whats the easiest and fastest way to get more than 33 mpg?

[BoogerBurns]

I get 33 mpg last time at the pump, im really happy after getting 14 mpg with my truck with a 302 V8 ford truck. But IS there a way to get more? I H shift and dont engine brake and stuff like that, shift at about 2.5RPM. and use 5th gear alot. Tell me HOOW?!?!?

[ghettogeddy]

33 is pretty good

[frantik]

buy a motorcycle


... dont engine brake ...

does engine breaking give you worse mpg?

[Civic Accord Honda]

Step 1 Remove A20a3
Step 2 make new motor mounts
Step 3 Install G10L
Step 4 enjoy hella mpg
Step 5 rage about how slow your car is
Step 6 drink a beer!

[cubert]

Step 1 Remove A20a3
Step 2 make new motor mounts
Step 3 Install G10L
Step 4 enjoy hella mpg
Step 5 rage about how slow your car is
Step 6 drink a beer!

:lol:


Seriously though...33mpg out a a 20 year old 2 liter engine isnt bad at all. Whens the last time the car had a tune up?

[greentee76]

http://WWW.ECOMODDER.COM

[Vanilla Sky]

A bicycle.

[Rendon LX-i]

NO get a BUSA bike motor boosted will make tons of hp and have 34mpg LOL

[2oodoor]

advance ign timing in two degree increments until you get spark knock detonation then back off two degrees or till it stops. You should be able to get slightly above the spec that way. It allows much less throttle opening for power. Be very carefull doing this because detonation will harm the engine.

tire pressure, weight loss, synthetic oil, wax car for less wind resistance

[Dr_Snooz]

Drive 55.

[BoogerBurns]

Just did a tune up. And Engine braking does consume more fuel. Also, I know with my ford that I had, if you put a Cold Air Intake, and new Exhaust on it, it would bump the mpg by like 1-2. Would that be about right for these A series hondas? If so I wont waste my time yet.
And I like the G10l idea. But that would be hella slow. Like couldnt barely make 55 mph.
And yes snooz, I drive around 55 everywhere, except on major highways like I-20, I have to do around 70 there. Just accustomed to it.

[Joay]

Also, I know with my ford that I had, if you put a Cold Air Intake, and new Exhaust on it, it would bump the mpg by like 1-2. Would that be about right for these A series hondas?
Depends on how you drive and how the parts are designed to work. Most small motor performance parts like that are made to produce more horsepower towards the redline (where you don't get good mileage anyway) at the expense of losing some torque down low (where you normally operate).

Valve adjustment, good fuel like BP or some Chevrons, and pay attention. I got over 37mpg from my bone-stock A20 driving through the Appalachian mountains by keeping the windows up, AC off, drafting, and accelerating downhill and slowing down uphill. Generally, the most efficient stoichiometric fuel mixture in top gear is around 50-60mph, so keep it there as often as you can.

And I know there's an ongoing debate about this, but someone (on 3Geez, I think) actually logged their fuel consumption and found that leaving the engine in gear with the throttle closed uses like 1/6 the fuel that idling does. Personally I get better mileage doing that, and I live in a hilly area. But it's an easy experiment to conduct yourself.

Oh! And think about getting a vacuum gauge.

[Vanilla Sky]

I know that in newer cars there's a fuel cutoff when you engine brake. Are our cars not that smart? Other manufacturers were doing it around that time.

[LX-incredible]

I'm consistently getting 32-33 city and 41 hwy @ 65-70 mph. Intake, full exhaust, no ps or ac, obd1 with unchipped PR4.

[Nafs Asdf]

Our cars should cut the fuel when engine breaking, if they're FI that is. So yeah for better mileage, you should leave it in gear instead of switching to neutral.

I guess the opposite goes for carbed cars.

[cygnus x-1]

http://ecomodder.com/forum/EM-hypermiling-driving-tips-ecodriving.php

C|

[carotman]

Yup, the ECU cuts the fuel when engine braking. There's no point in providing fuel when you're at 2500 rpm with the throttle plate closed.

[ecogabriel]

I know that in newer cars there's a fuel cutoff when you engine brake. Are our cars not that smart? Other manufacturers were doing it around that time.

