Honda Civic Real World MPG

eldaino

so in other words you are getting EXACTLY what you ALWAYS should have gotten since the TESTS are what changed, not your cars abiltity to acheive that mileage.

Despite the old epa's ratings, you should have NEVER expected to acheive those ACTUALL numbers. 40 mpg on the highway? 36 is pretty damn close to me...

with regards to mileage, you have nothing to complain about.

eldaino

I totally agree. Why hasn't anyone really stuck it to the dealer? Made a big deal out of it? (for all we know, a lot of these people sign in post a few times and are gone..who knows, they may even have a 95 civic, or not even own a civic at all!)

i was thinking, what if its the fuel guage itself that is defective? What if the light comes on, the bars are all gone, but you could still keep going? I would suggest even having that checked out!

shipo

"i was thinking, what if its the fuel guage itself that is defective? What if the light comes on, the bars are all gone, but you could still keep going? I would suggest even having that checked out!"

How does a defective fuel gauge affect fuel economy? As far as I'm aware, there are only two valid and repeatable methods of calculating MPG figures, 1) divide the number of gallons used at fill-up into the number of miles driven (which provides questionable results for any individual tank of fuel but rock solid results when evaluated over time), and/or electronically (which allows for great tank versus tank analysis but isn't necessarily "dead on balls accurate" in absolute measurements). Regardless, neither of those methods involve the fuel gauge what-so-ever.

FWIW, many folks with high mileage (as in high MPG figures) cars have been buying a "Scan-gauge" to help them learn how to eek out every last mile from a tank of fuel. Our current cars (as in those in the Shipo household) provide the same information via the driver information center, however, if/when I pull the trigger on a pair of Civic EXs, I'll probably buy a pair of these as well:

http://www.scangauge.com/

Best Regards,
Shipo

dudleyr

I agree about the scangauge. I have one in my Accord and it is quite accurate - always within 5% of calculated fills. The scangauge really shows what is bringing the mileage down.

Anybody who feels they have a problem with mileage should purchase one. It will show them if they have a problem, and will help them get better mpg.

A civic should get 40 mpg highway quite easily if driven at the speed limit. CR got the Civic at 43 mpg going 65 mph - actual test.

BTW my lifetime average in my Accord is now at 31.7 mpg (almost 5,000 miles so far) and my best full tank is 41.3 mpg (549 miles driven on 13.3 gallons) at 65 mph with no A/C. 2007 4-cyl stick shift.

shipo

"I agree about the scangauge. I have one in my Accord and it is quite accurate - always within 5% of calculated fills."

Yeah, the ones in our cars currently return a plus or minus five percent reading as well (usually less), I'm thinking that that is the margin of error in the basic ODB-II software. It's also nice that the Scangauge can also pull error codes from the system. ;-)

Best Regards,
Shipo

ruking1

Yes, I don't know if this is true or not, but I read in passing on the (earlier 1990's to 2005) Corvette's, the inclusion of this (important) option costs the oem app a $10. chip. So obviously as an aftermarket item the price is, what the price is. Essentially from an operations behavior point of view, it is a bit like bio feedback. (pulse and bp control) So anywhere from minute to gross adjustments of behavior can yield interesting results.

leiko

I've been reading the posts and have noticed the Lx seem to be getting poorer mpg than the Ex.Is this a fluke or does the Ex perform better in the mileage area?Buying tomorrow and I was going with the Lx,but might go Ex now.Help.

ruking1

I am not real sure, as I have the VP model and get 38-42 mpg in a normal daily commute, last night's fill was 38.9 mpg. There are those on this board that think my numbers are a wild exaggeration. (being statesman-like here) We do nothing special to get better mileage.

