Have owned my 2007 Civic EX coupe for about three weeks now and have put over 1500 miles on it. After reading these posts for weeks I was almost "scared" out of buying the Civic for fear of substandard real MPG versus the sticker advertised MPG. I am glad I bought it. thus far, on 5 fillups, I have averaged 30.92, 32.64, 30.98, 36.94, and 35.05 for MPG (the last two interstate at 75-80 mph with AC and lead footed wife). I am very pleased that I am not experiencing the lower numbers posted here, and I love the Rallye Red and the looks of the coupe. My son and stepsons (18, 19, and 21) say the car is "cool" and ask if it is for them. Feel like I got a great car to satisfy that mid life crisis "sports" car while keeping in line with my conservative nature of MPG with gas prices the way they are.
SOMETHIN ain't right no matter what anyone says. With our 2006 EX MT we are getting 32/42. I don't see anyway driving style could bring that down to 17. The 42 was highway with cruise set at 68. At 80 mph it comes down to 35 or so.
I know that doesn't help but that's my 2 cents.
Edit - on a related topic - EPA estimates are NOT advertising!
Yes, I think another phase in "fault" isolation might be to get a second opinion from another dealer. But I SWAG the results probably be similar the first dealer. Break in should have fully occurred. The newnness factor is probably long since gone. Other than that, since you will be at the dealer and it should be covered under the 1 year or 12 mo new car warranty check the alignment, tire balance. I had this done during the 1 year 12,000 mile new car warranty period. As an aside, I had my alignment checked at 42,000 miles and according to the alignment guys it was WAY off. My first fill up after the alignment netted a 1 mpg increase (38 mpg to 39 mpg). So any number of things or in combination: the Civic I have doesn't HOLD alignment well given my driving conditions (which our roads are literally rated the worst in the USA), my wife did some curbing she didn't tell me about (I check the tires every day) or the dealer who did this either didn't know what he was doing or flat didn't do it even as it went in for the alignment. Tire wear has been dead even across the width of the tread. I rotate every 10,000 miles per oem recommendation and run 35 psi (oem highway psi recommendation, per owners manual)
"To a point that's my problem. I still look at it this way, though. My old Grand Am (6 cyl) was put through the same exact commute. It was listed at 20/32 and I averaged 21 MPG. The Civic is listed at 30/40 and I average 24 MPG. What that tells me is that the estimates on the Grand Am are realistic and the estimates on the Civic are pure hogwash.
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. "
Well certainly I have been persuaded the Civic is probably not the "economy" car for all seasons and most reasons. From the wide range of responses about mpg, I think it is fair to say the Civic has a "sweet spot" for the 38-42 mpg that I have been getting. This is definitely NOT to say the 54 miles r/t commute is sweet or fun. But I did have a few clues that it would do well for a gasser, before I bought it (43,000 miles ago) given the conditions and requirements.
Slow news day over here, but I just filled up tonight and got 42 mpg.
I bought this Civic EX a few weeks ago. Most of my driving is Interstate going 70- 75 MPH and some mixed stop and go gridlock driving. I've filled up twice- the first time I got 38.1 MPG and the second time (with the A/C running part of the week) I got 35.7 MPG. Whether this will improve as the engine breaks in or whether it will get worse as I drive more carelessly- time will tell. There definitely seems to be a link between driving like a sane person and getting good gas mileage.
Civics tend to be higher reving gassers. Driving this type of vehicle takes some attention to the operations characteristics to achieve whatever goals one is looking.
Honda Civic's do have a diesel option. Diesels tend to get better mpg across the same way of operating. It is available worldwide, but not in the USA. Since Honda will probably bring a diesel in the future, as in the Accord model, as we know it; most US Honda owners would find a diesel quite foreign for a while. Yet to my seat of the pants experiences, once you know what those operations characteristics are, it take less attention to get higher mpg than a gasser. So in the context of a Civic discussion, it would be app 25% better mpg.