I know for a fact that at least the '89s are as smart. The 89 service manual describes our PGM-FI system and it says that when one releases the gas pedal completely the ECU cuts off the injectors to save fuel. I have not read about earlier models but it should be the same. If one thinks about it, one does not need fuel in that case; the engine still has to labor to suck air in because the throttle is closed, it compresses that air and then pumps it out.

Anyway, 33 MPG is excellent. I got about 30 MPG once (it's an automatic) because I barely drive the car in highway. Overall, those are in the ballpark of EPA numbers so I'm OK with them.
Another reason why our cars did not qualify for "cash for clunkers"; they are just too good to be scrapped.

[ecogabriel]

Depends on how you drive and how the parts are designed to work. Most small motor performance parts like that are made to produce more horsepower towards the redline (where you don't get good mileage anyway) at the expense of losing some torque down low (where you normally operate).

Valve adjustment, good fuel like BP or some Chevrons, and pay attention. I got over 37mpg from my bone-stock A20 driving through the Appalachian mountains by keeping the windows up, AC off, drafting, and accelerating downhill and slowing down uphill. Generally, the most efficient stoichiometric fuel mixture in top gear is around 50-60mph, so keep it there as often as you can.

And I know there's an ongoing debate about this, but someone (on 3Geez, I think) actually logged their fuel consumption and found that leaving the engine in gear with the throttle closed uses like 1/6 the fuel that idling does. Personally I get better mileage doing that, and I live in a hilly area. But it's an easy experiment to conduct yourself.

Oh! And think about getting a vacuum gauge.

The way you drive makes a lot of a difference. In a trip from GA to IN (about 500 miles) we both took turns at the wheel. In the Toyota (Camry 4cyl, 2.2 auto) A/C was on all the time (f... sticky hot and humid). I averaged 32-33 MPG in that trip; accelerated downhill, eased off pedal uphill, very smooth acceleration, keeping speed as much as possible... my wife's MPG? 29. She did not do what Joay did (or what I did). And even more funny, I ended up driving faster than she did (~70/75 MPH).
Bottom line: the closest one runs the car to its ideal stoichometric fuel mixture the better; jackrabbit accelerations would not cut it. Even A/C would not be that much of a drag on freeway driving

[BoogerBurns]

I must be doing something right! Well I checked the ecomodder stuff out and I LOVE IT!

[w261w261]

Does anyone know how much fuel our (f.i.) engines use at idle? I'm thinking of two scenarios. On a flat road with a mile to a stop sign and the car going 45 mph: Scenario #1, off the gas and coasting in neutral, the car just makes it to the stop sign before stopping. #2, off the gas and left in 5th, the fuel flow is turned off, and the car coasts to a halt, but doesn't make it to the stop sign because of the additional drag of the transmission. Let's make it fairer and say rather than wait for the car to stop and then have to get it going again before again getting off the gas and coasting to the stop sign, we do it best way and stay on the gas just a bit longer (originally) before letting off and coasting in gear w/o fuel. In other words, which is better, the relative loss of efficiency because of the parasitic drag of the in-gear tranny, or the loss because of the idling engine?

[ba109296]

You guys must SUCK at driving. My 89 gets around 45 in the summertime and a disappointing 35-39 during winter.

[2ndGenGuy]

You must SUCK at math. I call BS.

[Lil Mike]

lol my 2gee gets like 20 mpg siiick!!

[w261w261]

<< My 89 gets around 45 in the summertime >>

newbie dreams.

[ba109296]

LOL! newbie dreams huh. Its simple math and I have proved it time and time again to several friends. When I took the cat out and put an intake on it is when it really got good.

I really like the name calling though. Real grown up on this site?

[2ndGenGuy]

What name calling? You have 10 posts, you're a noob. Deal with it. Anybody who is "new" on a site is a "newbie" or "noob" or "n00b." Also, there's no way your car is getting 45mpg unless it's magical.

MPG = miles driven / gallons, try doing the actual math. Fill up the tank, reset your odometer, take pictures of the full tank and odometer. Then run it down, fill it up, and take pics of the receipt and odometer. Then I'll believe you.

