Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to learn more!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
On what basis? I get a consistent 26-29 MPG in my 11 year old, 171k mile Accord. It hasn't changed since I got the car. I certainly hope you wouldn't make such a broad based statement on just one experience.
25 and 35 in the City
34 and 46 on the Hwy
Honda Civic EX 2206
Im 64 yrs and drive like it, Have never got better than 25 in the city, Hwy is correct about 40 Mpg
My other car a 1997 Jimmy V6 has EPA 17 City 22 Hwy, regularly get 16 city 24 hwy. Seems that Auto manufacturers have been fudging the # lately. ten to 15 years ago the mpg estimates were pretty close
Just for kicks, took a "Sunday" drive (hiway miles) this morning before I filled up to see if it would help with the average. Got the lowest mpg ever so far. 22.xx mpg, I usually just round up to the next number but it was a LOW 22.xx. Not happy at all. This is only 6 mpg better than my 1/2 ton V8 truck I replaced it with. Not sure what's going on, again I DON'T drive it like I stole it.
Please bear with me:
What is the typical commute? stop signs? stop lights? highway (avg. speed)?
How long is this commute?
What is the weather like where you are?
How many gallons of gas did she pump into the car and how miles was it between fill-ups?
Parking brake is off?
have your son and daughter switch cars for a tank?
The reason i am asking these questions is to eliminate driver error and then we can concentrate on the car. She's almost due for an oil change, then you can address it with Honda at that point. They will definitely point the finger at your daughter first.
The EPA sets the numbers areb, not the manufacturers. If anyone is fudging, it will be the EPA. Just pinpointing who should be blamed if anyone.
I don't think that Honda mislead me with their posted mileage figures, I knew they were just estimates going in. I seem to remember a few posts about class action stuff against Honda which seems totally without merit. If more folks drove under the exact conditions that the government guys did when coming up with these figures, I think the mileage numbers would be very close to those stated on the Mulruney sticker. I for one think the 1.8 liter engine is a sweet one with good torque up the power band. Not as good as our 2.3 Mazda engine but more than adequate for my commuter needs.
This is my first Honda and definitely won't be my last. Am quite happy with my decision and after I get rid of the lame LX hubcaps & steelies (hopefully on Monday), I'll be a happier camper.
The Sandman
"ACTUAL MILEAGE will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicles condition.
Results reported to EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between
25 and 35 mpg in the city and between
34 and 26 mpg on the highway"
I'm assuming the EPA got the 30 city mpg and 40 highway mpg from taking (25 + 35) / 2 = 30 for city and (34 + 46) / 2 = 40 for highway. Looks to me like the EPA just took the worst and best figures and gave us average of the 2.
Now, we all know most of us (the Internet community) are getting low to mid 20's city and low to mid 30's highway.
With 1 or 2 stating they are getting over the estimates claimed. But who's the majority that the EPA states will get that range? Apparently not us.
Not sure about anyone else, but I'm whining like my toddler about it because the past few cars and trucks I had, I actually got or exceeded the "estimates". Same routes and during my younger days I drove more aggressively.
I think many bought the Civic for the sole reason of high mpg. If we were on an H2 board. I'd tell the whiner to STFU if one of them complained about the mileage they're getting.
mpg figures are based on driving norms of 1960's and 1970's. That is, they base accelerating to highway speeds 0-60 taking 16 seconds.
Also, assume highway speeds of approximately 40 mph.
Now, if it takes you 16 seconds to get up to highway speeds these days, you are probably in a coma because you caused a 10 car pileup and got run over by an 18-wheeler.
Ditto if you drive 40mph on the highway at any time except rush hour(s).
This is just by memory, so don't kill the messenger here, but I think I'm pretty close.
The other point of the editorial was that for cars with large engines, you should reduce current EPA mpg figures by 5-10%, and for smaller, economy type engines, probably 7-15%. See if those figures jive with your real world mpg. They are probably closer in most instances, but obviously not in all cases.
Supposedly the new EPA estimates are going on window stickers for 2008 models. Of course, different manufacturers introduce their next year models at many different times. It will be interesting to see the window sticker mpg for 2008 Civic compared to this years, assuming all else stays the same or relatively the same from 2007 to 2008 model year.
..."Also, assume highway speeds of approximately 40 mph."...
Actually the AVERAGE highway speeds have not changed all that much. Specifically it is closer to 45 but 40-45-50 mpg is more the reality. (I based this on the on board computers with GPS back up (triangulation))
So for example, since we do a 27 mile daily one way commute, it is pretty easy to calculate the average speed during rush hour!? If some folks don't see this just ask!! Indeed the very same people who complain about too fast speeds on the freeway are the very same ones who complain about rush hour, which (oxymoronically) by definition IS a defacto speed limit!!???????????
E.P.A. Classification: Subcompact Cars
Mfr. Model Engine
Honda Civic 1.8 4 Automatic (2007) MPG 30/ 40 Regular
Honda Civic 1.8 4 Automatic (2008) MPG 26/ 37 Regular
Best MPG: Subcompact Cars
Mfr. Model Engine
Size(L) # Cyl. Trans. 2007
City 2007
Hwy 2008
City 2008
Hwy Fuel
Type
Honda Civic 1.8 4 Automatic 30 40 26 37 Regular
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosmo on the VW TDI thread posted that what I said was a done deal. Look at your "old " car with the new EPA estimates.