From my point of view, unless it is a luxo MUST have thing to you, paying the extra freight from VP to LX to EX is not worth the money, especially if it is only to save fuel mileage. Those EXTRA 1000's of dollars can buy a lot of commute fuel.

shipo

Of course there is a counterpoint to the above. I likes my goodies and I demand 4-Wheel disk brakes. The EX provides many of the goodies I like AND is the entry point in the North American Civic lineup for 4-Wheel disks. Said another way, given all that the EX offers, it's a screaming bargain. ;-)

Best Regards,
Shipo

glideslopes

Built 5/07. 2,100 miles. Consistent 29-30 mpg around town 50/50 AC. Just took a 500 trip. Cruise set at 65 AC on, 2 adults, 1 suitcase. 38 mpg. Very flat terrain, not much climbing and coasting.

targettuning

What? is THIS a test? OK then...yes I have always been getting about what the new EPA sticker "suggests". No, the car was never capable of the 30/40 in our particular circumstances. I never said I expected the 30 mpg (or anything for that matter) city especially after the first few tank fulls in totally suburban driving when mileage settled in at about 22-24 depending on the season.
Finally, I am NOT complaining about my economy but simply explaining to anyone who will listen why THEY probably won't get the 30/40 numbers but may be able to come closer to the new EPA numbers because they are more realistic and coincidentially in line with what I actually get. That is all, read into it whatever you see fit.

targettuning

Ok then maybe I should have said "consumers should educate themselves before buying something then complaining the whole way to an owner site like this".
As far as your getting consistantly better than city estimates...congradulations you have the routine down pat. Most of us, including me, are still trying to find that routine. 2006 EX sedan automatic....22-24 mpg depending on season. Captain Kirk to engine room... "Scotty, wring some more fuel economy out of her".....Re: "that's all she will do captain".

targettuning

The numbers here range from: "OK I can believe that" to "who do they think they are kidding?" The cars discussed here are generally 2006 and 2007's so I highly, very, highly doubt there could be mechanical or other problems with them affecting fuel economy. These days if something is wrong check engine lights flash all over the place. So, just because someone doesn't get 35 city-45 highway it isn't cause to suspect something is wrong. In my experience it is normal.

targettuning

It is a fluke, both are exactly the same drivetrain wise. The EX has a few more standard features but none that should affect fuel economy. Buy whatever model you choose.

shipo

I'm having a difficult time understanding how you can be content with 22-24 mpg, suggesting that others should expect the same is almost behond comprehension for me. Why? Well, geez, our two 3.8 liter 4,000 pound minivans get that kind of mileage, and my last to BMWs (both larger and more powerful than a Civic) would return an average mix of about 24.5 mpg, and well over 30 on the highway. Oh, that and the fact that there are plenty of folks who do in fact get mileage that is very similar to what the old EPA ratings suggest.

I do understand that if you have a heavy foot and get into "VTEC" mode, mileage will drop significantly, however, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that if you want good mileage from a Civic, good mileage can be had.

Best Regards,
Shipo

ruking1

..."I'm having a difficult time understanding how you can be content with 22-24 mpg"...

I also. 22-24 mpg is about what I can expect to get on a Z06 Corvette in deep city traffic, hammer it from stop light to stop light, or if I run it HARD AND hammer it between 90-120 mph for hours on end, which of course can be VERY problematic on our roads. That is why a 25-28 mpg is more the norm.

osaka75

Re Post 764

"I will also go on the record with this: If I bought any car and it was averaging 5 mpg less than the estimated city mileage, the service manager and I would be having a meeting of the minds. I know those numbers are estimates, but I've also had cars that did better than the estimates, and I've never had a vehicle that consistently got worse than the city mileage. "

So, what do you expect him to do? I have this problem on a different model car where my city mpg is about 25% below the old EPA numbers but I just don't know what the service department can do. If you have realistic advice then I'll try it. Thanks.

drmbb

I bought my 07 EX/AT in March, with 11 miles on the clock. It's now approaching 2000 miles, and I too get mileage about like yours. My combined average is running now at 29.6 mpg, and my best highway only mileage has been 39.2 mpg over a 375 mile run (cruise control set to 68 mph, A/C on, no extreme hills).