Thanks to those folks who responded to my concerns with the low mileage on my new Honda Civic. I am somewhat discouraged by some of the messages that seem to simply accept the difference between what Honda advertises as possible city miles (32 m.p.g.) and what seems to be actually realistic (20+). Although the Honda customer relations person states that the estimates of high city mileage have nothing to do with them they certainly take full advantage of those figures in advertising their vehicles. Is there nothing that can be done? I for one would never have bought a Civic had I knew of the reality of it's low performance. Thanks, KennethR
Well I think outside of consulting an attorney who specializes in this type of law practice, I think the macro events might be instructive. Toyota has gone through the gauntlet with their Prius.
Indeed the whole EPA rating system has been criticized and taken to court if I am not mistaken. The net effect is the government web site now has a old new revisions to the so called old epa ratings. They vary between 5-20% less.
Hi all, I recently bought a 07 LX MT Coupe. During my fill ups, I am getting 31-32 mpg. This is a calculated value. I fill up at about 325-340 miles, about 10.5-11 gallons. I drive 95% highway, about 75 mph. I have about 2500 miles on the car now. Does the mileage get better? I am not sure how others are getting 38-42.
The driving is 80/20 H/C for its main purpose, 54 mile R/T commute.
Mileage does tend to get a tad better. For you specifically, please let us know. I attributed the majority of our average gain of 2 mpg with a range of 1-3 mpg better, to a switch to synthetic oil, Mobil One. I only kept the conventional oem fill for 10,000 miles because of the oem recommendation to do so. I did the switch to synthetic at the 10,000 mile mark (oil change only, NOT filter) and notice an immediate up tick per tank full (like you, filled app 10.5 to 11 gals.) We made no change to the driving conditions style. For us, I made NO attempt to conduct an A/B test/experiment. I had always planned to go to the synthetic. It was just a question of time when the oem fill was going to be changed. The oem recommendation was quite clear and specific at the so called full term of the recommended oil change: (your choice either normal, 10,000 miles or severe 5,000 miles) The manual made a point to say that MOST fell in the normal category. (despite the fact a lot of folks self diagnosis theirs to be severe). The oil and FILTER was next changed at 20,000. Again with Mobil One and a WalMart 2.07 dollar filter. I noted NOT change in mpg. The oil and filter was next changed at 40,000 miles. I noticed the fuel mileage had been getting app 1 mpg less. I took it in for alignment and they mentioned it was way off and did the necessary adjustments. I noticed an immediate back gain of 1 mpg. I was rather surprised the Civic did not hold correct alignment for a longer period of time, in that I had it checked under the 12,000 miles 1 year warranty.
What honda advertises? They don't determine it, they don't advertise it.
Its the E P A.
and not everyone is experiencing what you are! Come on guys i know that fuel economy comes into play when purchasing a vehicle, but it just seems that so many people bought a civic, not having ever owned a honda, not having done any research and just looking at the sticker.
Where does the epa say that 32 is possible in the city? The siticker says that it can average that. Not that it absolutely will.
The new sticker says 25 which means you average will be around their. So 20+ is spot on.
I would agree. As I have said in past posts, EACH new vehicle sticker DOES give the MPG RANGE. I have read and posted mine (2004 Civic) . I am sure folks can read and post theirs.
with a 12 year old in his or her pretend new Civic.
why does it scared of offending someone if we are all just 12 year olds.
Did it occur to anyone that a 1.8 probably has more trouble moving a car than a v-6 would? That may infuence milage as well.
Another thing to, if you civic is averging the same as a v-6 powered car, i'm pretty sure the fact that it takes less to fill it up to do so is STILL easier on the wallet.
I disagree that they don't advertise it. Honda (and all other manufacturers, for that matter) use the EPA estimates as selling points on a regular basis. They clearly advertise the Civic as a fuel efficient car and make it a major selling point. And they use those EPA numbers in commercials, print ads, etc.
