Early
'Wings were engineered in a time when performance was paramount.
Just creeping into the equation at that time was the pesky
problem of emissions control. Optimizing fuel mileage was
not much of a concern to Honda engineers then. Fuel mileage
was mainly the result of other decisions.
Back
in 1976, I was in graduate school and did a research paper
on automobile fuel mileage for a statistics class. The general
thrust of the paper was to analyze many, many variables and
determine what, if any, correlations existed between those
variables and EPA official fuel mileage ratings. I considered
a long list of obvious "mechanical" things like: engine displacement,
number of cylinders, compression ratio, valve lift, cam timing,
type of fuel system (carb vs. EFI), octane requirement, type
of transmission, final drive ratio, length, height, width,
wheelbase, overall "wet" weight, etc.
I
also looked at "non-intuitive" variables like vehicle price,
length of warranty, number of doors, country of origin, etc.
I
won't bore you with the details (statistics is like that!),
but the only thing that mattered (statistically) in my
study was vehicle weight. I'm not saying this was the
definitive analysis on the matter...far from it. After all,
my beer budget was rather large in those days! But, it proved
to me that basic physics always prevail. Doing a certain amount
of vehicular work requires a certain amount of fuel energy
no matter what. If the vehicle is operating as engineered,
there's not much the operator can do (in normal driving) to
affect fuel mileage in any significant way.
Expected
Fuel Mileage for an early 'Wing:
In
my experience, anything around 35mpg+ with acceptable performance
and no operational anomalies like fouled plugs or hesitation
is fine. Mileage claims exceeding mid-40s mpg are somewhat
suspect.
Lower
than expected fuel mileage points to many possibilities. These
include: