2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway

Ralph wrote:
> The dealership says my sister's rotors must be replaced 'because they're
> rusting'.

Hah hah. Potamkin in NYC, by any chance? Or another crook? They said
that about mine (94 Civic), too, and when I got a look at them I
laughed. Not in the guy's face--though I should have--because I was
standing there with the seller and it was a pre-purchase checkup, but I
did laugh privately later... (with the seller cuz I'm an honest guy)

Elle and Elmo are right on.

Abe

"Ralph" > wrote in :

> The dealership says my sister's rotors must be replaced 'because they're
> rusting'.
>
> The CR-V has 60,000 km on it. Is this normal wear?
>
> Your expert opinion is invited... thanks, Jack.
>
>


60K km (40K miles) in how many years? You haven't provided that, and it's
crucial.

You're obviously in Canada, but I don't know where. Northeastern Canada is
the very worst place for brake rust on the planet.

The less you drive, the more rust forms, and the sooner they need replacing
relative to your mileage. Elmo is right.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Thanks for your insight.

Location - Ottawa. I think my sister's CR-V is about 2 years old.

Thanks again for writing - Jack.

<Rob> wrote in message ...
> Just thought this gas mileage story might be worth noting for some
> Honda Accord buyers.
>
> I just took my first long ride with this car this past weekend from
> Houston, Texas to Austin, Texas and back. I used cruise control 99
> percent of the time and had 2 adults, 2 teenagers and baggage and air
> conditioning 100 percent of the time. I locked in the cruise control
> at about 66 or 67 mph (speed limit said 70) and just stayed mostly in
> the right lane to allow cars/trucks to pass me. Most of the trip is
> hilly terrain and weather was sunny and warm and not much wind. Car
> is in excellent shape.
>
> I was concerned that gas stations would be closed based on news
> reports earlier so I wanted to be sure to do this trip on one tank of
> gas tho it turned out gas stations were open. I calculated I got 37.5
> mile/gal and I was totally surprised.

That's not surprising. I get similar mileage too with mine. Can do
Dallas-Houston-Dallas on one tank easy.

RAT

Well, it sounds like he is coasting a lot and letting his speed drop
when going up hills also. If you really game the system, you will beat
the cruise control. After all, you can see what's coming up next, and
it can't. It also sounds like he's making his fellow drivers nuts by
going 50 mph and getting in their way. Austin traffic is hellacious,
and I wouldn't want to be behind this guy so he can save $10 a month.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:11:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> wrote:

>In article >, wrote:
>
>> To get that economy, I use no air
>> conditioning, no cruise control
>
>ahem. Your BEST mileage will be when using cruise control.

You'd think so, but experimentally, in a lot of different cars doing
economy runs, its not. Cruise control is just to keep the car at a
constant speed, no to do it efficiently.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:21:40 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> flobert > wrote:
>
>> >ahem. Your BEST mileage will be when using cruise control.
>>
>> You'd think so, but experimentally, in a lot of different cars doing
>> economy runs, its not. Cruise control is just to keep the car at a
>> constant speed, no to do it efficiently.
>
>So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually,
>and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so
>be it?

I say up front i ahven't used cruise control in years, except for once
last week. My vehicles don't have it, i don't use it. I used it on my
wifes work van, a 96 T+C. Before this, my last experiance was with a
03 buick century back in 03 (a rental car).

Basically, whenevre it droped below the set speed, it opened the
throttle to what felt like 20%, and carried on until the set speed was
reached. Personally, i'd fluctuate a bit more, run it 3 or so over,
let it run 3 or so under, and repeat. The vehicle seemed to surge as
well, as it moved into acceleration mode. and it never went over about
2500rpm, avoiding the peak torque area (which is the most efficient
area)) although whether this was more a fact of the cruise control, or
the slushbox, i don't know.

