Honda Civic Real World MPG

ruking1 · June 2009

I would be inclined to agree. PUG is a waste on many levels on the Civic.

I do run it on a Corvette Z06. I had to take on RUG one time and there was an almost IMMEDIATE difference in ALL parameters. However as targettuning said, PUG is specified for these kind of cars.

bearcrkrd · June 2009

I use a tank of Premium on occasion. Not often. Almost without exception (90% +) the best gas mileage I have ever achieved with a vehicle (2001 Toyota Tacoma Base Reg Cab 4cyl manual 4x2 78,000mi, 2001 Camry Ce 4cyl manual 60,000mi, 2005 Toyota Tacoma Base Access cab 4x2 4cyl auto 39,000mi, 2006 Toyota Sienna CE 36,000mi, and this 2008 Civic LX auto 29,000mi, all purchased new. I am trying to get out of the compulsive buyers club

) has been on a tank of Premium. Especially in the Winter. The Sienna had the 3.3L 6cyl and ran markedly better on Premium at all times. None of the other vehicles, all 4cyl, have been like that. On the 4 bangers I do not notice much of a difference in performance, except the first couple minutes (at most) after cold start and hitting the road. Seem to run stronger. The Regular in Western Washinton is 87 Octane, and it works just fine, too. We are up to $2.75, so that's a good thing! I think I got into this over on the Toyota Forums back when. I tried Honda last purchase. Except for road noise, it has been a match for Toyota.

kipk · June 2009

Stated that the use of "Premium" fuel in a car designed for "Regular" is a waste of money. And the wrong grade of fuel can actually affect mileage in a negative way.

Understand that when the spark plug fires and the fuel ignites, it is not actually an explosion. But for sake of illustration I'm using "Explosion" as the term.

In a nut shell, and in layman terms, premium has no more energy than regular. Premium simply has extra additives to "SLOW DOWN" the explosion of the fuel that drives the piston down.

In engines designed and timed for "Regular" fuel, Premium can be beneficial when the combustion chambers tend to get hotter than normal due to heavy loads, in the mountains, on hot days at high speeds, or when towing heavy loads.

Under normal conditions the "Regular" engine is designed to run with the spark plug igniting the gas at a pre determined position of the piston, according to RPM. For instance, at low RPM the plug pretty much fires when the piston is very close to the top of it's travel, so the piston can be driven back down by the "explosion" of the fuel air mixture. At high RPM the spark occurs sooner because it does take a while for the "Explosion" to take place, in the scheme of things. Extremely hot combustion chambers or high compression, or high performance engines, or even deposits in top of the piston that continue to glow from heat can cause the fuel mixture to ignite too soon, resulting in "Pre Ignition". The knocking sound is the piston facing an explosion before it reaches its top of travel. It is being forced down by the pre ignited fuel even though it is traveling upward by momentum. In this case, "Premium" fuel with its additives can slow the explosion, reducing the knock and the sensors don't retard the spark timing as much or at all. So MPG would be better with Premium Fuel under these rare conditions.

The knock Sensor "hears" the knock and backs off spark timing, resulting in a later spark and less performance. The piston may be on it's way back down before the ignition takes place. However, under normal driving, the spark timing for "Regular" engines is as perfect as the engineers can make it, when using the quicker igniting 87 octane gas.

Using slower burning premium can actually result in lower mileage, when used in "regular" engines. Because the computer is not going to know or have the ability to advance the spark timing, more that normal pre set, to take advantage of the slower igniting Premium fuel.

It is a lot more involved than this simple explanation, but this should be understandable to most people.

I have found that some brands of gas seem to get better mileage than others and have no explanation for it. I generally fuel up at a "FLASH FOODS" or "QT", to save a few cants per gallon, with good results. Flash Foods say they use Exxon gas. However the tanker trucks simply have Flash Foods on the side of them. I know that "Marathon" supplies a lot of the convenience stores, so it could be that.