As I've said, I have come to accept the mileage I'm getting and understand that the type of driving I do is the reason. I still believe that Honda misled me to some extent, though. Now I know better for future purchases. And the Civic is still a nice, reliable car which certainly isn't a gas guzzler. I just figured on 27-30 MPG instead of 22-25 MPG.
Hi Eldaino, who advertises 32 m.p.g. in town for a Civic? Not Honda you say! But when I was looking at their vehicles that huge sign that had "Honda Civic" at the top advertising 32 m.p.g. city driving sure looked like Honda had something to do with it! It certainly worked to their advantage. I didn't see a disclaimer telling me to blame the U.S.Government or telling me that it was purely a poetic number. And now I see that the EPA has down rated the Civic to 26 m.p.g. city (another poetic number?)which according to my experience really means 18-20 m.p.g. which should in some bizarre way give me cause for celebration as that's what I'm getting ! If only I had waited six more months to buy a new vehicle - it certainly would not have been a Honda - it's Toyota for me from now on, I know from experience that the Camry does get much better m.p.g. KennethR
If you put its' most likely competitor, the Toyota Corolla in place of the Honda Civic (similar rated EPA?!), you will probably achieve near identical results.
Before purchasing the Civic, I considered the Corolla. (among 4 others) The Corolla had the advantage, in that the dealer let me take it home for a 24 hour or more evaluation period.
In so far as a Camry vs a like model Civic(LE vs LE so to speak). I would SWAG you would have trouble equalizing the higher up front cost.
In terms of overall engine and tranmission health, this might be problematic. The car truly needs to be revved up and so called "blown out". Another translation: driven at freeway speeds for (a minium of )one hour's duration.
My take on the way we drive the Civic: we do not put much emphasis on driving for max mpg, but driving within the engine and drive trains parameters with the priority of getting 4 timing belt changes from it as a min. We keep records of the mpg as merely documentation and curiosity. A belt change is 105,000 miles. So 4 belt changes is 420,000 miles.
Here is my experience and some thoughts/conclusions.
Bought 2004 Civic Ex Coupe in Jan 2007 with 35K miles on it. After the first tank of gas, I noticed my MPG was low, so I started measuring. I ALWAYS fill up at the same gas station, same pump, slowest nozzle setting, never top off after the nozzle clicks off. The first tank I measured was a little over 28MPG about 50/50 Highway/City.
What has changed: -increased tire pressure to 31 PSI (it was much lower) -changed air filter – it was dirty, very dirty -drive slower on the highway (I stay at about 65mph, unless traffic moves faster) -accelerate/drive smoothly in the city/suburbs -the air temperature increased to about 32F or 0Celsius (in Feb 2007) -my commute increased (short trips –few miles – are the worst for mpg)
My highest MPG in Feb 2007 was 38.8, but here is why: I drove 420 miles on that tank (with some gas left), about 200 of that was at HWY at 58-60mpg (empty highway in rural Indiana), 100 miles at 70 mph, and the rest was suburban driving in Chicago.
CONCLUSIONS and FINAL THOUGHTS: 1) After reading posts on this forum for 3 months, I don’t believe anyone who claims to get 37 or more hwy MPG going 75mph or even faster -- even if they have the new 06 or 07 Civic. After 60mph, the air resistance/drag is very high (it grows exponentially vs. speed), and mpg drops pretty fast. I get no more than 30mpg going 80mph – engine revs at over 3000rpm.
2) Some people confuse city driving with suburban driving. I’ve seen people post 34mpg in the city – I think they mean suburbs, not city.
3) Unless you always pump at the same gas station, same pump, and never top off, it is very easy to get inaccurate mpg calculations. A mere ½ gallon will throw off your mpg calculations, and instead of getting 29 mpg you end up thinking you’ve got 33, and vice versa.