These large and drequent instances of throttle usage are not efficient
However, the wife loves the cruise control. i've asked her to make a
not of how far and how much fuel she used in the van today, and when
we do the route again, i'lm going to go with her, and drive as i
normally do, to compareThat'll be at least a week away though.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:34:22 -0400, flobert > wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:11:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> wrote:
>
>>In article >, wrote:
>>
>>> To get that economy, I use no air
>>> conditioning, no cruise control
>>
>>ahem. Your BEST mileage will be when using cruise control.
>
>You'd think so, but experimentally, in a lot of different cars doing
>economy runs, its not. Cruise control is just to keep the car at a
>constant speed, no to do it efficiently.

Cruise control will be an obvious help for those who cannot keep from
moving their foot up and down on the throttle on level ground without
a headwind. However, people who can keep their speed on level ground
within a couple of miles per hour can save gas when going up hill and
into headwinds. The cruise control will attempt to maintain speed
come hell or high water, even to the point of shifting down. This is
when a person with the ability to "feel" the car can get better
mileage by backing off slightly to avoid the balls to the wall effort
by the cruise. Under normal circumstances on the highway I will use
the cruise. When I get into the mountains I turn it off.

Dick

Dick wrote:

> Cruise control will be an obvious help for those who cannot keep from
> moving their foot up and down on the throttle on level ground without
> a headwind. However, people who can keep their speed on level ground
> within a couple of miles per hour can save gas when going up hill and
> into headwinds. The cruise control will attempt to maintain speed
> come hell or high water, even to the point of shifting down. This is
> when a person with the ability to "feel" the car can get better
> mileage by backing off slightly to avoid the balls to the wall effort
> by the cruise. Under normal circumstances on the highway I will use
> the cruise. When I get into the mountains I turn it off.

All good points.

I think another factor is the use of the "resume" and "accel" functions.
The first few times I used the cruise on my '93 Accord, hitting "resume" at
a speed significantly lower than the set speed resulted in the equivalent of
a somewhat heavy foot (well, heavier than mine, and I'm not exactly an easy
going driver). "Accel" produced a similar result. For that reason, when I
accelerate to get back to my set speed, I press the gas pedal myself to not
rush it, and then when I am at or very close to my previously set speed,
then I "resume". To "accel", again I press the gas pedal myself to not rush
it, and when I reach my intended speed, I "cancel" and then "set" it to the
new speed. I found that this practice increased my gas mileage by a few
miles per gallon.

Of course, this cruise control behaviour may vary among different car
manufacturers.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:55:01 -0400, High Tech Misfit >
wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>
>> Cruise control will be an obvious help for those who cannot keep from
>> moving their foot up and down on the throttle on level ground without
>> a headwind. However, people who can keep their speed on level ground
>> within a couple of miles per hour can save gas when going up hill and
>> into headwinds. The cruise control will attempt to maintain speed
>> come hell or high water, even to the point of shifting down. This is
>> when a person with the ability to "feel" the car can get better
>> mileage by backing off slightly to avoid the balls to the wall effort
>> by the cruise. Under normal circumstances on the highway I will use
>> the cruise. When I get into the mountains I turn it off.
>
>All good points.
>
>I think another factor is the use of the "resume" and "accel" functions.
>The first few times I used the cruise on my '93 Accord, hitting "resume" at
>a speed significantly lower than the set speed resulted in the equivalent of
>a somewhat heavy foot (well, heavier than mine, and I'm not exactly an easy
>going driver). "Accel" produced a similar result. For that reason, when I
>accelerate to get back to my set speed, I press the gas pedal myself to not
>rush it, and then when I am at or very close to my previously set speed,
>then I "resume". To "accel", again I press the gas pedal myself to not rush
>it, and when I reach my intended speed, I "cancel" and then "set" it to the
>new speed. I found that this practice increased my gas mileage by a few
>miles per gallon.
>
>Of course, this cruise control behaviour may vary among different car
>manufacturers.

Absolutely. I should have thought to mention that as well.

Dick