Accord bites the dust

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!

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

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.

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 d> Seth wrote:

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

Elliot Richmond wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Just be aware that fours of that vintage still had a timing belt and the one you get may soon be due for a belt change.

i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't remember the pita that loose chains can be - perhaps that's why they're suddenly back in fashion - the old farts are retiring from development teams.

On Jul 9, 12:38 am, jim beam wrote: .

not trying to start an argument... i think the actual car make and model is what determines whether the chain is more of a PITA than the belt or vice-versa. :~)>

i am pretty sure the chains are coming back in fashion is because of their increased longevity. this is only a guess on my part, of course. i do know the chain in my honda is loud, but it sounds cool!

bob z.

belts don't stretch and therefore offer much better long term precision for valve timing. besides, you only need to change a belt every 100,000 miles!!!

I think that's the case. I don't know what the difference is, but I recall when chains had a shorter service life than belts do today. My Prius has a chain and there is no recommended service interval for the chain; in the Prius forums I frequent there are several people who have passed the 200K mile mark and I have yet to hear of chain problems. In contrast, the '84 Dodge 600 I had with a Mitsubishi engine was not worth repairing when the timing and balance chains needed to be replaced around 100K. One of them was chewing on the chain cover. First step: remove engine to allow access to the timing chain cover.

Mike

I agree that it does depend on the manufacturer. Toyota 4-bangers have had chains for about 10 years now, and I am not aware of any problems with those. On the other hand, I've heard of some 1st-gen Ford Escorts whose timing belts broke well within the specified interval.

Heck, last year with a 4cyl auto Accord, I got 37 mpg highway driving doing about 73mph average on a 2 hour plus trip. About a year later doing the same trip I got about 34 mpg with same car (less load in car :( ). Both cases I used cruise control.

And if no one believes me, I don't care. I only point it out because

35 is possible.

I'll third that one... my dad bought an '81 Dodge pickup brand new, with a chain-timed Slant 6 (incredible, indestructible engine)... retired it in '87 wth 450,000+km. Timing chain was so stretched it was constantly rubbing on the inside of its cover, but it just kept on going, never a problem with it.

My '80 GLC had a chain as well... its eventual death by chain slippage was my own stupid fault for not tensioning it properly after a head-gasket change.

Conversely, my three '87 Accords have never had timing belt problems... put well over 300,000km on my first one with only changing the belt once, and even that was only because I had to change the water pump anyway.

fueleconomy.gov suggests it is within the realm of possibility, IMO. See especially the individuals' reports on what they're getting for the 2000 Accord.

Furthermore, fueleconomy.gov says my 91 Civic (5-speed manual tranny, no A/C, 1.5 liter engine) should get 28/33 mpg, with three individuals reporting they get 34-39 mpg . Year-round my Civic averages 40 mpg, ranging from about

38-47 mpg, depending on whether I am driving around the 'burbs or on the highway. I do not do much city driving. On the highway, with many tanks of gas etc. used for data, the car gets about 45 mpg driving at about 65 mph.