4) AND FINALLY, after this 3 month experiment, I’ve stopped obsessing about gas mileage. Like many others, I thought something was wrong with my civic (only 28mpg?!) Now I get about 33-34 mpg mixed driving, I drive smoothly, and keep my car in good shape. I think our civics (same models/trims) get the same gas mileage, but due to variations in driving style, the way we fill up/calculate mpg, and other external variables (including personal pride – or should I say excessive optimism), we end up reporting different numbers.
Great post with some astute observations. I especially like the ones about city vs. suburban driving and the problems getting accurate mpg calculations at the pump. Thanks.
..."After reading posts on this forum for 3 months, I don’t believe anyone who claims to get 37 or more hwy MPG going 75mph or even faster -- even if they have the new 06 or 07 Civic. After 60mph, the air resistance/drag is very high (it grows exponentially vs. speed), and mpg drops pretty fast. I get no more than 30mpg going 80mph – engine revs at over 3000rpm"...
To each their own, but you must also know by default, there are a lot of folks on this board that think YOU are full of it, also.
But your quote is another reason why diesel makes all the sense in the world. At 80 mph, if I dont get at least 50 mpg with a Jetta TDI, something is wrong!
I respect your experience re "blown out." I just think most cars get plenty of revs as they progress thru the gears daily and in entering the freeway,unexpected accelerations,etc. I agree it would not hurt to drive the speed limit. My 02V6 Accord is turning 2000 @ 60. I do agree that lugging any engine is detrimental and am carefull not to lug any of my engines.
You're right, diesels are more fuel efficient than gasoline engines. They are not the best solution however, when pollution comes into play (lower CO2 emissions, but a lot of other pollutants like sulfur) . My post is aimed at only Honda Civics in the US (not diesels).
And yes, you're right again, not everyone will agree with my conclusions. That's life
What the hour does (at the speed limit!?) is to ensure the metallurgy heats up fully and gives the system enough time to process excessive moisture captured or dumped into the oil. This is confirmed through oil analysis and if one is watching the OLM. Basically the translation is if you do "hard time", you need to change the oil at more frequent intervals. Good time (like your bass trips) less frequent oil change intervals! So now you can tell the wife that.
Current ULSD .05% has less sulfur than unleaded regular gasoline 1% ! You didn't know you were a 2x gross polluter did you?
If you are getting 30 mpg and some else is getting 50 mpg, who is using more resources?! Keep in mind that unleaded regular can not be "brewed" with out the resulting production of diesel fuel.
Thanks for the info re the heat. I did not know that. I'm lucky. I live in Texas and my weekly to bi weekly bass fishing trips are 1+ hours so I guess I've got the heat covered.
Haha, well I agree on this one. Despite the efforts to make diesel cleaner it still pollutes a lot more than gassers - the amount of soot and other particle pollutants spit out by the diesels is really bad for the environment and our lungs.
Try getting a tree to use soot and particle pollutants for photosynthesis! We breathe all that stuff in!
It's the better solution for your wallet (though you still pay higher upfront costs which you may or may not recoup). But it is the worse solution for the environment and for your lungs. Can you put a price on your lungs? Ebay? Biofuels might be the best so far.
Dieses are still pollute more, even if carbondioxide emissions are lower and the sulfur content is just lowered. Gasoline still burns cleaner and pollutes less. Diesels put out so much particle pollutants that the increased mpg doesn't justify it. Europe is just realizing how bad the diesel pollution has gotten in their bigger cities.
But yes, diesel does offer more freedom from mid-east oil!
Indeed biodiesel has close to NO SULFUR. But the key point is if you can burn diesel you can burn BIODIESEL. As most gasser owners know the same can not be said of unleaded regular. Most of the pollution is caused by the greater than 97% passenger gasser vehicle fleet. The less than 3% causes less pollution than the like 3% of some gasser vehicles. If you are comparing it to diesel big rigs, the legislative bodies long ago (35 years plus) ago decided the big rig diesels would not have regulated emissions. HUGE mistake in my estimation.