It's certainly possible to exceed the old formula EPA estimates in some cars. My old car, a 1999 Chevy Cavalier (manual trans), was only rated for 34 mpg highway, but on numerous trips I acheived in the 38-39 mpg mark. The formula seemed to be to stick in the 60-70 mph zone, and pay careful attention to keep as constant a throttle as possible.

ruking1

..."Of course there is a counterpoint to the above. I likes my goodies and I demand 4-Wheel disk brakes. The EX provides many of the goodies I like AND is the entry point in the North American Civic lineup for 4-Wheel disks. Said another way, given all that the EX offers, it's a screaming bargain. ;-) "...

Indeed I for one am glad for the counterpoint. It illustrates the range and versatility, etc, of the Civic platform. If the EX is a screaming bargain, then the VP is a SCREAMING bargain; sans the goodies and 4 wheel disk brakes. I LIKE these things also, but they are really not too noticeable or even essential on a purposeful daily point a to point b commute (one translation: BORING).

shipo

From personal experience and a number of anecdotal reports that I've read, it seems easier to exceed the EPA estimates in cars equipped with three pedals under the dash as opposed to ones with an automagic tranny. True, many autoboxes do better on the EPA tests (including the Civic) than do their more driver involved brethern, however, on REAL roads under REAL traffic conditions, it seems that it's the manual cars that fare better.

Best Regards,
Shipo

shipo

Agreed. ;-)

ruking1

Good observation!

Another thing I was impressed with was the EPA difference between manual and automatic SEEMS to be the least, of models I was interested for the point A to point B commute. I of course lack empirical contrast as I run an auto. Another data point might be 48-52 mpg in a 5 speed MANUAL TDI, same commute. Honda has done a good job mating the engine to the transmission in that regard. Many WILL disagree, as individual unhappiness' due to their situation/s on the mpg issue, is at issue. I think the EPA difference is 1 mpg between auto and manual. So if I were to SWAG the mph for a manual under the stated use, a min of 1 to a 3 mpg improvement, which would go from 38-42 to 39-45. A counterpoint might be because of the extra control,etc, I might not gain anything.

drmbb

Generally, I'd agree with that. And certainly back in the day of 3-speed autotrans. The last auto trans vehicle I owned prior to this civic, was a 1977 Cordoba, 3-speed. Everything in between have been 4 or 5 speed manual trans vehicles. So, I'll be curious to see how a 5-speed auto and small-displacement 4-banger actually do.

I'd suspect though that it mainly is how good is your foot, or cruise control, as the case may be. Either auto or manual trans should do their very best with minimally varying throttle input - constant speed on the highway can make a huge difference in mpg. Also, I suspect that the civic would be much like my Chevy - push it much over 70 mph, and mileage will drop through the floor (certainly the EX's rpm's start climbing quite a bit over 70).

I'll be adding some major highway miles in mid-July, so will get a better handle on just how the car does on highway cruises then.

targettuning

The 22-24 mpg is all driving within our small town it isn't an average. It is exclusively suburban driving with NO highway to bump up the number. Believe me there is no VTEC mode driving going on. I have said...many times...that on one of the few road trips we used it on it returned about 37 mpg @ 70-72 mph. I guess if I was to average THAT in it would be what? about 31 mpg. So, why am I happy? because this is what it gets and it is better than our previous car an SUV (about 15-16 mpg) in the same type of suburban driving.

targettuning

Oh? a Z-06 Corvette will get 24 mpg? especially in city traffic and/or if you run it hard at 100+ mph? and what if you drove it legally 45 mpg??? Dream on brother. Yours are those kinds of posts where I say "Give me a break!". So give me a break.

targettuning

Why would that be? Most manual drivers have the tendency to "wind it out" a bit in each gear and frequently are in the next lower gear i.e. 3rd when 4th would do. In my experience the Civic 5 speed automatic simply can't wait to get into 5th gear but it also has the annoying tendency to not stay there if an incline however slight shows up. On the road the automatic will cruise at a lot lower RPM (in 5th) than the manual will in 5th due to transmission and final drive gearing. It STILL boils down to the individual driving and the circumstances they are driving under.

ruking1

No dreams here. It is part of the operational reality. As for getting 45 mpg on a Corvette? Sounds like a mocking (bird) voice singing. So give yourself a break!

