Update: trip to california, managed 38.5 MPG.
539 miles on exactly 14 gallons.
Tires cold inflated to 44 psi, panel seams on front end taped, only one passenger and a marginal amount of cargo, ditched the spare tire and carpeting in the trunk as well. That being said, with another 500lbs of weight (two more passengers plus their frame backpacks holding at least 50-60lbs)... I still got 38.2.
It's all in the coasting. Take advantage of hills, drop it in neutral. You don't need the car in gear on most hills.

 

Your kidding me right? Coasting outa gear?
Outa gear Outa control!!

 

Unless its a Manual. That's ok to do that: but an AT you need to be able to do something instantly like if someone looses a trailer and you got to speed up or swerve lol. Same reason it's illegal to sit in neutral at a stop light

 

What is being missed in this discussion is the fact that coasting in neutral actually uses more fuel than coasting in top gear. Why? When coasting in top gear the fuel injectors will be shut off as the momentum of the car will keep the engine turning, however, when coasting in neutral then fuel needs to be supplied to the engine to keep it turning.

 

But remember that with a manual transmission, you can turn the engine off completely and roll under inertia. Then, when it is time to accelerate you drop the clutch and compression start it. Secondarily the engine braking that is created when you coast in gear saps your forward momentum, which reduces the distance that you can coast. Also, not all engines cut injectors with the throttle plate closed. I suspect that mine does not do that, because I have noticed significantly greater fuel economy when I do this than when I do not.
And I coast in 5th with the clutch in, engine off (unless the hill is particularly steep because eventually you'll lose vacuum to the brake booster and the car becomes very hard to stop). That way, in the event that I have to perform some kind of maneuver I simply pop the clutch and power returns.
EDIT: remember that the rated highway fuel economy for a standard transmission 1994 non-vtec accord is 29 MPG. The amount of fuel consumed at 500-800 RPM is less than the amount consumed at 2000-2500 RPM even at almost completely closed throttle, or at least that appears to be the case.

 

It matters not, it is illegal in most states to coast in neutral (engine on or off) and most if not all fuel injected cars since the late 1980s turn off the fuel injectors when the throttle is closed and the engine is being turned by the transmission.

Unless you can prove that using a ScanGauge or other such device, I'm going to say I highly doubt it; the fact is, short of open loop full-throttle operations, there is no richer fuel cycle than when running at idle.

 

OUI VEA my friendly members..get a soap box derby car and you can coast everywheres..

 

Would running rich at a lower RPM use more fuel than running lean at a higher RPM?
I'm ODB-I so I can't use a Scangauge, I'd need to get that Arduino-based injector-monitoring thing (can't remember the name right now)

 

I'm sure a 94 Accord shuts off the injectors during engine-braking. Heck, my 86 Jetta did that...

 

Your question doesn't address what we're discussing here as "...running lean at a higher RPM?" isn't actually the case. When the fuel injectors are shut off, that means zero fuel in the combustion chambers, regardless of the RPM. What this means is that descending a long grade with your foot off the gas and the engine in top gear WILL consume far less fuel than if you pop the transmission into neutral.