Civic diesels get 5 liter per 100km or 47 mpg (128 oz) US combined.
No diesels will be soon be NO school. But hey when there is a diesel model Honda, you really don't have to buy it. LOL, then you all will complain you ONLY get 47 mpg!!! ???
I actually wish my Civic was a diesel. My other cars also.
Oh, old school in what way, exactly? You must be thinking of the converted (from gas) 350 cu.in V-8 disaster diesels G.M. foisted on the public in the 80's. A modern turbo diesel is fairly quiet at idle, undetectable from gas engines at speed (with regard to noise), can easily be as quick as or quicker than gas engines when both are available in a particular model/brand e.g. European BMW models, no smoke and minimal smell, PLUS fabulous fuel economy. So, what the hell is "old school" about that??? Too bad we in the U.S.of A. can't get most of the diesels available in the rest of the world.
Let's keep this to Civic fuel mileage reports and conversation, please. There are a number of discussions on diesel issues which you can find using the Keyword search on the left. Here is a link to one of them that might interest you: Is This the "Day of the Diesel?"
Sure, it just seems reading some posters on this thread, there is a HUGE unmet pent up demand for an economy car that actually gets better mpg than the mpg some folks are finding the economy car gets in the real world.
who advertises 32 m.p.g. in town for a Civic? Not Honda you say! But when I was looking at their vehicles that huge sign that had "Honda Civic" at the top advertising 32 m.p.g. city driving sure looked like Honda had something to do with it! It certainly worked to their advantage.
where did you see this? on the sticker? The numbers for the old epa rationgs are 30/40 and below it states that people will average xxmpg-xxmpg, which is where i am guessing the '32 mpg city' is coming from.
if the new sticker says 25/36, the range will decrease, meaning that the part that says what most people will range in will have what YOU average as part of the range.
Just because the sticker is for a honda, does not mean that honda determined the numbers. Thats just common sense.
They don't have to have a disclaimer, but since you ask, the sticker does specify that they are ESTIMATES. Did you save your sticker? Not probably not. I still have mine, even though i no longer have the car, and i will read over it again.
I would agree. The EPA C/H figures are posted prominently. (probably by law, correct me if I am incorrect here) The ranges (2 if not three sets) are also posted. This means by consequence, directly and indirectly they are stating the RANGE of mpg.
I think the general point on advertising is that the car manufacturers clearly use the EPA figures when they sell cars. Watch any commercial for a car that has good EPA estimates. Do they not use those estimates as a selling point?
Sure, the fine print provides a range, but the commercial shows that "30 city/40 highway" in big, bold print all the time.
It's up to us to do our own homework, but I don't think anyone can honestly say that the manufacturers don't use those EPA estimates in advertising when it is advantageous to do so.
Right! I would agree and said that in a prior post. Who was denying they were using EPA figures? I also said EPA figures prominently displayed is probably dictated by LAW. Indeed what do you think would happen if EPA figures were NOT included on the new car sticker?
Gentlemen -give your head a shake ! The point is not that car makers put the EPA figures on car stickers ( as they are legally obliged to do ) BUT rather that they put the EPA figures prominently in all of their media ads , especially the newspapers ! Auto makers clearly use fuel economy (alleged fuel economy) as a marketing device ! No ??
Marketing device? Sure they do, it's just like any other hype included in any sort of ad. But they all do it, it's not just Honda or Civic ads. As with the window sticker, there should be some sort of YMMV disclaimer, though.
I think the way to use those figures is by comparing them vehicle to vehicle when making a purchase decision. That should give you an idea of which vehicle gets better mileage, but you can't expect that your numbers will actually be those posted on the sticker (or in the ads). It is a given that the EPA does not test in a "real world" environment and no one can tell you exactly what mileage you'll get because all the factors that go into your driving are yours and yours alone.