Having said that, there are indications a twin turbo on a diesel sports car (shaped like a Corvette) does get 48 mpg on race day, 70 mpg for a steady 65 mph, AND with no guarantees of getting that mileage, doing a 0 to 60 run of 4 seconds! Woo Hoo!!

drmbb

It certainly did make sense back when manuals were mainly 4 and 5 speed, and auto's were mainly 3 speed. Nowadays, you may be right - with 5 speed autos and CVT trans becoming much more the norm, the auto-trans should at least be on a par with the manuals. And with the computer handling shifts in such a rigidly (and tirelessly) logical manner, you remove the human factor - things like, as you say, people cruising in a gear lower then optimal (how many manual trans drivers just get fed up with shifting in heavy city stop'n'go traffic and so do the minimal necessary?).

P.S. The reason I went with an auto in this car was after driving home from Connecticut after Christmas. I-95 from New Jersey to Baltimore was a crawling parking lot (as it often is - the holiday notwithstanding) and I said that's it - no more manual tranny car for me (not as long as I live in the eastern USA at least).

ruking1

From a practical point of view, I would agree. As I stated before, a 1 mpg EPA difference is cutting edged (my opinion). However all one really needs to do (which is probably the reason why it is not done and the results posted) is to dyno both. One can graphically see the structural losses (hp and torque losses, which convert to mpg figures) between auto and manual.

By way of reality figures (Corvette auto vs manual) is along the lines of 18-20% losses vs 11% losses.

Honda racer types are more dialed into this than the more utilitarian markets.

targettuning

What the hell are you talking about? "It is part of operational reality" What does that mean? First you say a Z-06 Corvette is capable of 24 mpg in city driving (pounding it from light to light no less) and in the same sentence you also say it is capable of that same economy at speeds of from 100-to-120 mph. Using those statements as a basis then that same Corvette MUST be capable of over 40 mpg at less than light speed, neh? I Don't know nor care what some exotic diesel race car might or might not get. But, please don't insult my intellegence by making nonsense statements e.g. the Corvette economy thing, then make me the butt of some obscure or internal joke e.g. "sounds like a mocking (bird) singing" whatever that may mean. I cannot follow many (most?) of your posts. I may stop trying.

ruking1

Actually the 40 mpg and above IS/WAS YOUR fantasy in a Corvette, not mine. I stated the range if you really care to re read. Not to pull your chain but the on board computers do show instantaneous readings of 35-65 mpg but that was NOT the mpg I wrote.

You are having a cow on your own interpretations, NOT on what I said.

dave8697

My past experiences: New 2000 Cavalier rental 45 mpg trip. New 2001 Monte Carlo 3.4L V6 rental: 35 mpg trip. New 4.8L 2001 Silverado ext cab 4x4 (own): 16 local, 19 trip. If I had a civic, I'd expect it to get 38 with an auto on a trip. I just drove a 1999 4.3L V6 GMC Sonoma ext cab 2WD automatic on a 1200 mile one way trip and averaged 25.5mpg for all 5 tanks. A 2.2 L is about half that size. A civic has a 1.8L which is about half of the 3.4 Monte that I got 35 in. All are 87 octane. My only disapointment in mileage was a 2.2L S-10 that couldn't break 21mpg because of the 4.10 axle ratio. Vettes get 27 hwy no problem, running just above Idle in 6th gear. New 303 HP 5.3L automatic Impalas get at least 27 hwy and possibly up to 31mpg with DOD. They become a 2.7L V4 in cruise mode.

targettuning

Still don't get it. Maybe somone else can explain it to me, you tried and failed.

ruking1

Actually judging by what the above poster posted, he/she demonstrates the understanding of exactly what I have been saying. In the interest of full disclosure, I dont know him/her from Adam and/or Eve.

targettuning

Noooooooooo,he screams. I think I'll treat people (posts)volunteering fuel economy numbers like religion and politics. DON'T touch them..... it will only make you crazy.

targettuning

To which I reply, yet again, and for the last time. I still don't get it.

targettuning

I would like to close out this little dialog with the fantasy Corvette issue. Yes, yes the 40 mpg (driven sanely) is/was sarcasm based on your prior statement that one could get 24 mpg with a Z-06 driving like it was stolen..in the city and over 100 mph. Talk about fantasy!!! You probably cannot expect 24 mpg in a Corvette unless you could restrain yourself to 55 in the slow lane..not likely.

eldaino

there is a possible answer to this....the lx weighs a bit less. Probably no biggie, but def not a 'fluke.'

eldaino

my point was this, what if your car was saying you had less gas than you really do?