Wait wait, I know, you're in Europe aren't you? You know Imperial gallons are smaller than US gallons right? That makes your gas mileage look way better...

[ba109296]

Wow. So the moderators on this site are not only assholes but comedians also? Go you!!

[AccordEpicenter]

Draft 18 wheelers. Seriously

[w261w261]

Draft 18 wheelers. Seriously

I don't know where you drive, but around NY/CT/NJ the 18 wheelers are confined to the right 2 lanes of the 3 lane interstates, and where you find one of them you'll usually find several of his brothers and sisters right behind. The one place you really don't want to be is between a couple of those things. Squish!

[w261w261]

LOL! newbie dreams huh. Its simple math and I have proved it time and time again to several friends. When I took the cat out and put an intake on it is when it really got good.

Maybe other mods too: http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

[2ndGenGuy]

Wow. So the moderators on this site are not only assholes but comedians also? Go you!!

No, not all the moderators. Mostly just me sometimes. And maybe one other guy. :bandance:
Nobody gets 45MPG on a 3rd Generation Accord. Especially not by removing the cat and installing a short ram air filter or whatever it is you did. If you said, "I have an 1800lb, 1.3 liter CRX" then I might have believed you. And YOU are the one who came on and told everybody they suck. So what's the deal with that?

[gp02a0083]

extreme tailwind

[JFern]

You guys must SUCK at driving. My 89 gets around 45 in the summertime and a disappointing 35-39 during winter.

I call bs as well :rolleyes:, most prius owners claim about 45mpg and Fit owners claim 35-40mpg, Its highly illogical that your 20 year old car gets better gas mileage than almost every new car (including hybrids: see government website about prius mileage ---> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectEngine.jsp?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Prius)

In order for the a20a3 to get around 45 mpg, you would average about 540-720 miles per gas tank (12 gallons to 16 gallons i don't remember exactly how big the tanks are). Thats hard to believe performance coming from a motor that makes ~110-120 hp @ they flywheel (and power loss is about 10-15% in FWD vehicles which would make 93.5-108 hp to the wheels) now you taking out the cat and adding an intake would only add a little bit of power (and could potentially lose some) but for the BOTD ill give you ~120 at the wheels. Now add that together with a car thats curb weight is ~2500-2750lbs and you have a car with a power to weight ratio of 20.83-22.91lbs/HP and a motor whose efficiency is in the ballpark of 60HP/L.

To put it into perspective Im going to compare your car to a Fit since they are both NA (and not hybrids) a 2010 Honda Fit has a curb weight of about 2500 pounds and an estimated mileage of 35mpg highway (09' fit owners claim 39 so we will meet in between and say 37mpg highway as an average.) Its powered by a 1.5 liter that makes ~ 105 to the wheels. It's power to weight ratio is 23.8lbs/HP and the motor efficiency is 70HP/L.
To recap:
Fit: 23.8lbs/HP 70HP/L (17.9sec @ 75.7mph 1/4mile) mpg: 39
Accord: 22.9lbs/HP 60HP/L (17.3 unknown trap speed) mpg: 45?

How is it that a car with a more efficient motor, that is more aerodynamic and has more economically friendly gearing than the accord gets less mpg than yours? (not to mention that no one else on this forum gets anywhere near what you claim) granted the fit doesn't make quite as much power to weight but thats not enough to bump it that high. *my calculations do not include drag coefficients, trans gearing, tires used, or climate.

so anyways ba109296, show me your simple math of how you get gas mileage because frankly i'm confused. So unless you are getting 700 miles to the tank (i only get about half) and can prove it. you might as well just quit trying and stop trying to be macho with the mods

[2drSE-i]

You guys must SUCK at driving. My 89 gets around 45 in the summertime and a disappointing 35-39 during winter.

and You must stop at tall hills, shut the car off and coast down about 200 miles.

[JFern]

and You must stop at tall hills, shut the car off and coast down about 200 miles.

lol thats what i do when i go to work everyday, i haven't bought gas since y2k haha

[LX-incredible]

I call bs as well. Although possible to achieve 45 mpg with extensive mods, weight reduction, and planning, it would be a pretty ridiculous average for everyday flat driving... A gutted cat and short ram alone won't do squat.