Again that is why threads like this on Edmunds.com are of value. If I read this thread correctly we are getting conditions from east to west, north to south and all points in between. We also get a wide variation from postings AT EPA 29/38 to 30/40. (20-44 mpg)
Comments
SOMETHIN ain't right no matter what anyone says. With our 2006 EX MT we are getting 32/42. I don't see anyway driving style could bring that down to 17. The 42 was highway with cruise set at 68. At 80 mph it comes down to 35 or so.
I know that doesn't help but that's my 2 cents.
Edit - on a related topic - EPA estimates are NOT advertising!
M
change to: But I SWAG the results will probably be similar to the first dealer's.
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. "
Well certainly I have been persuaded the Civic is probably not the "economy" car for all seasons and most reasons. From the wide range of responses about mpg, I think it is fair to say the Civic has a "sweet spot" for the 38-42 mpg that I have been getting. This is definitely NOT to say the 54 miles r/t commute is sweet or fun. But I did have a few clues that it would do well for a gasser, before I bought it (43,000 miles ago) given the conditions and requirements.
Slow news day over here, but I just filled up tonight and got 42 mpg.
Honda Civic's do have a diesel option. Diesels tend to get better mpg across the same way of operating. It is available worldwide, but not in the USA. Since Honda will probably bring a diesel in the future, as in the Accord model, as we know it; most US Honda owners would find a diesel quite foreign for a while. Yet to my seat of the pants experiences, once you know what those operations characteristics are, it take less attention to get higher mpg than a gasser. So in the context of a Civic discussion, it would be app 25% better mpg.
I am somewhat discouraged by some of the messages that seem to simply accept the difference between what Honda advertises as possible city miles (32 m.p.g.) and what seems to be actually realistic (20+).
Although the Honda customer relations person states that the estimates of high city mileage have nothing to do with them they certainly take full advantage of those figures in advertising their vehicles. Is there nothing that can be done? I for one would never have bought a Civic had I knew of the reality of it's low performance. Thanks, KennethR
Indeed the whole EPA rating system has been criticized and taken to court if I am not mistaken. The net effect is the government web site now has a old new revisions to the so called old epa ratings. They vary between 5-20% less.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/
I recently bought a 07 LX MT Coupe. During my fill ups, I am getting 31-32 mpg. This is a calculated value. I fill up at about 325-340 miles, about 10.5-11 gallons. I drive 95% highway, about 75 mph. I have about 2500 miles on the car now. Does the mileage get better? I am not sure how others are getting 38-42.
Mileage does tend to get a tad better. For you specifically, please let us know. I attributed the majority of our average gain of 2 mpg with a range of 1-3 mpg better, to a switch to synthetic oil, Mobil One. I only kept the conventional oem fill for 10,000 miles because of the oem recommendation to do so. I did the switch to synthetic at the 10,000 mile mark (oil change only, NOT filter) and notice an immediate up tick per tank full (like you, filled app 10.5 to 11 gals.) We made no change to the driving conditions style. For us, I made NO attempt to conduct an A/B test/experiment. I had always planned to go to the synthetic. It was just a question of time when the oem fill was going to be changed. The oem recommendation was quite clear and specific at the so called full term of the recommended oil change: (your choice either normal, 10,000 miles or severe 5,000 miles) The manual made a point to say that MOST fell in the normal category. (despite the fact a lot of folks self diagnosis theirs to be severe). The oil and FILTER was next changed at 20,000. Again with Mobil One and a WalMart 2.07 dollar filter. I noted NOT change in mpg. The oil and filter was next changed at 40,000 miles. I noticed the fuel mileage had been getting app 1 mpg less. I took it in for alignment and they mentioned it was way off and did the necessary adjustments. I noticed an immediate back gain of 1 mpg. I was rather surprised the Civic did not hold correct alignment for a longer period of time, in that I had it checked under the 12,000 miles 1 year warranty.