If i fill up with ten gallons, and i have a defective fuel guage, if my tank says i'm empty, i'll never know it unless i get it checked out, or decided to wing it and keep driving. Going by the guage, therefore, would insinuate i'm getting a lot less mpg than i actually am.

I don't calculate my mpg by what my guage says, i go by what i fille up with; but a defective guage, like i said, could make you think you've got nothin left when you do.

thats all i meant.

pat

Let's stick to the Civic fuel economy here, please.

eldaino

for awhile i thought we were talking about the corvette

shipo

Correct me if I'm wrong, however, doesn't the Civic Owner's Manual clearly state that the Civic (sedan at least) has a 13.2 gallon tank? If your gauge says that you are empty and you fill it with only ten gallons then you know by default that you have roughly three gallons left when the gauge first registers empty.

That said, I still maintain that a defective gas gauge will have no bearing on mpg.

Best Regards,
Shipo

ruking1

If you are at all concerned you might want to consistently fill when the low fuel buzzer/lamps go on. It will serve as another data point.

kathyc1

That would be nice. I just bought a 2007 Civic EX coupe and I was hoping to get an idea of what I should expect. I'm working on my first tank full, provided by the dealer. When I had a 2002 Civic EX coupe I was getting a consistent 27 city 37 hwy until at 4years and 23,000 miles it started going down. Maybe needed a tuneup? I'm hoping to get that mileage with this car too. I don't remember the salesman telling me about driving conservatively the first 1,000 miles. Is that still necessary?

herolet

I recorded the last five tanks with an Excel sheet:

Kilometers liters of gas L/100KM MPG Hwy ( Local )
498 37.77 7.584337349 30.76515753 70 ( 30)
504 41.73 8.279761905 28.18116463 60 ( 40 )
412.4 37.56 9.107662464 25.61945332 20 ( 80)
451.1 41.05 9.099977832 25.6410881 10 (90)
575 41.58 7.231304348 32.2671156 80 (20)

Total KMs: 2440.5
Total liters of gas used: 199.69
Average mileage: 28.5 MPG (US) or 8.18L/100KM

The odometer has about 7000KMs on it now. Civic DX-G Automatic

For comparison, my 2001 Altima (2.4L engine) gets about 20 MPG on average under similar driving conditions. I know my Civic mileage number is not very good, but compare to my Altima, it's still way better. The Mazda MX-3 I sold before getting the Civic got about 23MPG on average. All automatics.

ruking1

On the face of it, you are getting 30-19.3% better.

kipk

"On the face of it, you are getting 30-19.3% better."

What does 30-19.3% mean?

ruking1

Better MPG that you got before, i.e., 30% and 19.3%.

sandman46

Just took our 1st highway trip and drove 180 miles on 5 gallons, which equals 36 miles/gallon. This is with the cruise set at 74 with the a/c running on a flat South Florida road. Car now has 7715 miles on the odometer. Am very pleased with this and the 30 I get in my city commute. Attractive car, great gas mileage...what's there not to like! Kinda balances out the wife's Mazda 3s with the 2.3 engine, which gets sucky mileage but has phenomanal acceleration.

The Sandman

deeks

Last Aug bought 06Civic EX sedan auto-EPA 35/40.Chicago to W.Lafayette Indiana-both ways checked cruisecontrolled 60MPH obtained 41.5mpg,admittedly careful acceleration(no aircond use) & would temporarily disengage cruise on upslope to disallow gearchange as speed slowed,then holding RPM steady,allowed slight speed reduction until past upslope.Some effort can really help + extra 3psi in tires.