[JFern]

I call bs as well. Although possible to achieve 45 mpg with extensive mods, weight reduction, and planning, it would be a pretty ridiculous average for everyday flat driving... A gutted cat and short ram alone won't do squat.

ya my car (which has quite a bit of weight taken out) some mods (including a CAI, port and polished head, tune up etc.) gets about 30-35 depending on how i drive

[lostforawhile]

I remember the stock Honda civic 1500's 81-83 could hit 40 something highway. of course modding the engines makes that go down a lot

[mykwikcoupe]

I dont know what you guys are complaining about. I average 26-28 mpg in my car its in perfect health. Im just too much of a lead foot to keep these gutless wonders from doing what they were built to do, Be efficient and cheap. I never got over 20 mpg in the wifeys weber swapped 38 carbed car. The best gas mileage I ever got was going over stevens pass at around 90 mph. Its a 3500 ft climb over 14 miles and back down again. the backside is quite stepper then the front side so i was able to coast down for the most part applying only light pedal to accompany the cxorners and such. I got 34 mph that time and I was freeakin amazed. Like I was curious if someone put gas in my tank rather then siphoned it. I guess coasting over 60 miles really helps also and the remainer being very flat

[gp02a0083]

no way our cars will get that, its even a long shot with everything you can do to it, even with extreme weight reduction. the only honda i know of as another member said is a 50's crx 1.3l i know those can get into the higher 30's mpg but there like 1/2 the weight of our accords

[ba109296]

I am neither trying to act cool or be a bad ass or anything else. I am just telling it how it is with my car. My last tank I got 35. But for some reason in the winter I get some real bad gas mileage.

How about everyone try this for 1 tank. Shift your car at 2k. Occasionally higher when you have to merge.
Try that for one full tank and see what you can actually get out of it before you bash what you can't seem to understand.

Further if you want to do research there are more than a few people on the internet that get INSANE gas mileage from a handful of unusual practices. Do research before you get too excited! I am a cheap bastard. I like to save money when I can so I can build my fun cars which are dsm's.

[lostforawhile]

no way our cars will get that, its even a long shot with everything you can do to it, even with extreme weight reduction. the only honda i know of as another member said is a 50's crx 1.3l i know those can get into the higher 30's mpg but there like 1/2 the weight of our accords
those crx's can get a lot higher then that, the early civics got insane fuel mileage on the road, i've heard that the old 1200's could get almost 50 mpg highway, knowing that you can easily push them down the street yourself, that wouldn't surprise me a bit. the reason the fuel mileage has stabilized or actually gone down on Honda's, is they keep adding more weight and making them bigger.plus more onboard crap , and the horepower has gone up. look at an accord today,it's just another midsize bloated car. we all know they didn't use to be that way.

[2ndGenGuy]

I am neither trying to act cool or be a bad ass or anything else. I am just telling it how it is with my car. My last tank I got 35. But for some reason in the winter I get some real bad gas mileage.

How about everyone try this for 1 tank. Shift your car at 2k. Occasionally higher when you have to merge.
Try that for one full tank and see what you can actually get out of it before you bash what you can't seem to understand.

Further if you want to do research there are more than a few people on the internet that get INSANE gas mileage from a handful of unusual practices. Do research before you get too excited! I am a cheap bastard. I like to save money when I can so I can build my fun cars which are dsm's.

That's what doesn't make any sense. In winter time, you should be getting better mileage. You get cooler, denser air which will help the car either run more efficiently or leaner. Either one should help gas mileage.

[JFern]

That's what doesn't make any sense. In winter time, you should be getting better mileage. You get cooler, denser air which will help the car either run more efficiently or leaner. Either one should help gas mileage.

Not to mention in the summer you actually get less gas from the pump to the car because of heat expansion in the holding tanks, which would make it worse

[ba109296]

Where the heck do you guys get this info? In the winter time EVERY car gets worse mileage. Its the additives they put in for winter that suck away your mileage. Has nothing to do with the colder air outside.
In the summer you should NEVER fill your tank up fast. Always keep it in the lowest click of the pump or even lower. That takes care of the extra air and actually pumps more gas instead of more air.

