I have a '91 Accord with which I consistently get between 32 and 33 mpg. This is mixed driving; I'll say it's rougly 75% freeway driving and 25% city road driving. I'm probably what you'd call a conservative driver. I generally drive around 65 mph on the freeway. I usually try to avoid rapid acceleration on city streets; in other words, I usually drive with a fairly light foot.

I was on the Internet today looking at Accords and most mpg figures for newer Accords (generally 2003 or later) were either 25 mpg for 4 cylinders or 21 mpg for V6's. I guess newer models may be a little heavier than my '91 and probably have a bit more horsepower, but I would think engineering improvements in fuel economy would have offset those factors so that fuel economy would, if anything, increase, not decrease.

I recently looked at a 2001 Accord EX, a 4 cylinder, and went for a test drive. I'm just wondering whether I'll see a drop in my average fuel economy with a newer car. Or, are the 25 mpg and 21 mpg figures based on a different driving scenario than my typical driving?

Is your '91 a stick? That makes a huge difference.

Also those may be combined MPG estimates, which are meaningless in my experience...

Yes, my '91 is manual transmission. By "huge difference", do you mean a difference of perhaps 2 mpg, or more, or less?

I find in town a stick is good for at least 4-6 mpg better than auto, if you know how to drive it.

Automatic tranny's pump and torque convertor turbine eats a fair amount of horsepower, with the tradeoff of multiplication of torque.

In addition you loose power through slippage until the torque convertor locks up at cruising speed/load, which doesn't occur generally until over 40 mph or so in top gear...which is the main reason they compare so poorly in city driving.

Still I'd say 25 mpg for a 4 cylinder Accord is probably a low estimate...I'd bet they do better than that.

My wife's '95 with automatic gets better than that. Way better on the highway especially.

We have a 2006 Chevy Cobalt 5 spd at work that's rated 22/31, but in reality gets MUCH better, more like 30 around town and I've averaged 39 on long highway trips...

So don't put too much faith in EPA estimates...

Yes

I was just browsing a Honda dealership over Labor Day, and was very disappointed with the new Honda offerings. The Accords have been moved up to full size, and the 4 bangers were rated at 25 MPG highway with an AT. The V6's were 24 highway, and out of every car on the lot, Accords, Civics, Fits, and a few Insights, there wasn't one stick shift. F*cking Civics are huge too. The Insights claimed 38 highway, but with hybrid technology, which I wouldn't waste money on. My '93 Accord 5 speed wagon gets 35 highway, my '89 Accord w/ AT gets 30 highway. Give me a damn CRX @ 50 MPG! If you could get that out of a carbed 4 banger in 1984, there's no reason we can't achive that or better today....and screw the BS about emissions. Sadly, it seems even Honda has succumbed to the bigger-is-better philosophy.

Yeah it is kinda strange to contemplate....I was looking at some car advertisements from the 70's a while back...for example the 1976 Datsun B210 stick was rated at 41 mpg!

And my 1979 VW Rabbit diesel got 55 mpg!

Of course they were noisy, crude tin cans with minimal safety...safety and emissions is what adds all the weight and complexity to new cars...but I'd sacrifice some safety for better fuel mileage...hell I ride a motorcycle...ANY car is safer in a wreck...