Its the E P A.
and not everyone is experiencing what you are! Come on guys i know that fuel economy comes into play when purchasing a vehicle, but it just seems that so many people bought a civic, not having ever owned a honda, not having done any research and just looking at the sticker.
Where does the epa say that 32 is possible in the city? The siticker says that it can average that. Not that it absolutely will.
The new sticker says 25 which means you average will be around their. So 20+ is spot on.
why does it scared of offending someone if we are all just 12 year olds.
Did it occur to anyone that a 1.8 probably has more trouble moving a car than a v-6 would? That may infuence milage as well.
Another thing to, if you civic is averging the same as a v-6 powered car, i'm pretty sure the fact that it takes less to fill it up to do so is STILL easier on the wallet.
Still representing the 28/38!
As I've said, I have come to accept the mileage I'm getting and understand that the type of driving I do is the reason. I still believe that Honda misled me to some extent, though. Now I know better for future purchases. And the Civic is still a nice, reliable car which certainly isn't a gas guzzler. I just figured on 27-30 MPG instead of 22-25 MPG.
My take is even the Civic is a gas guzzler!! I have stated the reasons why in past posts.
who advertises 32 m.p.g. in town for a Civic? Not Honda you say! But when I was looking at their vehicles that huge sign that had "Honda Civic" at the top advertising 32 m.p.g. city driving sure looked like Honda had something to do with it! It certainly worked to their advantage. I didn't see a disclaimer telling me to blame the U.S.Government or telling me that it was purely a poetic number.
And now I see that the EPA has down rated the Civic to 26 m.p.g. city (another poetic number?)which according to my experience really means 18-20 m.p.g. which should in some bizarre way give me cause for celebration as that's what I'm getting !
If only I had waited six more months to buy a new vehicle - it certainly would not have been a Honda - it's Toyota for me from now on, I know from experience that the Camry does get much better m.p.g. KennethR
Before purchasing the Civic, I considered the Corolla. (among 4 others) The Corolla had the advantage, in that the dealer let me take it home for a 24 hour or more evaluation period.
In so far as a Camry vs a like model Civic(LE vs LE so to speak). I would SWAG you would have trouble equalizing the higher up front cost.
My take on the way we drive the Civic: we do not put much emphasis on driving for max mpg, but driving within the engine and drive trains parameters with the priority of getting 4 timing belt changes from it as a min. We keep records of the mpg as merely documentation and curiosity. A belt change is 105,000 miles. So 4 belt changes is 420,000 miles.
Bought 2004 Civic Ex Coupe in Jan 2007 with 35K miles on it. After the first tank of gas, I noticed my MPG was low, so I started measuring. I ALWAYS fill up at the same gas station, same pump, slowest nozzle setting, never top off after the nozzle clicks off.
The first tank I measured was a little over 28MPG about 50/50 Highway/City.
What has changed:
-increased tire pressure to 31 PSI (it was much lower)
-changed air filter – it was dirty, very dirty
-drive slower on the highway (I stay at about 65mph, unless traffic moves faster)
-accelerate/drive smoothly in the city/suburbs
-the air temperature increased to about 32F or 0Celsius (in Feb 2007)
-my commute increased (short trips –few miles – are the worst for mpg)
My highest MPG in Feb 2007 was 38.8, but here is why: I drove 420 miles on that tank (with some gas left), about 200 of that was at HWY at 58-60mpg (empty highway in rural Indiana), 100 miles at 70 mph, and the rest was suburban driving in Chicago.
CONCLUSIONS and FINAL THOUGHTS:
1) After reading posts on this forum for 3 months, I don’t believe anyone who claims to get 37 or more hwy MPG going 75mph or even faster -- even if they have the new 06 or 07 Civic. After 60mph, the air resistance/drag is very high (it grows exponentially vs. speed), and mpg drops pretty fast. I get no more than 30mpg going 80mph – engine revs at over 3000rpm.