[Vanilla Sky]

It requires more fuel for your motor to run in the cold. You have both cold start-up which drains fuel, and you have to add more fuel to compensate for the denser air. Denser air means more oxygen for the volume. That means you have to add more fuel to keep it from pinging. My old Nissan truck sucked fuel in the winter until I made a warm air intake, which got me back up into the 20's instead of the high teens.

With hypermiling, I could see 45 out of a 3gee. You just have to be serious about it. Never over about 1/8 throttle unless required and so on.

[2ndGenGuy]

Well, I dunno where you live, but my gas mileage is pretty consistent year round. As it is for everybody I know in my area... I dunno what kind of additives they use where you live, but a 35% decrease in mileage is hugely drastic. I've heard of an extra 5-10% ethanol in extreme cases, but even that shouldn't cause that drastic of a fuel mileage decrease.

Also, I doubt that the pump speed will produce any measurable difference in fuel output. The pumps are checked and verified for accuracy regularly by a regulatory body. Notice the inspection stickers on the pumps. And how do you know that running the pump slower doesn't introduce more air? What if it's a submersible pump in the tanks? Then I don't see how any air could get pumped in at all...

If were going to get into hypermiling, I'm out of this conversation. It's not practical, and unrealistic to do on a daily basis.

EDIT: Sorry Vanilla, didn't see your post until I posted. I don't know if your Nissan was fuel injected or not, but definitely am just speaking in terms of EFI cars. Carb'd cars run better with the air at a certain "warm" temperature because the fuel passing through the barrels and manifold will atomize and stay atomized better. Whereas an EFI car doesn't have this problem since the the fuel injectors atomize the fuel fairly well, and inject the atomized fuel directly into the ports in the head. Meaning less time for it to cool and puddle and stick to the passages in the intake manifold. Hence the reason the Carb'd 3geez and 2geez have that hot air tube coming up off the exhaust manifold with the temp regulator valve keeping the intake temps around 100 degrees.

[Vanilla Sky]

I've heard the slow pump before, too. I practice it myself, but for other reasons. The theory is that if you pump the fuel too fast, it will slosh in your fuel tank more, and due to the sloshing, you'll evaporate more fuel than if you pumped slowly. I can see how you can reach that conclusion, but I don't really buy it. You can, however, test the theory using 2 jars, an aquarium air pump, some tubing and an air stone.

You put the stone in one jar, hooked up to the pump, and fill both jars to the same line. The jar with the stone will evaporate more water than the jar without. I don't see how you get a measurable amount of evaporation in a fuel tank, though, not just on fillup anyway.

[2ndGenGuy]

That makes some sense. But also, seal off the jar, except for a tiny tiny vapor vent and fill it through a sealed tube. Also, there's no air stone in your gas tank... :tongue:

[Vanilla Sky]

I know, but that's the only way you can really see what they're thinking. IF there is evaporation occurring, it's going to be so small that it doesn't matter.

However, I have to say that in our new car, which has an onboard computer that calculates fuel used, the longer we go between fills, the bigger disparity between the measured fuel economy and what the computer says. I don't put a lot of faith in the onboard computer, but that's another example cited in hypermiling circles regarding evaporation.

[lostforawhile]

Well, I dunno where you live, but my gas mileage is pretty consistent year round. As it is for everybody I know in my area... I dunno what kind of additives they use where you live, but a 35% decrease in mileage is hugely drastic. I've heard of an extra 5-10% ethanol in extreme cases, but even that shouldn't cause that drastic of a fuel mileage decrease.

Also, I doubt that the pump speed will produce any measurable difference in fuel output. The pumps are checked and verified for accuracy regularly by a regulatory body. Notice the inspection stickers on the pumps. And how do you know that running the pump slower doesn't introduce more air? What if it's a submersible pump in the tanks? Then I don't see how any air could get pumped in at all...

If were going to get into hypermiling, I'm out of this conversation. It's not practical, and unrealistic to do on a daily basis.