Lately I've been experimenting with different brands, such as Texaco, BP, Phillips 66, Conoco, Amoco,and Shell. It seems that I get better mileage with the Shell than any other. Besides, it has Oxgenated something that Supposably gets rid of deposits from the cheap gas. So they claim.

Kip

familydadx4 · June 2009

Kipk:

Appreciate your layman's explanation in comparing premium vs. regular.

You mention better mileage with Shell. Are you talking about 5 mpg, or .5 mpg? Just looking for some type of numerical justification.

I've thought about doing the same type of test. Would appreciate your input.

Thanks.

ruking1 · June 2009

Good question. It is an easy demonstration: cents per mile driven. Since we are on Civic MPG, let's take a (my commuter) Civic that gets on R 38 mpg (just filled yesterday in fact) You can use ANY PRICES. But let's demo whether R or P makes sense. (when you come up with the competing R/R prices and your mpg YOU/we can do exactly the same formula)

Let's use (current corner store) prices.

R =$2.81/38 mpg= .074 cents ,

P=$ 3.01/38 mpg= .0792 cents

P is 7% more. On the face of it, no BFD..... However.....

So to get the "same cents per mile" (as regular), one needs 40.7 mpg. or 2.68 miles per gal more. (3.01/.074 cents)

bearcrkrd · June 2009

"In engines designed and timed for "Regular" fuel, Premium can be beneficial when the combustion chambers tend to get hotter than normal due to heavy loads, in the mountains, on hot days at high speeds, or when towing heavy loads."

Heavy load doesn't apply to me, but the rest does, and that's when I've got the top mileage on all the vehicles I mentioned. I don't do Premium on all road trips, that's how I noticed the gain, and they do fall most often during warmer Months and include long runs, and hills/mountains.
The little '01 Tacoma showed the least gain in mileage when using Premium. Bet it's still on the road, as I babied it, except for lots of miles driven per year. Problem was if I brought a jacket and thermos the cab was full..

kipk · June 2009

>"You mention better mileage with Shell. Are you talking about 5 mpg, or .5 mpg? Just looking for some type of numerical justification. "

familydad,

1-2 mpg increase seems about right with the Shell gas. I'm driving an '03 4WD Pilot.

With the "Flash Foods" gas I was getting 17-19 mpg local driving. With Shell it is more like 19-21. That is a 5%-10% increase. Right now the Shell is about $2.59 and the Flash Foods gas is $2,54. Cost per mile is a bit better with the Shell, and I feel it to be a "better" fuel for the engine and injectors.

REAL WORLD : MORE MONEY CAN BE SAVED WITH THE THROTTLE THAN WITH THE GAS PUMP PRICE.

I didn't see any appreciable difference with the other "Name brands". But,You may find that another brand runs better and gets better mileage in your car. It is a long slow learning process. And I don't have a clue as to why one brand of gas would get better mileage than another. But they sometimes do! :confuse:

Kip

davepod · June 2009

Just purchased 09 civic lx coupe auto. mixed 50/50 driving on first tank calculated with gallons/miles to be 31 mpg. Happy so far.

mjsten · June 2009

Wish you well.
I have an 08 Civic EX auto with 24,000+ miles that I purchased specifically for the mileage and, quite frankly, it has not performed as I thought it would. I average 29.8 mpg over that 24,000 miles, around what I averaged on an 04 accord EX 4 cyl.
I drive a 80 / 20 hiway/ city mixed route daily. Watch the start stops, travel the speed limit, keep tires inflated, etc, in fact all of the stuff that you are supposed to do.
May look at a hybrid or diesel next.

thegraduate · June 2009

I'd skip the hybrid assuming your 80hwy/20city won't change anytime soon. Hybrids shine in the city, diesels do GREAT on the highway.

dantz · June 2009

Has anyone determined the Civic air conditioner's effect on both performance and mileage? Because I can't feel any difference in acceleration whether my 2008 Civic's AC is on or off. I realize that this model of Civic has a somewhat underpowered air conditioner, but it must also be remarkably efficient, as it seems to get the job done without any noticeable drag on the engine.

