Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Monthly Fuel Economy Update for March - 2016 Honda Civic Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,059
edited April 2016 in Honda
imageMonthly Fuel Economy Update for March - 2016 Honda Civic Long-Term Road Test

We tallied up the fuel economy numbers in our long-term 2016 Honda Civic for the first time and things aren't looking great. Time for a road trip!

Read the full story here


Comments

  • kirkhilles1kirkhilles1 Posts: 860
    Not horrible, but not great for a 1.5L engine. I would've expected at least 30 mpg rock bottom. Still interested to hear about the Honda Sensing systems work.
  • barich1barich1 Posts: 143
    Wow, another undersized turbocharged engine not meeting its EPA estimates. Who'd have thought?
  • chol92594chol92594 Posts: 208
    Those aren't horrible numbers, but they are somewhat disappointing considering that my 8th gen Civic gets roughly the same mileage. Still, I'd give the engine another 1k miles or so to get fully broken in, even if Honda does spec a really short break-in period. Hopefully, some more miles (especially on the highway) will allow the Civic to post improved mileage figures.
  • longtimelurkerlongtimelurker Posts: 455
    edited April 2016
    Not really that much of a fan of this car, but it's a larger car than the predecessor, it's pretty powerful, with low-end torque Honda buyers have been begging for since forever, and again...if the EPA did not offer estimates and people just had to look at those factors I just mentioned...size, weight, power and performance, nobody would have an issue with these numbers, especially this early in the test. I certainly don't.

    Putting up roughly the same mpg numbers as an 8th gen Civic, that it will absolutely blow the doors off of, while offering much more in the way of room and creature comforts? Sounds good to me. You people want something for nothing.
  • danny1sdanny1s Posts: 1
    I have an EX (2.0L). My worst is 29.9. My best is 43.9 - highway. Testers must have lead feet!
  • pman6pman6 Posts: 1
    I have an EX-T in the Washington DC area, my combined average is 35.9 with about 2400 miles on it so far. Pretty decent. By comparison I had a 2012 Elantra, which averaged about 28mpg with the same roads.
  • I have the EX-L in the Oklahoma City area and have been getting 36-38 mpg with mixed city/highway driving. They definitely have been heavy footed.
  • drex2drex2 Posts: 24
    I have the Touring. With 4400 miles over 4 months with approximately 60% suburban, 25% city and 15% highway, my overall is 34 mpg, best fill 35.8 and worst fill 32.6. Haven't taken any long highway trips yet, so I'm looking forward to those results. Given the abundant power and my lead footed tendencies, I consider these numbers to be outstanding, I believe the numbers reported in the update are approaching the worst results that your average driver might achieve.
  • dougnutsdougnuts Posts: 26
    I've been following the new Civics on Fuelly.com and your results (28mpg) are at the tail end of the bell curve. The average for a 2016 Touring trim is 34mpg, so I expect when you get the car out of the stop and go cycle, you'll see huge gains.

  • dougnutsdougnuts Posts: 26
    barich1 said:

    Wow, another undersized turbocharged engine not meeting its EPA estimates. Who'd have thought?

    Check Fuelly.com for real world averages. Edmund's numbers are pretty far off the 34mpg average for the 1.5T cars.

  • zoomzoomnzoomzoomn Posts: 143
    I've driven the new Civic with the 1.5L turbo. It's a nice car and even with the CVT the new motor begs to be driven. The problem, I feel, as with any of the new turbo engines is that there is a tendency to enjoy the available power over the ability to remain frugal and enjoy the mileage. Unlike their non-turbo counterparts, though, the gap in gas mileage between spirited and frugal driving can be a bit greater.

    Both of my current cars have normal/eco and sport oriented settings and when you use the more spirited setting, it definitely affects the gas mileage. I find that if I leave it in the lazier modes that I actually refrain from jack-rabbiting as much and actually see a notable gain. And I can always select sport mode when the road, or moment begs me to do so. In the end, it's all up to you and your right foot. :)
  • eldaino2eldaino2 Posts: 34
    inkarus41 said:

    I have the EX-L in the Oklahoma City area and have been getting 36-38 mpg with mixed city/highway driving. They definitely have been heavy footed.

    That and i'm sure that californian congested roads don't help one bit. If you sit in traffic long enough, any car's mileage will tank.
Sign In or Register to comment.