By the way, has anyone seen a significant difference in mileage when using different oil? My previous car (02 Saturn L200) used to get about 3-4 MPG higher when high quality 5W30 was used in place of 10W30.
Re oil: My Maine dealer strongly advocated Honda brand, yet I had oil changed in OK City and dealer wanted to use Valvoline. He agreed to use Honda but charged a few bucks more. Weird! When the 36K warranty ends I'm using Mobil 1, which has served me well for many years. I have it now in an 03 Town Car with 131K and a 99 F-250 with 161K and both engines use almost no oil and run perfectly. I change their oil and filter once a year.
One more thing: We got a notice re Honda speedometer error. Anyone done the math to determine how that affects mileage reports?
I have triangulated the information off a portable GPS. The vehicles I have all happen to be dead on. Evidently the weights and measures statutes do not kick in.
The settlement is ONLY an agreed upon (5%) percentage increase in the 36,000 mile warranty rather than the (better, for my .02 cents) specific and focused remedy: a full speedometer R/R and road test. I would have preferred a full R/R and test of a new speedometer. The remedy is really quite meaningless, which really might have been the over all point.
(your Honda/Toyota, we will give our constituency a bone and spank your hand, now cry on CNBC to show the folks at home how much it hurts -6 million but 33% to the lawyers ) Of course if you have had a catastrophic failure at 37,800 miles, you are in the money and in effect have (lost) won the lottery.
..."Honda has decided to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleges its odometers were racking up miles too fast. The automaker says odometers on some 6 million Hondas affected by the suit were accurate to within 3.75% on the high side. The NHTSA doesn't regulate odometer accuracy, and the only industry standard is a voluntary one set by the Society of Automotive Engineers that says odos should be within +/-4%. While the car's affected by the suit fall within that range, Honda recognized that its customers expected their odometers "would be based on zero," and they weren't.
The settlement will lengthen the warranty mileage of affected vehicles by 5% and Honda will pay lease-mileage penalties incurred by owners, which is expected to cost the automaker around $6 million. If you own a 2002 to 2006 Honda or Acura bought between April 12, 2002 and November 7, 2006, then you're eligible for the benefits of the settlement.
The lawsuit also prompted lawyers to test the odometer accuracy of other vehicles. It was found that on average domestic vehicles were nearly perfect in their odo accuracy, while Toyotas actually racked up fewer miles on the clock than they did in reality. Nissans, however, didn't fare as well, and a new class-action suit has been filed on behalf of Altima owners who say their odometers are counting the miles 2.5% to 3% faster than they should."...
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/odo-uh-oh-honda-extending-warranties-on-6-mil- - - - - lion-cars/
Anyway, looking at Consumer Reports' testing results, I saw the following (this is for my model):
Fuel economy
CU's overall mileage, mpg 28
CU's city/highway, mpg 18/43
CU's 150-mile trip, mpg 34
Annual fuel: gal./cost 535/$1175
Cruising range, mi. 420
For a manual transmission, here are the stats:
Fuel economy
CU's overall mileage, mpg 31
CU's city/highway, mpg 22/40
CU's 150-mile trip, mpg 37
Annual fuel: gal./cost 490/$1080
Cruising range, mi. 465
Seeing the 18/43 (as opposed to the EPA's 30/40) makes a lot more sense to me, at least on the low end. My individual tanks of gas have ranged from 22 to 27 MPG, and with my type of driving, that would fall in line. I expected to get around 27 on average based on the 30/40 (knowing that's inflated).
Just thought this was interesting. Hopefully I'll have need for a long trip one of these days to check the mileage with a full highway run.
yeah thats probably what you need to do; if its cold your mpg will take a hit, especially when you drive such short distances. Granted the civics new rating is 25/36 so that puts you just below it.
The bottom line is I bought a relatively underpowered car as a tradeoff to improve my gas mileage, and the improvement has been marginal at best. It's disappointing.
..."MSG 363 ..."So for example on the new car sticker; for the 2004 Honda Civic, the EPA BOLD numbers are: "29 City/38 Highway". Again if one reads the "finer" print it, goes on to say:..." ACTUAL MILEAGE ... will achieve between 24 AND ...34 mpg in the city... 32 AND 44 mpg on the highway"...
So it seems to me, if someone is getting 24 mpg they are telling me it is within the RANGE.
Perhaps you should read (yours) and quote it. "...
So if you got below the lowest then I would say you might have grounds to claim false advertising.
ruking is right; and even then its not false adverstising; honda didn't do the test; the epa did. Thats why the numbers are changing.
If the 2004 honda civic had a rating of 29/38 and the average city was between 24 and 34, then what do you suppose the average will be for your civic, which states 25 in the city? Probably around 21-28. So that would put you spot on, actually it would put you right in the middle, so i guess you are doing pretty good.(i'm going by the new epa figures, the engine wont change for the 08 civic, its just the test.)