With my old Corolla I had the habit of temporarily turning the AC off whenever I needed an extra boost of power, for example on uphill freeway on-ramps, but with the Civic I can no longer tell the difference, so I just leave the AC on.

All I can think of is to do some test accelerations from zero to 60 with the AC both on and off to see if there is much difference in the elapsed time or the distance required. (I'll try doing this and then report back.)

I'd also be interested in knowing if anybody with a ScanGauge (or a similar device) has checked the instantaneous mileage in order to determine the AC's effect on highway mileage, while leaving the windows up. All I have found so far is comparisons between AC with windows up, and no AC with windows down, but that comparison is flawed because they are changing two elements at once. I think leaving the windows up and keeping the fan on while switching the AC on and off would be a fairer test.

thegraduate · June 2009

In almost any car these days (even my old '96 Honda), when the throttle is pushed hard, the A/C will momentarily cut-off on its own in order to channel more power to the wheels instead of the A/C. My dad's 2007 Civic is no different. On a hot day, get on the throttle hard while you feel the A/C blowing on your face. You'll feel a difference I'd bet.

Hope that helps.

dantz · June 2009

Yes, I've considered that possibility, but as far as I can tell the AC appears to stay on and keep working during hard acceleration. But I'll test it again.

bryan200k · June 2009

Bought my 2009 Civic LX-S just over a week ago. My first fill up was at 347 miles driven. 300 was Highway, 47 miles was City. Calculated MPG was 34.64 for first tank.

ras314 · June 2009

I have a scan gauge and tried many times to determine the effect of the AC on mileage. Instantaneous mileage jumps around to much to make any comparison with AC on or off. Tried many times to run 10 miles over flat roads with no wind, still couldn't get conditions steady enough to see a noticeable difference with AC, Finally gave up and use the AC whenever I want. Maybe someone else has had better luck.

My mileage has slowly increased as I put more miles on, now around 18000 and haven't see a tank fill in some time less than 45 mpg. 2007 civic with manual, probably around 95% or more highway and lots of 55 mph roads. At interstate speeds mileage will drop to 40 mpg and even less with headwinds.

kipk · June 2009

>"I have a scan gauge and tried many times to determine the effect of the AC on mileage. Instantaneous mileage jumps around to much to make any comparison with AC on or off."

Using the Scan Gauge also, in our 03 4wd Pilot.. On a flat road or even going up a slight grade, with cruise on, the instant mpg will hold reasonably steady enough to turn the AC button on for a few seconds, and off for a few seconds. Mileage when the AC is turned on will drop "instantly" by 2-3 mpg. Then turning it off will increase the mileage by the same amount.

A 4 mile trip I take several times a week will typically return 2-3 mpg better with the AC off. That is starting with a cold engine. This spring, a 42 mile one way trip, I take often, yielded right at 27 mpg both directions. No AC. Cruise set at 58 mph for the X-Way portion.

Now that the temps are in the 90s and AC is on most of the time, the mileage has dropped to more in the 24-25 mpg range, at the same speeds. . I can keep it more in the 25 mpg range by "re circulating" the inside air and turning the AC on and off by hand.

Problem with Honda's Climate control is that if the AC is on, the compressor runs all the time. When the correct temperature is reached, the computer just adds heat to the system to maintain the correct temp. But the compressor continues to run.
Without Climate Control, and the "AC ON" condition, the Compressor continues to run and it just gets colder and colder. The driver can add some heat or turn the AC off.

Would seem to me to be better if the Compressor would turn on and off depending on whether or not more cooling is needed.

Kip

ruking1 · June 2009

Actuall you guys with the scan gauge should try a different methodology.

Normally the A/C system takes app 15 min to stabilize.

Cycle the A/C ON. Put fan speed to #1. Regulate the coolness and leave it on.

When you turn it on and off you are making the system work harder to get UP and attempt to stabilize. This of course consumes more energy than the above situation which already has the system UP and stabilized and you are just twiking the temp to suit.