EDIT: Sorry Vanilla, didn't see your post until I posted. I don't know if your Nissan was fuel injected or not, but definitely am just speaking in terms of EFI cars. Carb'd cars run better with the air at a certain "warm" temperature because the fuel passing through the barrels and manifold will atomize and stay atomized better. Whereas an EFI car doesn't have this problem since the the fuel injectors atomize the fuel fairly well, and inject the atomized fuel directly into the ports in the head. Meaning less time for it to cool and puddle and stick to the passages in the intake manifold. Hence the reason the Carb'd 3geez and 2geez have that hot air tube coming up off the exhaust manifold with the temp regulator valve keeping the intake temps around 100 degrees.correct, fuel injected cars measure the outside air and adjust the fuel accordingly, the computerized carbs on the three g do this to an extent, but not as well, they control the air injected into the manifold to adjust mixture, and one of the parameters is the thermoswitch in the air cleaner,as well as a couple of vaccume thermo switches on the engine.

[kentwat]

I drive the sh1t out of my 86 lxi and i average 30mpg. Granted this is mostly city miles usually max rpm 3500 sometimes i buzz it up around 4000 but usually its the 3-3500 range. 5 speed no mods and pgm-fi light on with a quality code 12 stored. Im very happy with that since it comes with no car payment. I've tried the 2k shifting theory and I didn't see any improvement in mileage. It was just a long 300 miles.

[Tomisimo]

I live in mountains and we have curve roads here and I still manage to do 34-35mpg.. if you ask me thats pretty good for a car with moonroof, all electric and 4 wheel disc brakes.

[Vanilla Sky]

EDIT: Sorry Vanilla, didn't see your post until I posted. I don't know if your Nissan was fuel injected or not, but definitely am just speaking in terms of EFI cars. Carb'd cars run better with the air at a certain "warm" temperature because the fuel passing through the barrels and manifold will atomize and stay atomized better. Whereas an EFI car doesn't have this problem since the the fuel injectors atomize the fuel fairly well, and inject the atomized fuel directly into the ports in the head. Meaning less time for it to cool and puddle and stick to the passages in the intake manifold. Hence the reason the Carb'd 3geez and 2geez have that hot air tube coming up off the exhaust manifold with the temp regulator valve keeping the intake temps around 100 degrees.

Nope, Nissan was EFI. The difference between warm air and cold, damp air was almost 2 MPG. In the Summer, the difference wasn't there at all, just in the coldest parts of the Florida Winter.

[2ndGenGuy]

Was it direct port or TBI?

[Vanilla Sky]

Multiport, very similar to the setup the 3gee has, but with a horrible intake manifold design

[ecogabriel]

I live in mountains and we have curve roads here and I still manage to do 34-35mpg.. if you ask me thats pretty good for a car with moonroof, all electric and 4 wheel disc brakes.

I only checked highway fuel consumption on my LXi auto once. In a short drive (40 miles) I estimated about 30 mpg. I am OK with it; EPA estimates for the time the car was new were 27mpg highway. A loosened engine may have less friction and thus run a little more efficiently,
The numbers you suggest sound reasonable for a couple of reasons: one, if yours is a 5-speed you may easily gain another 10% in gas mileage out of using a stick instead of an auto -marginally lower car weight, lower transmission losses (no torque converter that would sap power). Two, different regulatory requirements may make your car lighter in weight than the american counterpart.

But I consider really improbable going beyond 40 miles per gallon.

[-DWM-]

I regularly get 32-35 mpg in my 89 LX-i. That's with a short ram intake, bad motor mounts, and small oil leaks, using premium (93 octane) fuel.

[lostforawhile]

I only checked highway fuel consumption on my LXi auto once. In a short drive (40 miles) I estimated about 30 mpg. I am OK with it; EPA estimates for the time the car was new were 27mpg highway. A loosened engine may have less friction and thus run a little more efficiently,
The numbers you suggest sound reasonable for a couple of reasons: one, if yours is a 5-speed you may easily gain another 10% in gas mileage out of using a stick instead of an auto -marginally lower car weight, lower transmission losses (no torque converter that would sap power). Two, different regulatory requirements may make your car lighter in weight than the american counterpart.