2) Some people confuse city driving with suburban driving. I’ve seen people post 34mpg in the city – I think they mean suburbs, not city.
3) Unless you always pump at the same gas station, same pump, and never top off, it is very easy to get inaccurate mpg calculations. A mere ½ gallon will throw off your mpg calculations, and instead of getting 29 mpg you end up thinking you’ve got 33, and vice versa.
4) AND FINALLY, after this 3 month experiment, I’ve stopped obsessing about gas mileage. Like many others, I thought something was wrong with my civic (only 28mpg?!) Now I get about 33-34 mpg mixed driving, I drive smoothly, and keep my car in good shape. I think our civics (same models/trims) get the same gas mileage, but due to variations in driving style, the way we fill up/calculate mpg, and other external variables (including personal pride – or should I say excessive optimism), we end up reporting different numbers.
To each their own, but you must also know by default, there are a lot of folks on this board that think YOU are full of it, also.
But your quote is another reason why diesel makes all the sense in the world. At 80 mph, if I dont get at least 50 mpg with a Jetta TDI, something is wrong!
You're right, diesels are more fuel efficient than gasoline engines. They are not the best solution however, when pollution comes into play (lower CO2 emissions, but a lot of other pollutants like sulfur) . My post is aimed at only Honda Civics in the US (not diesels).
And yes, you're right again, not everyone will agree with my conclusions. That's life
If you are getting 30 mpg and some else is getting 50 mpg, who is using more resources?!
Try getting a tree to use soot and particle pollutants for photosynthesis!
Biodiesels might be a better solution.
Biofuels might be the best so far.
Europe is just realizing how bad the diesel pollution has gotten in their bigger cities.
But yes, diesel does offer more freedom from mid-east oil!
Indeed biodiesel has close to NO SULFUR. But the key point is if you can burn diesel you can burn BIODIESEL. As most gasser owners know the same can not be said of unleaded regular. Most of the pollution is caused by the greater than 97% passenger gasser vehicle fleet. The less than 3% causes less pollution than the like 3% of some gasser vehicles. If you are comparing it to diesel big rigs, the legislative bodies long ago (35 years plus) ago decided the big rig diesels would not have regulated emissions. HUGE mistake in my estimation.
Civic diesels get 5 liter per 100km or 47 mpg (128 oz) US combined.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=55
The nexus and heads up however is Honda will bring a turbo diesel to the US market and it will be here sooner than most Honda owners realize.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=55
I actually wish my Civic was a diesel. My other cars also.
where did you see this? on the sticker? The numbers for the old epa rationgs are 30/40 and below it states that people will average xxmpg-xxmpg, which is where i am guessing the '32 mpg city' is coming from.
if the new sticker says 25/36, the range will decrease, meaning that the part that says what most people will range in will have what YOU average as part of the range.
Just because the sticker is for a honda, does not mean that honda determined the numbers. Thats just common sense.
They don't have to have a disclaimer, but since you ask, the sticker does specify that they are ESTIMATES. Did you save your sticker? Not probably not. I still have mine, even though i no longer have the car, and i will read over it again.
Sure, the fine print provides a range, but the commercial shows that "30 city/40 highway" in big, bold print all the time.
It's up to us to do our own homework, but I don't think anyone can honestly say that the manufacturers don't use those EPA estimates in advertising when it is advantageous to do so.
I can only imagine what they are saying in the prius/civic hybird forums!
I think the way to use those figures is by comparing them vehicle to vehicle when making a purchase decision. That should give you an idea of which vehicle gets better mileage, but you can't expect that your numbers will actually be those posted on the sticker (or in the ads). It is a given that the EPA does not test in a "real world" environment and no one can tell you exactly what mileage you'll get because all the factors that go into your driving are yours and yours alone.