So anytime under that or cycling the system on and off will exact an mpg penality. Pass that, the system advances the timing slightly, takes little energy to stabilize the system and you should see pretty close to par for mpg.

kipk · June 2009

I have tried it different ways, and the most efficient is using "Recirculate" as described above. When the "AC On" is displayed, the compressor runs continuously,

My wifes CR-V doesn't have Climate Control, so when it gets too cold we have the option of adding heat with the temperature control knob or turning the AC OFF and stopping the compressor. The Pilots Climate control automatically adds the heat when needed to maintain a selected temperature, but the compressor continues to run as long as that AC ON is showing. It will do that also in the winter.

The Pilot gets 2-3 mpg less when the Climate Control does all the controlling vs no AC at all. There is a 1-2 mpg difference when I use recirculate to cool the air and keep it inside the car.

Whether or not it is worth the hassle to turn the compressor on and off by hand depends on the frame of mind at the time. Not suggesting that anyone should do any certain thing. Just giving the facts as the Scan Gauge presents them. It is possible that turning the compressor on and off is hard on the compressor clutch, and that may be the reason Honda chooses to leave it running constantly.

Whatever their reason is, it cost me 2-3 MPG to run the air. So I just go with the flow and try to regain some of the mileage with driving techniques.

Kip

ruking1 · June 2009

See, you have just done your fellow owners a favor.

Also I have a newer technology A/C (VW & not temp/climate) and it also works as I have mentioned. Honda at some point needs to switch to the more fuel saving A/C. But then again there is little incentive with folks buying them as they do.

kipk · June 2009

I was not in the room at the time but seems I heard on TV that VW is back with the Turbo Diesel, and it is getting super mileage. Seems they said 58 mpg. Is that possible?

Kip

ruking1 · June 2009

..."Seems they said 58 mpg. Is that possible?"...

I realize this is off topic, but the answer is yes.

I have done this across three states and a foreign country (had to count foreign country as I did a lot of stop and go driving and didn't buy fuel, as it was at least a $ more a gal than the US) , when three states (WA, OR, CA) had 5 highway patrol car wolf packs in full predatory mode (aka customer service) and the radar detector was going off so much, that it was just plain annoying. So I chose (03 VW Jetta TDI 5 spd manual) 75 mph with bursts to 80-85 and got 59 mpg (two fill ups) . NO TICKETS and I was surprised as anyone else, as I thought maybe... 55 mpg.

Further off topic, on a trip to Vancouver BC (2300 miles) the 09 Jetta TDI (DSG) posted 43.5 mpg overall during a herky jerky break in mode. A/C blasting, 3 folks, truck STUFFED to the gills. The GPS when it was on, said the car didn't exceed 90 mph.

Torque is 115% greater than the below Civic. It also weighs 770#'s more.

More on topic, a 04 Civic posted 38-42 mpg on a R/T to Portland OR. A/C blasting, 2 drivers, two small overnight bags.

kipk · June 2009

That should get Honda, Toyota and the rest to the drawing boards.

dantz · June 2009

thegraduate: Yes, you're right, the A/C does appear to cut out when the pedal is floored. So I guess my idea of measuring the time it takes to go from zero to 60 at max throttle with the A/C on vs off isn't going to work, as it will be off either way. I'll try to devise another way to measure the A/C's effect on performance.

I hardly ever floor it, as I don't like to push the revs that high, and I guess that's why I never noticed the A/C doing that. However, during a "pretty brisk, but not quite floored" takeoff, which is closer to the way I drive when I need some extra power, the A/C appears to stay on.

ras314, I'm sorry to hear that the scangauge doesn't display a steady enough instantaneous mileage reading to accurately measure the effects of A/C in a Civic. It's interesting that kipk has managed to do it in a Pilot. Perhaps the lighter, less powerful Civic is more at the mercy of small changes such as road grade, road condition, wind direction and intensity, etc. and this makes it harder to get a steady reading.