But I consider really improbable going beyond 40 miles per gallon.the dx is a lot lighter factory too, if you aren't going to use the ac,ditch it, it's very heavy!! and switch to one of the lightweight batteries like the odyssey. well worth the money, and much better reliability. by eliminating 20 pounds at the battery, and ditching the ac, my car still weighs less then factory, even after adding everything i did. of course I got rid of 50 pounds of vacuum nightmare and all my parts are lightweight aircraft alloy. When I get this thing running it'll be interesting to see my mileage, SU carbs are very efficient,since the piston adjusts to driving conditions. They act like you are using a smaller carb for cruise and a larger carb for acceleration

[ShyBoyCA6]

damn dwm isnt that a lil high for a 21 year car???

[lostforawhile]

I call bs as well :rolleyes:, most prius owners claim about 45mpg and Fit owners claim 35-40mpg, Its highly illogical that your 20 year old car gets better gas mileage than almost every new car (including hybrids: see government website about prius mileage ---> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectEngine.jsp?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Prius)

In order for the a20a3 to get around 45 mpg, you would average about 540-720 miles per gas tank (12 gallons to 16 gallons i don't remember exactly how big the tanks are). Thats hard to believe performance coming from a motor that makes ~110-120 hp @ they flywheel (and power loss is about 10-15% in FWD vehicles which would make 93.5-108 hp to the wheels) now you taking out the cat and adding an intake would only add a little bit of power (and could potentially lose some) but for the BOTD ill give you ~120 at the wheels. Now add that together with a car thats curb weight is ~2500-2750lbs and you have a car with a power to weight ratio of 20.83-22.91lbs/HP and a motor whose efficiency is in the ballpark of 60HP/L.

To put it into perspective Im going to compare your car to a Fit since they are both NA (and not hybrids) a 2010 Honda Fit has a curb weight of about 2500 pounds and an estimated mileage of 35mpg highway (09' fit owners claim 39 so we will meet in between and say 37mpg highway as an average.) Its powered by a 1.5 liter that makes ~ 105 to the wheels. It's power to weight ratio is 23.8lbs/HP and the motor efficiency is 70HP/L.
To recap:
Fit: 23.8lbs/HP 70HP/L (17.9sec @ 75.7mph 1/4mile) mpg: 39
Accord: 22.9lbs/HP 60HP/L (17.3 unknown trap speed) mpg: 45?

How is it that a car with a more efficient motor, that is more aerodynamic and has more economically friendly gearing than the accord gets less mpg than yours? (not to mention that no one else on this forum gets anywhere near what you claim) granted the fit doesn't make quite as much power to weight but thats not enough to bump it that high. *my calculations do not include drag coefficients, trans gearing, tires used, or climate.

so anyways ba109296, show me your simple math of how you get gas mileage because frankly i'm confused. So unless you are getting 700 miles to the tank (i only get about half) and can prove it. you might as well just quit trying and stop trying to be macho with the modsford is bragging about their new cars getting 25 mpg, don't complain. the early civics got amazing fuel mileage, many people reported the 1200 models could get close to 50 mpg, and this was in the seventies. of course they didn't have heavy navigation systems, climate control systems, video screens, dvd players etc. etc, whats happening is the engines get more efficient and more powerful,but they keep adding more and more crap. so the fuel mileage stays the same, and the performance stays the same. if they would make a basic stripped down fun to drive car, they would probably have killer fuel mileage. but everyone wants 20 cup holders and a video screen for the kids.

[-DWM-]

damn dwm isnt that a lil high for a 21 year car???
I thought so too, but I do the math at the pump every time. Maybe I'm a really efficient driver. I also fill my tires to 32 psi, and I still have fresh plugs/wires/cap/rotor.

[ShyBoyCA6]

I thought so too, but I do the math at the pump every time. Maybe I'm a really efficient driver. I also fill my tires to 32 psi, and I still have fresh plugs/wires/cap/rotor.

same here but i pump 89 octane fuel from chevron i got new plugs new cap and new rotor but same cables (looked new when i bought it) and i fill it all da way and it last me for 2 weeks and a half and mods are a custom short ram intake with a air duct hose connected to air filter and ngk iridium but if i get my exhuash pipe fixed i know that my girl will hual more ass and be a better gas saver i probably get like 28 mpg on the street it hardly goes down highway like 34 mpg