I averaged anywhere from 25-28 in the city with my civic and i live in North Carolina; not nearly as cold as jersey, even when it is cold here. So a 2-3 mpg drop due to the cold seems like no biggie.
The best operation of an ICE is at durations of 1 hour or MORE at freeway speeds: etc, etc,. The net effect is the best fuel mileage, best combustion, least waste, etc, etc.
I figure it all comes down to how you drive, and that's not figured into any MPG estimates, EPA or otherwise. Now I know for my next purchase. If I had a 20 mile highway commute to work each day, I'd probably be seeing much better mileage. But I don't, so I'm likely fine with a 6 cylinder engine that isn't at the top of the MPG chain. This is a learning experience, I guess.
As far as the type of gas goes, I throw that out since I'm comparing my old car to my Civic. I used the same gas from the same gas stations. The Grand Am was listed at 20/32 and I was around 21 with the same general driving. That's my ground for comparison.
I did figure in savings from the improved gas mileage when making my decision. I assumed around 7 MPG better, instead I'm getting around 3. My last long trip with the Pontiac gave me 33 MPG, whereas my first and only long trip in the Civic (which in fairness was a few weeks after purchase) produced the same number (33).
One of the reasons I was ready to move on, however, was repair costs. I was having costly problems with the Pontiac fairly regulary, probably paying $2,000 per year in maintenance not inlcuding regular service (oil changes and whatnot). I ended up buying the extended warranty on the Civic when they offered it for $650. This gives me the complete first year coverage for a full seven years. So my maintenance costs will be minimal for that time, which helps.
The dealership and Honda tell me that I don't have a problem! That it is only my "driving style". They say I have no recourse unless I can prove I have a technical problem. The dealerdship says that the computer does not show a problem, so I am stuck in an impasse.
Plus I was told that the 32 m.p.g. estimate has nothing to do with Honda and it is a sticker that is forced on Honda by the U.S. Government (and that Honda makes no such claims).
Any suggestions would be gratefully received. Thanks, KennethR
So without any specifics on your situation, I can swag, but you would probably spend more time trying to disprove what I am saying. So unless there are specifics.....
There are ways to minimize the amount of gas you burn, doing things like slowing down and coasting to a stop light, making sure you ease down on the gas pedal instead of slamming it when taking off from a stop, don't let it idle any more than possible - stuff like that. If you are not currently trying to do these things, you might find they make a substantial difference.
I have to plan a long drive soon so I can see the highway MPG.
I am not so naive that I thought 32 m.p.g. was a guarantee, but I did think that I would get in the high 20's. My wife has a Toyota Camry which gets 26 -28 throughout the year. I am just stunned at Honda's attitude that 17 -20 m.p.g. in a Civic is "normal" or "acceptable" and that "...the sticker of 32 m.p.g. is not a factor in why people purchase a Toyota Civic". I guess I'm stuck with a really bad choice of car and manufacturer. Do I have any legal options? KennethR
Someone did tell me that with a lot of start/stop, stop and go driving, a 6 cylinder engine can be more efficient which is why I'm not seeing a huge improvement in MPG from the Grand Am to the Civic. On the open road the Civic should do much better, but with all the stops and local driving, it doesn't.
Really the first part of your response was THE furthest thing from my mind. ! Indeed, I also think the Civic is a gas guzzler! Some folks on this board will wince, as I have gone on record with a 38-42 mpg on a 54 mile daily commute. However for us that is down from a more normal 48-52 mpg on a VW TDI.
I gave up, apparently I was complaining too much about the exact issue you are trying to state. Gave details, explained my driving style, comparisons with previous cars, that I drove the same route/routine and how I either met or exceeded the EPA etc, etc on past cars. Some didn't seem to care about stats and facts.
Like you, I based my purchase on mpg, but I won't go there, I'm sure I'll offend someone.
If THEIR Civic doesn't suffer what YOU are experiencing with your Civic. Then YOU are in the wrong and apparently just imagining things or you're just too naive to realize all of a sudden your driving style and route has changed and that's the reason for the less than stellar mpg. It's a lost cause . I guess when you spend 18K+ on something, some just get too defensive. Enjoy your Civic, overall it's a great commuter. I've begun looking into replacing mine for something else that fits my needs better now that I know I won't lose too much in mpg.
Bingo! I was going to state this some time back, but decided not to in "fear" of my punishment. First I will make it clear, I know EPA figures are estimates, there that's out of the way.
Could it be possible that Honda designed the Civic based on how the EPA gets their results? Far fetch, probably, but think about it. I know there is the SI, but overall the Civic is an econobox car. Most potential Civic buyers are practical and mpg is a deciding factor. If you look at the new EPA figures. The Civic's current EPA vs it's new EPA. It's a 5 mpg difference. Majority of the new figures range 1-3 mpg lower (there are links to this site somewhere on the Civic boards).
Then either you didn't read your new car sticker or really didn't believe what it actually said. It seems that YOU do not care about the statistics or facts. So for example, if I gave you my car and I drove yours, any guesses as to what you would get with my car and I with yours?