Perhaps trying to compare the instantaneous mileage isn't the best way to do this. As I understand it, the scangauge can be set to measure the average mpg of various trips. I would think that driving at steady speed on a level highway and measuring the mpg during two short "trips" (for example, 3 miles each), beginning the first trip after the A/C has been on for awhile (following ruking1's advice) and doing the second short trip with the A/C off, should show the difference. According to the documentation, you can reset the "Current" trip while driving in order to accomplish this.

Oh heck, I guess I'll have to buy a ScanGauge myself just to satisfy my curiosity.

motorcity6 · June 2009

I don't own a Honda, but the Shell gas delivers the best mileage. Plus my Shell credit card gives a rebate on all items purchased at the Shell location including gas.

The rebate is around 5%, so it is even cheaper than all the cut rate stations, and performance is better, and I use the midgrade every other tank..premium the balance. It's a 2006 Pontiac GPGT w/SC260hp V-6 and they recommend premium, but the performance difference between the mid & premium is minor..

Almost bought the SI Civic, but after reading some of the posting on Edmunds concerning clutch and tranny issues under 15k miles with the dealers refusing to fix, blaming the failures on hot-rodding, enough to stop any further need for the SI.

Looking for a fun-car, so I will get the Mustang GT w/track pkg..2nd car..Just drove a 2009 Mustang Bullitt from Venice, Fl to Detriot, flew low and averaged 18.5 mpgs

The Pontiac gulps gas, but then again the a/c is on and sunroof open, with nets about 20.50 mpgs, w/Shell. Town driving..Florida living, hot and sunny..

Good Luck with your Civics, drive slow for I need the gas..Owned 43 cars to date, no Asian cars, 2 German..The only 4 cylinder cars were 2 Porsches, farm tractor, and several outboards.

thegraduate · June 2009

Don't worry about hurting the car; the car is engineered to handle revving well into the 6,000 RPM range. Actually, max horsepower isn't made until 6,300 RPM. So, if need-be, don't be afraid to mat the pedal. Nothing will happen (except some quicker acceleration!).

If you don't need to accelerate that fast though, don't; save your gas! :shades:

kipk · June 2009

>"ras314, I'm sorry to hear that the scangauge doesn't display a steady enough instantaneous mileage reading to accurately measure the effects of A/C in a Civic. It's interesting that kipk has managed to do it in a Pilot. Perhaps the lighter, less powerful Civic is more at the mercy of small changes such as road grade, road condition, wind direction and intensity, etc. and this makes it harder to get a steady reading. "

Dantz,

You may be right about the Pilot being a bit more "steady" as measured on the SG. Perhaps it is the Extra bulk and weight of the Pilot.

The S. Gauge does fluctuate constantly though, even though the road appears to be somewhat stable in grade or lack of grade. Some of those fluctuations are more than expected. For example when a large "Box" truck or 18 wheeler passes from the opposite direction, on a 2 lane road, there may be a 3-5 mpg drop in mileage for a few seconds. When being passed from behind by one of them, there will be an increase in mileage.

Something I just can't really understand is:

Sometimes with the Cruise ON, and about to descend a long grade, with an equal appearing uphill grade to follow, I will reset the "Current Mileage" (Average mileage), so it can keep track of the average for that test. Then click on the "Instant" mileage. These numbers are not exact but somewhat representative.

When decending the SC may show (Instant Mileage) from 56 mpg to 9999 (maxxed out) . When ascending the next grade, the SC may show 23 to 18. For those 2 grades the "Current Mileage" will show something like 27 mpg average for the short trip involving the 2 grades.

I've double checked it by doing the same on the return trip on the same 2 grades and the result is similar It just boggles this old brain! :sick: .

Kip

kipk · June 2009

In 75 to 80 degree weather we will ride with all 4 windows cracked about 2 inches. If that keeps us comfortable fine. If it occasionally gets a bit hot due to sun or what ever, we will roll up the windows and do the recirculate AC ON and Off thing, IF every 10 to 15 minutes will keep the temperature about right.

