 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / July 2007Accord bites the dust
Well, my 14 year old Honda Accord with 195,000 miles suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure, due to the right front wheel colliding with a concrete highway barrier. This caused upper and lower control arm damage, axle damage, and other damaged bits. The estimate for repair was 3300 USD. As the car is only worth 1900 USD, it's toast. Yes, I could fix it my self, but I am too old and stiff to much enjoy that anymore. Consequently. we are in the market for a newish 2004 - 2006 Accord with roughly equivalent trim (EX). I am leaning toward the 4 cylinder V-Tech engine as the 4 cylinder was more than adequate for the Accord we had and the new ones are not that much bigger. At the risk of boring everyone, I may share some of our shopping experiences with the group. One immediate difference I noticed from 13 years ago is that there is a wealth of information available on the Internet. How much of that information is reliable is yet to be determined. Elliot Richmond Itinerant astronomy teacher > Consequently. we are in the market for a newish 2004 - 2006 Accord > with roughly equivalent trim (EX). I am leaning toward the 4 cylinder > V-Tech engine as the 4 cylinder was more than adequate for the Accord > we had and the new ones are not that much bigger. Get an 02 EX. That's the last year of that generation, and that was a fantastic car. >> Consequently. we are in the market for a newish 2004 - 2006 Accord >> with roughly equivalent trim (EX). I am leaning toward the 4 cylinder [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Get an 02 EX. That's the last year of that generation, and that was a >fantastic car. Thanks. I will investigate that possibility. Elliot Richmond Itinerant astronomy teacher >>Get an 02 EX. That's the last year of that generation, and that was a >>fantastic car. > > Thanks. I will investigate that possibility. 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. >>> Get an 02 EX. That's the last year of that generation, and that was a >>> fantastic car. >> Thanks. I will investigate that possibility. > > 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. . > 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. 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. > . >> i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 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!!! > . >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > bob z. 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 > . >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > bob z. 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. >> . >>> i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > those. On the other hand, I've heard of some 1st-gen Ford Escorts whose > timing belts broke well within the specified interval. 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. > Well, my 14 year old Honda Accord with 195,000 miles suffered a > catastrophic mechanical failure, due to the right front wheel [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Elliot Richmond > Itinerant astronomy teacher I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog in terms of power... a > I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog in terms > of power... I had an 00 Accord 4 cylinder, and it was a fantastic car with PLENTY of power. 'Course, I outfitted mine properly: with a manual transmission. In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road trip, AC on full blast, going through the mountains. >> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog in terms >> of power... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road trip, > AC on full blast, going through the mountains. Nothing wrong - mine is a 5 speed. You're 35mpg is horse sh.t, though. a >>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog in >>> terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You're 35mpg is horse sh.t, though. How so? I get almost 30mpg out of an '01 V6 with automatic. >>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog >>>> in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > How so? I get almost 30mpg out of an '01 V6 with automatic. How so? Because I don't believe his story, that's how so. Just because you *almost* get 30 mpg (what's *almost* 30mpg? 25? 29? 22? What?) doesn't mean jack in relation to someone else getting X+ mpg with their car. a >>>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog in >>>>> terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > doesn't mean jack in relation to someone else getting X+ mpg with their > car. Consistently in the mid 29's is almost 30. Sometimes 29.2, sometimes 29.8. That's with a V6 with an auto. It's entirely believable to get 35 with an i4 manual. Yes, it does mean jack when comparing the 2 cause almost 30 on the car that is known to consistently get worse mileage means better mileage is to be expected form the other one. > >>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road > >>> trip, AC on full blast, going through the mountains. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you *almost* get 30 mpg (what's *almost* 30mpg? 25? 29? 22? What?) doesn't > mean jack in relation to someone else getting X+ mpg with their car. Sure it does. If an 01 V6 automatic trans car gets 30, it's well within his realm of believability that a 4 cylinder manual trans car gets 35 in the same circumstances. >>>>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road >>>>> trip, AC on full blast, going through the mountains. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > his realm of believability that a 4 cylinder manual trans car gets 35 in > the same circumstances. "realm of believability" ?? You serious? Either it *does* or it *doesn't*. Believability has nothing to do with it. But FWIW, I don't believe it. a > > Sure it does. If an 01 V6 automatic trans car gets 30, it's well within > > his realm of believability that a 4 cylinder manual trans car gets 35 in > > the same circumstances. > > "realm of believability" ?? You serious? Either it *does* or it *doesn't*. He doesn't know, but he can surmise from his experience that I'm not lying. You, on the other hand, seem to insist that I'm lying. So either you have your own experiences that so indicate, or else you're just an a.shole in general. Which would it be? >>> Sure it does. If an 01 V6 automatic trans car gets 30, it's well within >>> his realm of believability that a 4 cylinder manual trans car gets 35 in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Which would it be? Until you prove it - I don't believe you - and since you can't prove it here... "I'm the King of Siam!" I can say anything I want in a newsgroup without having to prove anything. Are you saying it just has to be in the "realm of believability" for us to take it as fact? I don't buy it. Deal with it. It's not in *my* realm of believability. - Here's how it is - you state what you say is fact. - I say you're full of sh.t. End of story - You may, or may not, be full of sh.t, but what does that matter? a > Until you prove it - I don't believe you - and since you can't prove it here... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > End of story - You may, or may not, be full of sh.t, but what does that matter? Since you're the fool who is disputing our claims, the onus is on you to prove us wrong. >> Until you prove it - I don't believe you - and since you can't prove >> it here... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Since you're the fool who is disputing our claims, the onus is on you > to prove us wrong. Sorry,it doesn't work that way;the one who made the claim of 35 MPG is the one who needs to show proof. "a" is merely calling him on it. You're asking "a" to prove a negative,that something DIDNT happen. Now,that 35mpg may be all highway driving.(at 55mph?) Heck,I got 30 mpg with my 94 Integra GSR driving at 80-85 mph from Jax to Orlando,and I'm a leadfoot. But all-city was 24-25mpg.  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > Since you're the fool who is disputing our claims, the onus is on you > > to prove us wrong. > > Sorry,it doesn't work that way;the one who made the claim of 35 MPG is the > one who needs to show proof. No, I simply need to offer it as a datum point. Evaluate the other data points, and see what you get. Let's see....you're the only one who's disputing it, so... >> > Since you're the fool who is disputing our claims, the onus is on >> > you to prove us wrong. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, I simply need to offer it as a datum point. It's not "data",it's a CLAIM to be data. > Evaluate the other data points, and see what you get. > > Let's see....you're the only one who's disputing it, so... Again,you're asking him to prove a negative. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > No, I simply need to offer it as a datum point. > > It's not "data",it's a CLAIM to be data. Ah, that's right. However, his CLAIM that he has a datum point that proves otherwise is...somehow stronger than a claim? <shrug> My datum point is my datum point. If you want to sit and argue about it, you'll be on your own. Probably with your hands down your diaper. > <shrug> My datum point is my datum point. If you want to sit and argue > about it, you'll be on your own. Probably with your hands down your > diaper. I am posting my data - i have a 2004 accord coupe with the 2.4 liter four and 5-speed manual. I am a moody person and you can see that in my mileage: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pEACaHfs_AxA8KQvztfsMNg :~)> bob z. p.s. Elmo, I thought it would be cool to show my proof that this car CAN reach the 35 mpg pinnacle. > > <shrug> My datum point is my datum point. If you want to sit and argue > > about it, you'll be on your own. Probably with your hands down your [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > p.s. Elmo, I thought it would be cool to show my proof that this car > CAN reach the 35 mpg pinnacle. 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! </sarcasm> >> On Jul 5, 11:03 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <e...@nastydesigns.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > ></sarcasm> 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. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > You, on the other hand, seem to insist that I'm lying. So either you > > have your own experiences that so indicate, or else you're just an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Until you prove it - I don't believe you - and since you can't prove it > here... On the other hand, you *can* prove that you're an a.shole. Not only *can* you, you *did*. >>>> Sure it does. If an 01 V6 automatic trans car gets 30, it's well >>>> within his realm of believability that a 4 cylinder manual trans [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Until you prove it - I don't believe you - and since you can't prove > it here... Yet you have not proven your own claim. So why should we believe you? > "I'm the King of Siam!" I can say anything I want in a newsgroup > without having to prove anything. Are you saying it just has to be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that matter? > a > >>> Sure it does. If an 01 V6 automatic trans car gets 30, it's well within > >>> his realm of believability that a 4 cylinder manual trans car gets 35 in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text -ng 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 >> >>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road >> >>> trip, AC on full blast, going through the mountains. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >his realm of believability that a 4 cylinder manual trans car gets 35 in >the same circumstances. 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 have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog >>>>> in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > doesn't mean jack in relation to someone else getting X+ mpg with their > car. Yet you expect everyone here to take your word as gospel that because you claim to have a '02 4 cyl that's a dog, that no one else (and it would definitely appear that you hold the minority view as to adequacy of the 4cyl) can get good mileage? As you, I believe, said: "Get real!" I can get 29.5 mpg out of my '06 6 cyl EX 4DR on trips where I'm traversing hilly terrain at an average speed between 75-80 so I really don't think it's a stretch that Elmo could get 35 mpg. Hell, I got 31.5 with a 2001 Park Av with a passenger and luggage. Somebody else mentioned it - you either have a problem with your car or maybe a problem with the driver. 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 don't think I could mosey along at that reduced speed for so long a distance just to save a couple mpg. > >>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog > >>>> in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > I had an 00 Accord 4 cylinder, and it was a fantastic car with PLENTY of > > power. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're 35mpg is horse sh.t, though. Nope. It happened on the way out, so I made sure to measure on the way back. Damn. What a car. >>> I had an 00 Accord 4 cylinder, and it was a fantastic car with PLENTY of >>> power. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Damn. What a car. Well, until Ernst & Young can audit your mileage, I'm still calling horse sh.t. A road trip - through the mountains - AC on full... up hill BOTH ... "It happened on the way out" - so you knew it happened on the way "out". How? If you only measured it on the way *back* ...? Get real. I like my Accord, but I'm not delusional. a >>>> I had an 00 Accord 4 cylinder, and it was a fantastic car with PLENTY >>>> of power. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Get real. I like my Accord, but I'm not delusional. Well, I happen to work for EY. Maybe someone can lend me theirs and I'll test the i4/manual for a month on my 75 mile each way commute. >>>>> I had an 00 Accord 4 cylinder, and it was a fantastic car with >>>>> PLENTY of power. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Well, I happen to work for EY. Maybe someone can lend me theirs and > I'll test the i4/manual for a month on my 75 mile each way commute. I'll let you drive you mine - I've got an 02 with the F23A1 engine. I've got just under 50,000km on it (30,860mi). Next time you're near Halifax, NS, Canada (eh!) I'll gladly lend you my car. a > >> You're 35mpg is horse sh.t, though. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "It happened on the way out" - so you knew it happened on the way "out". > How? If you only measured it on the way *back* ...? No, I stopped after the mountains to get gas. I routinely check my mileage every time. I saw 35...and decided that I really should make double sure to check on the way back, to see if that was a fluke or not. And it happened on the way back, too. Your mother didn't breast feed you or something. >>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog in terms >>> of power... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > a I believe him. I routinely got 33mpg with a '93 Accord automatic. >>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog in terms >>>> of power... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I believe him. I routinely got 33mpg with a '93 Accord automatic. Good for you - on road trips through the Swiss f-ing alps with the AC on? No? a > >>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road trip, > >>> AC on full blast, going through the mountains. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Good for you - on road trips through the Swiss f-ing alps with the AC on? > No? It happened. Get over it. Why does it bother you that this happened? >>>>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road trip, >>>>> AC on full blast, going through the mountains. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why does it bother you that this happened? Not bothered at all - I just think you're bending the truth. a > > It happened. Get over it. > > > > Why does it bother you that this happened? > > Not bothered at all - I just think you're bending the truth. I'm not. Why would you think I'm bending the truth? Do you have different experiences with a similar car? >>> It happened. Get over it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why would you think I'm bending the truth? Do you have different > experiences with a similar car? Yes. a > > Why would you think I'm bending the truth? Do you have different > > experiences with a similar car? > > Yes. What's your experience? Further, if you were one out of 30, for example, who had the bad experience, would you insist that the 30 must be lying--because plainly your experience is the norm, not an exception? Why is the world supposed to accept YOUR experience as the norm? I posted a single datum point: in that particular car, I got that mileage. I make no claims otherwise. I don't insist that everyone else is getting that. You have a datum point--but you insist that yours is representative of every similar car out there, bar none. I let my datum point lie there as a number. Others will kick in with their experiences. You are part of the others. If your datum point lies statistically outside where the others lie, well, statistics is a well known science. In the meantime, let's all kick in with our experiences and let the reader make up his own mind. But for some reason, you're all bent out of shape at the idea that others have different experiences than you have, and that the readers here might not take your experience as the norm. Why does that bother you, that someone reading this thread might come away thinking your experience was the anomaly? Please notice that no one here is calling you a liar--unlike you, who is calling everyone else a liar. The reader will deduce from that what he will. No doubt he will dismiss your datum point and move on. I have an '05 V6 Coupe that seems no matter where or how I drive it 21 is the best it gets I did see 22.5 on 1 tank though >> > Why would you think I'm bending the truth? Do you have different >> > experiences with a similar car? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > calling everyone else a liar. The reader will deduce from that what he > will. No doubt he will dismiss your datum point and move on. >>>It happened. Get over it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why would you think I'm bending the truth? Do you have different > experiences with a similar car? You're wastin' your breath... He don't have no freakin' clue! JT >>>>>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road >>>>>> trip, AC on full blast, going through the mountains. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > a I'd guess that your brain has difficulty parsing fact... JT (Who's Civic FE gets 40+ mpg in the city..) >>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog >>> in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > a Why is that? My '04 V6 gets a tad over 30MPG on the highway, and I'm usually around 75MPH....... >>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog >>>> in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Why is that? My '04 V6 gets a tad over 30MPG on the highway, and I'm > usually around 75MPH....... Again - "If my Auntie had bullocks, she'd be my Uncle!" WTF does your experience in a different car, different engine, different city different state, different country(?), different driving style, different fuel... have to do with his mpg? a >>>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog >>>>> in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > a stop being a prick. your "experience" is different because you're either being a hotrod or there's something wrong with your car. don't call people liars when they're not. >>>>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog >>>>>> in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > either being a hotrod or there's something wrong with your car. don't > call people liars when they're not. Uh, how do you *know* that they are not liars? a > > stop being a prick. your "experience" is different because you're > > either being a hotrod or there's something wrong with your car. don't > > call people liars when they're not. > > Uh, how do you *know* that they are not liars? The same way you *know* that everyone is lying. I noticed that you never bothered to respond to my well-reasoned treatise on this particular subject. So tell us, "a" (which no doubt stands for something appropriate), why should the world take your datum point and extrapolate it to the entire world, all the while ignoring other data points that are statistically (and radically) different from yours? Are YOU the only one who knows "the truth"? I imagine you have a fine collection of foil hats, and that the CIA has your number. They know when it's you calling. Are they still polite and tolerant when you call about the black helicopters? What is the frequency, Kenneth? >>>>>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog >>>>>>> in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > a 1. as long time contributors to this group, they're known to be straight. 2. their mileage #'s agree with my own experience. if you're a lead-foot, your mileage will suck. [your comment "it's a dog in terms of power" tends to point to that being the case.] if you baby it along, you'll get much better consumption. or you have something wrong with the car. real simple. in the mean time, if you want to learn something, get over yourself. and hang out here longer before poisoning the air with false accusation - some people here are long time honda experts and aren't being paid to take abuse from johnny-come-lately's. >>>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog >>>>> in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > a Comparison data for anal retentive individuals. >>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, >>> it's a dog in terms of power... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You're 35mpg is horse sh.t, though. 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. >> Well, my 14 year old Honda Accord with 195,000 miles suffered a >> catastrophic mechanical failure, due to the right front wheel [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car, it's a dog in > terms of power... rubbish. either there's something wrong with it or you don't know how to drive. either way, fix the problem. >Consequently. we are in the market for a newish 2004 - 2006 Accord >with roughly equivalent trim (EX). I am leaning toward the 4 cylinder >V-Tech engine as the 4 cylinder was more than adequate for the Accord >we had and the new ones are not that much bigger. Had the 2004 EX4, outstanding car. I think you will really notice the changes made from generation to generation, most are improvements! :) My 2007 is still not getting the same mileage ... I never drove your 1993 vintage (my 87 lasted too long!), but presume the new engines deliver more power and more smoothly. Again, try it and see, if you have not already done so. J. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.