's all kick in with our experiences and let the
> reader make up his own mind.
>
> But for some reason, you're all bent out of shape at the idea that
> others have different experiences than you have, and that the readers
> here might not take your experience as the norm. Why does that bother
> you, that someone reading this thread might come away thinking your
> experience was the anomaly?
>
> Please notice that no one here is calling you a liar--unlike you, who is
> calling everyone else a liar. The reader will deduce from that what he
> will. No doubt he will dismiss your datum point and move on.
>

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-025361.22490405072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> In article <1183688448.830935.270440@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>,
> bob zee <bobzee1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 5, 11:03 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <e...@nastydesigns.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > <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.
>>
>> 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?k...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>
>
>

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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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.

On Jul 4, 6:59 pm, a <a...@a.ca> wrote:
> Seth wrote:
> > "a" <a...@a.ca> wrote in messagenews:iYUii.21769$tB5.3923@edtnps90...
> >> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> >>> In article <_FRii.14820$Io4.11389@edtnps89>, a <a...@a.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog
> >>>> in terms of power...
>
> >>> I had an 00 Accord 4 cylinder, and it was a fantastic car with PLENTY
> >>> of power.
>
> >>> 'Course, I outfitted mine properly: with a manual transmission.
>
> >>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road
> >>> trip, AC on full blast, going through the mountains.
>
> >> Nothing wrong - mine is a 5 speed.
>
> >> You're 35mpg is horse shit, though.
>
> > How so? I get almost 30mpg out of an '01 V6 with automatic.
>
> How so? Because I don't believe his story, that's how so. Just because
> you *almost* get 30 mpg (what's *almost* 30mpg? 25? 29? 22? What?) doesn't
> mean jack in relation to someone else getting X+ mpg with their car.
>
> a- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 4, 8:51 pm, a <a...@a.ca> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <70Xii.21781$tB5.18283@edtnps90>, a <a...@a.ca> wrote:
>
> >>> Sure it does. If an 01 V6 automatic trans car gets 30, it's well within
> >>> his realm of believability that a 4 cylinder manual trans car gets 35 in
> >>> the same circumstances.
>
> >> "realm of believability" ?? You serious? Either it *does* or it *doesn't*.
>
> > He doesn't know, but he can surmise from his experience that I'm not
> > lying.
>
> > You, on the other hand, seem to insist that I'm lying. So either you
> > have your own experiences that so indicate, or else you're just an
> > asshole in general.
>
> > Which would it be?
>
> Until you prove it - I don't believe you - and since you can't prove it here...
>
> "I'm the King of Siam!" I can say anything I want in a newsgroup without
> having to prove anything. Are you saying it just has to be in the "realm
> of believability" for us to take it as fact? I don't buy it. Deal with it.
> It's not in *my* realm of believability.
>
> - Here's how it is - you state what you say is fact.
>
> - I say you're full of shit.
>
> End of story - You may, or may not, be full of shit, but what does that matter?
>
> - Show quoted text -ng


Having read these postings I would like to say that I had a `92 accord
4 ,auto that gave me NO LESS than 32 mpg on the highway .,,,

This was on cross country trips in the US and Canada, mostly US .

If I remember correctly ? the speed limit in Nevada and/or New mexico
was 75 mph, but most everypne did at least 10 mph above that , me as
well.

Montana at that time had a prima facie speed limit( which has now been
changed to 70mph).

I set the cruise at 110 MPH here and got the same mileage overall.


mred