But those circumstances are rare or short lived. So if it gets too hot with the windows cracked, we will likely turn on the AC, with it set at 77 degrees, and let the Climate Control do it's thing. One less thing to be concerned about, and that is why we got it. Most or all the loss in mileage with the AC ON can be made up by dropping the speed a bit.

Slightly lower speed and comfortable environment makes for a more pleasant trip.

We tend to get all concerned about mileage and do things we think will get the best possible.

Paying $0.20 more for premium fuel in a "Regular car, has no effect and not necessary unless traveling 80 mph in the mountains with a full load and towing a trailer in 100+ temperatures. (sarcasm)

Paying 3-6 cents less for crappy gas doesn't really save anything and may actually cost more in the long run due to poor mileage, injector fouling, and so forth.

Drafting an 18 wheeler will cost you more WHEN the stones, road dabree, and eventual crash mess up the front of your car.

If we really think that traveling 80+ saves gas because we were on the road a shorter period of time, we may have inhaled too much exhaust from that 18 wheeler we were drafting. :shades:

Bottom line is that the throttle and driving techniques have more to do with mileage than anything else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvrQQq9d2no
Kip

ruking1 · June 2009

I do not think that Americans will be serious till they embrace or force the applicable regulatory agencies to implement alternative fuels (i.e., diesels) as a significant portion of the passenger vehicle fleet diesels, specifically 23% of the passenger vehicle fleet: being diesels. This will cut the demand for oil a MINIMUM of 23% !!! link title

Some if it is based on the real life ratios of refinement of a barrel of oil RUG to PUG vs D2. Further downstream is the 20-40% better fuel mileage. So when you put those two together that is a serious lessenning of ... demand.

Honda Civics for example are only a small segment of a minority called small cars (25%) . The rest or majority (75%) usually consume.... more. Now I am not advocating drivers wanting or needing say a size 14 shoe, needs to get into a size 5....

Since there are no like model Civic comparison (US markets anyway), here is a (03 VW Jetta) like model comparison: 2.0, 25 mpg; 1.8T, 25 mpg; 1.9 TDI ,49 mpg. So assuming 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year (avg drivers') that is up to RUG, 600 gals, PUG, 600 gals vs D2, 306 gals or 49% savings.

backy · June 2009

Heard a radio report today that said over 40 mph, it's more efficient to run the AC than leave windows open. Under 40, might save some gas to open the windows. But under 40 there's less airflow too. Today it's going to hit 90 and sunny and I have business attire on so I will have the AC on, regardless of speed.

dantz · June 2009

I've never understood the point of those "A/C versus wide-open windows" comparisons.

I've found that when driving at highway speeds in warm weather with the A/C off, it's a lot more enjoyable to keep the windows almost entirely closed. If I need some extra airflow then I just crack the right rear window an inch or so and turn up the fan. This produces plenty of ventilation, and there's far less wind noise than you would get from four wide-open windows.

ruking1 · June 2009

In light of this A/C bru ha ha, perhaps I should add this addendum to msg #2013. The mpg figures are with A/C USE.

dantz · June 2009

Hmmm, that's true. Of course, in light of this you'd think that the Civic DX (which doesn't even include an A/C unit) would get better EPA mileage than the DX-VP (which includes A/C), but there is no published difference. What did they do, drag a bunch of tin cans behind the DX to "adjust" for the lack of an A/C? The alternative explanation is that the Civic's A/C appears to have a negligible effect on the overall fuel economy.

ruking1 · June 2009

I always use the A/C when situations call for it. I just don't cycle it on/off, on/off anymore (reasons are in a past post). It is also a good tip to use the air recycling mode.

kipk · June 2009

>"Heard a radio report today that said over 40 mph, it's more efficient to run the AC than leave windows open."

Yep, if the windows cracked 2" is not cool enough, we will usually turn on the AC and deal with the mileage. On rare occasions using the ON/OFF recirculate when outside temps/sun are borderline and the ON/OFF doesn't require any more than 4-5 times per hour. But that is rare.

Real world: 300 miles at 32 mpg will consume 9.4 gallons of fuel. The same 300 miles at 34 MPG will use 8.8 gallons. At even $3 per gallon the savings at 32 mpg is $1.80. Not much of a savings to be uncomfortable for 300 miles.

With the Pilot, (25mpg vs. 27 mpg) the savings would be $2.67. Still not worth it to me!

Kip

kltron · June 2009

> I have a scan gauge and tried many times to determine the effect of the AC on mileage. Instantaneous mileage jumps around to much to make any comparison with AC on or off.

Have you tried using the fuel flow rate display on the ScanGauge (I think it's GPH (gallons per hour)) instead of the instant MPG?

- Flat stretch of road
- Enable cruise control
- View the fuel flow rate display, which "should be" somewhat steady
- Turn A/C on and see the effect

Maybe looking at the fuel flow rate instead of instant MPG for this type of experiment might help?

...kl...

ruking1 · June 2009

It might sound like a plan. I do not have a scan gauge, so I am just reacting to the instantaneous readings, I have in two (different) vehicles. They are almost utterly USELESS in terms of actual mpg. So for example, I wish the Z06 could actually get a instantaneous 75-95 mpg for the REAL pencil and paper (24-26)mpg !!!

:shades:

Understanding that even among A/C's there are subtle to massive effect differences, I was struck by the fact that NONE of the oem owners manuals I have or ever looked at even address the procedure of stabilizing the A/C, setting the fan speed to #1 and adjust cooling for maximum mpg !! On Civic's setting the air flow to recycling air. Certainly no one addresses not cycling it on an off and its effects.

kltron · June 2009

The "instant MPG" display on the ScanGauge helped me learn how to drive the Civic for better mileage. It's possible that the ScanGauge refreshes its display a little more often than the display on the dashboard, so the ScanGauge might be more useful as a "learning tool", kinda like those old "fuel economy" needle gauges from the 1970s. Overall, though, I usually wind up considering the trip MPG on the ScanGauge more useful, as starting out the mpg reads next to nothing but then grows and grows

throughout the trip, usually to 41 or 43mpg (sometimes less if the car is in a bad mood...sometimes more for the right conditions).

BTW...9999 in the ScanGauge comes up because some cars turn off the fuel injectors when coasting (especially long downhill stretches or if using the engine to slow the car down) and the tranny is turning the engine. The ScanGauge doesn't know if your car turns off the fuel injectors or not, so there's a way to "tell" it using a threshold value which will vary by model of car. 9999 basically means "fuel off" if your car has that capability. This may apply to manual transmissions only.

Anyway, I mentioned before that it's frustrating that the A/C comes on in the Civic for the defroster. I'm sure there are times when it does not need to--I hardly ever used the A/C with the defroster in my old Integra. Then in the Civic if you switch from defrost to something else, the A/C stays on until you shut off the fan and turn it back on even if the green A/C light is not on. So you could be running the A/C and not even know it!

ruking1 · June 2009

..."Anyway, I mentioned before that it's frustrating that the A/C comes on in the Civic for the defroster. I'm sure there are times when it does not need to--I hardly ever used the A/C with the defroster in my old Integra. Then in the Civic if you switch from defrost to something else, the A/C stays on until you shut off the fan and turn it back on even if the green A/C light is not on. So you could be running the A/C and not even know it! "...

For me, another reason why I like the A/C controls and not the "climate-Temperature" controls. On the "climate-temperature" control, it would indeed be oxymoronic for you to hit the defroster (without A/C) and the winshield actually gets more foggy !!?? (with the resulting safety consequences?) So I think they opted to go for MANDATORY operation of the A/C in this (small) regard.

rtj525 · June 2009

Purchased new in February. After 6900 miles of mostly highway driving the MPG has worked out to 37.69. Very happy with the Civic.

wcooper · July 2009

Please bear with me as I'm new here and got a new car for the first time last week.
I bought the 2009 Civic LX and after one week I put in a tank of gas and did plenty of highway driving. I calculated the mpg and it was barely over 20 mpg! :confuse: Yes, I could've been driving slower but I'm no speedster and I did have the A/C on a very low setting. I've heard that as the car gets used more the mpg will improve. But I wasn't expecting anything this low. Any ideas?
Many thanks in advance!

mjsten · July 2009

Might want to get used to the disappointment. Just filled up today 27.4 mpg. Highest I have ever gotten to is 34, but regular daily driving is right at 29. I recommend that you talk to your service group and get a real idea of what folks are getting, you will likely find that 30mpg on an average is expected and the high end claims are rare.
I have 28k on a 2008 ex auto. I bought with high expectations from listening to sales associates and bloggers, and have been extremely disappointed with this aspect of the car.......

wcooper · July 2009

I apologize that my first post was wrong. The correct result was 36.8 mpg (all highway driving). Plus, I read that new vehicles will not obtain their optimal fuel economy until the engine has broken in. This may take 3-5 thousand miles.

Sorry for my previous post. I will check on my city driving mpg because that's where 90% of my driving is done. Thanks for your help!

fitisgo · July 2009

Is it possible the tank was not full when you thought it was - maybe the automatic shutoff at the gas pump clicked it off prematurely?

20mpg does not sound realistic, you'd have to drive the car incredibly hard (abuse it) to get that kind of fuel economy reading. 2 weeks ago I bought a new 09 Civic LX AT. So far I've filled up twice with a half-full tank and got readings of 33 and 31.5. Then I did a road trip and did a full fill-up and got 37.5 mpg.

I would try filling the tank up again and make sure it is full when you start with a full tank. Then drive it down to the halfway mark on the gauge (the indicator bar will be right next to the little fule pump image). You should get at least 200 miles on a half-tank. If you're not, there's either something mechanically wrong with the car or you are really driving it to hard.

ruking1 · July 2009

The survey linked in MSG # 1416 is really a good cross section that can indicate the RANGE of mpg. The ranges are also posted on one's new car sticker. As one data point, we have consistently gotten a range of 38-42 mpg over app 88,000 miles.

davepod · July 2009

for my first 5 tanks I have 31, 35, 32, 33, 30.
About 50% highway and 50 city non stop and go.
So far I am happy and have about 2000 miles in 5 weeks.
Dave

jamie1994 · July 2009

should have bought a older civic if looking for mpg, the older civics get better mpg than the new ones mine is a 1994 lx sedan with the 1.5L 5-speed and i'm getting 41.95 weekly

targettuning · July 2009

Factor in the facts that the newest generation Civics are...larger, heavier, more powerful, safer, need to conform to much more strict emission standards, more comfortable and still can get over 40mpg highway (ours gets as much as 42 to 43 mpg on interstate drives per ScanGage) no one should "long" for the good old (1994 etc) Civics for any reason. Well, maybe reliability as the newest ones seem more prone to unusual (un-Honda like) troubles.

sjet · August 2009

I am a new Honda owner and would like to know, on a 2009 civic honda -what's the average mileage before first oil change? I am uncertain about the maintenance minder and how it works on my car- and yes have read about it in manual.
Thanks for any advice.

Sandman6472 · August 2009

On my '06 LX, the 1st oil change came at about 7.5k miles and the 2nd at about 16k. But I do 95% city driving which has an effect. All highway miles could've gone more miles in between swaps. That was with using dino oil. Still mulling over the switch to synthetic with the next change and if I go that direction, will probably do a 8k to 9k change interval. Still at 70% on the oil minder so I've got plenty of time to decide. My mechanic near work wants me to do the switch but my mechanic closer to home thinks it's unnecessary with my driving style. Though with synthetic, I could go for a change once a year.

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

thegraduate · August 2009

I wouldn't take it past 10k miles or 1 year. Personally, my 2006 Accord (same engine family, different size - 2.4L I4) goes about 7,000 miles. I do a lot of highway, but I don't mind revving it to 6,000 when I want to or need to.

Honda Civic Real World MPG

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles