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.
true, unless you have only EVER had to fill it up on 10 gallons. Even running my civic to the ground (light on, no bars on the guage) i was only ever able to fill it up a little past 10 gallons never 11. Most people dont run their cars down like this, or at least dont like to...so 'knowing' that you have 2 or 3 more gallons could result in disaster. ( i remember my 2001 civic; i did this and man it was embarassing. But then again i was 18 and kinda weird!)
That said, I still maintain that a defective gas gauge will have no bearing on mpg.
I guess i should ahve explained myself, or my theory a bit more. Assuming the person we are talking about IS the kind of person who goes by the fuel guage (light comes on, couple squares left, he goes to fill up.) this COULD affect ones 'percived' mpg.
He fills up with 10.5 gallons. If he/she is only able to drive 300 miles (lets say it was a mix of city and highway) before his defective light turns on, he/she would assume that they only averaged 28.5 mpg. Being an average person who does not want to get stranded on the road, they don't bother to run the car all the way down, or keep going because the manual says there is more gas in there. So in theory, it would result in an incorrect mpg calculation and even though it does not change the civics ability to achive good mpg, it seems like its doing poorly.
I am continuing to get only about 25mpg. Same drive every day (80% city 20% freeway). I drive easy, AC on. Nowhere close to 30 mpg after 5 tanks of gas. When I drive the other family car the same route every day I get 24mpg. This is a 06 Camry with 2.4L auto, with published mpg of 24\32.
Why can't the Honda meet the published numbers when Toyota can. Even my third car Mazda protege) after 14 yrs still gets 23mpg in city for the same drive(what was published in the spec).
Am i supposed to drive the Honda any differently than the way I drive other cars to get published numbers?
Our Civic and CRV experience: Very conservative driving gets you the EPA. Our Civic is an 06 EX MT...very careful in the burbs = 32. 68, cruise, no AC = 42.
PERSONALLY, I don't think the EPA should revise the system. The higher EPA numbers ARE attainable, IF you strive for it. Why lower the ratings so the gas/brake crowd can feel good about itself?
After all EPA is supposed to protect the environment.
I agree. The EPA already dumbs down the numbers they actually record (10% city and 22% highway), why do it a second time. The current EPA numbers are easily attainable - just not at high speeds and other adverse conditions.
They are an indicator of the cars capability not a guarantee for anybody regardless of driving style.
I disagree. First, the old formula was wholly unrealistic, so they needed to develop a system that actually reflects real world driving (eg. idlying at stops - which was NOT part of the old formula).
But, mainly, I like that the new formula may give the auto industry a kick in the [non-permissible content removed] to finally start getting serious about efficient power plants. If you compare old to new EPA numbers what do you see - the old system ALWAYS produced higher numbers. And in some cases, especially for larger displacement 6 and 8 cylinder engines, the new numbers are dramatically lower. Also for some of the hybrids - look at the 2007 Prius numbers, which dropped by 9mpg.
Rather then let the auto makers continue to sit back and claim how much progress they've made, I hope the new numbers will cause them to really get innovative.
As much as I like my 2007 Civic EX/AT, and I am satisfied with it's mileage, I would point out that it does not get really any different mileage then my nearly 9 year old Chevy that I traded in. 9 years later, and now with an even smaller 4-banger (the Chevy was a 2.2 litre), and my mpg figures really are not noticeably different! (I routinely got in the high 20's mpg city, and high 30's mpg highway in the Chev) And this is supposed to be progress?
I say the EPA should be in the position to accurately rate vehicles to reflect what, on mass, across the whole diversity of the country, the average driver is likely to see. And if those numbers are lower then consumers and auto makers like, then hopefully that will get the industry off it's behind and start really innovating.
You guys are all making a strong case for turbo diesel Civics!
In comparison to the 2003 VW TDI (turbo diesel) (48-52 mpg daily commute), the 2004 Honda Civic is a gas hog!! (38-42 mpg (exact same) daily commute) AND the VW is app 500#'s heavier! (English translation: plus/minus 1 to 3 mpg per 100#'s (hit/advantage)
The case gets even stronger next January when the next generation Bluetec Jetta hits our shores. Already I've been hearing unconfirmed reports from Europe (where the car is already released) of 50+ mpg at speeds well over 70 mph.
I also saw a blurb six months or so ago that Honda is well on their way to producing a hyper efficient (as in clean, powerful and economical) Diesel that (like the Jetta) will require no urea cannister to meet the CARB requirements. Geez, could you imagine a Diesel Civic that could turn 50+ mpg at 80 mph? I'd be all over that. ;-)
hmmm lets see...mostly city driving, with the ac on and your car has probably not been broken in yet.
have you checked what the new epa for your car is? its 25mpg in town. I'd say, that because of the fact that you are driving MOSTLY in the city and you have the ac on, the fact that you are getting EXACTLY what the epa says, is pretty darn good.
Personally, i averaged 28mpg in the city driving the same way you do.
I drove the 07 EX to my MIL's for the Memorial Day weekend. We traveled about 500 miles and averaged 36 for the trip. The route covers hilly terrain to flat coastal plain. I drove about 3 over the speed limit most of the time. The best recorded mileage was 38 and the worst was 33. The 33 included a short local trip to a little league game after we got back.
As others have said I think the car is perfectly capable of acheiving the advertised numbers. The worst mileage we've recorded since we got the car was 27.5, but that was with my wife driving it to school most days - a short trip with A LOT of stop and go driving. BTW, I think Don Garlitts was my wife's drivers' ed teacher! :P My next door neighbor's wife who teaches at the same school swears she cannot keep up with Beth in the mornings. But 27.5 is 10 better than she was getting driving the Odyssey every day.
9 years later, and now with an even smaller 4-banger (the Chevy was a 2.2 litre), and my mpg figures really are not noticeably different!
That's my beef with the automakers as well. My dad had a Ford Festiva a number of years ago - two of them in fact. The older one which still had the carburated engine, routinely got high 40's. I know on one trip he made he got 52 mpg.
I also had a friend who drove a little Isuzu car with a diesel. On a 70+ mile round trip commute she got better than 50 mpg. That was 15 years ago.
Here we are 15 years later with much more advanced vehicles and yet mileage has not improved :confuse: Seems like a conspiracy to me.
One of the problems is that the Feds keep imposing more and more clean air restrictions which tend to smother the engines, and we the drivers want performance. Good performance and great mileage are hard to achieve in the same package.
The feds also impose more safety. That adds weight. A pound here and a pound there can add up. More weight burns more fuel and decreases performance.
I'm somewhat amazed that the mfg have been able to still achieve the same performance and economy while dealing with the feds mandates.
I had a Dodge Colt (Mitsubishi)1600, 8 speed, in the 70s that got 40+ on the road. Also had a 80's auto Civic wagon that got closer to 32 no matter how it was driven.
I think they have done about all they can with gas engines. Time to get out of the box! :sick:
Good performance and great mileage are hard to achieve in the same package.
Yes, that's the argument everyone wants to make, but it just doesn't hold water. To make my point I use not a high performance street rod but pot-hole smoothing land yachts.
My MIL routinely gets 30+ in her LeSabre, My dad gets 25 from his 06 Grand Marquis, and to top it all off my friends down the road have a Buick Roadmaster - one of the huge ones. It weighs like 14 tons, has a 350 under the hood, and gets 27 mpg!
I'm sorry, but I just don't want to hear any more whining about emissions, safety equipment, etc keeping a car no bigger than my Civic from getting 50+ mpg AND delivering good if not great performance.
It seems more likely to me that Exxon has more weight with the Auto manufacturers than do the consumers.
It weighs like 14 tons, has a 350 under the hood, and gets 27 mpg!
and how many more gallons does it take than the civic to fill up i wonder?
I'm sorry, but I just don't want to hear any more whining about emissions, safety equipment, etc keeping a car no bigger than my Civic from getting 50+ mpg AND delivering good if not great performance.
you may not want to hear it, but its totally true. Physics are physics and you cant change them. Think about how little some older cars that achieve great mileage weigh. And don't throw diesels into the mix; you can still get a jetta tdi which is totally modern and will get the same kind of mileage. But you just can't compare a diesel to a reg. gasoline car, so its a moot point.
Yes performance and high mileage are hard to get hand in hand. Look at all the cars you just mentioned that have such good mileage despite their size/weight...you think they are really that entertaining to drive? according to your numbers, you are getting great mileage in your civic, and i guarantee its sportier than any of the cars you mentioned...to me there is nothing to complain about.
I have a 2006 EX Sedan, around 8,000 miles on it now, and I live in the Philadelphia area. My daily commute to work includes two stops to drop off the kids (within a couple miles of home), a 5 mile drive up the highway, total mileage around 12. The way home is about 10 miles all suburban (minor traffic, several lights, max speed around 50 for stretches). I occasionally do a 20+ mile run on the highway, but most of my driving is local suburban and/or short highway drives (such as the 5 miles to work).
I've been tracking mileage for a few months, and here are the results. I haven't hit 30 as of yet. The longest highway drive was about 100 miles on the 5/17 tank, where I went to Ocean City, NJ and back from Cherry Hill, New Jersey (mostly Atlantic City expressway). You can see a significant change in mileage as the warmer weather started, raising the average several MPG. I was getting around 24-25 in the winter, now I'm more in the 27-28 range.
looks like your lack of highway miles and combination of lots of stop and go and relatviely short drives is keeping you from hitting 30. But given that your car is only said to achieve 25 in the city, i'd say you are doing pretty good.
And yes, my Civic is a bit more fun to drive, but my MIL's LeSabre could probably come close to outrunning it in the quarter.
But I will stick to my guns on gas mileage. An 07 Civic, Corolla, etc with modern technology should do better on mpg than they do. FURTHERMORE, if you use your argument, then why doesn't the Fit, Versa, Yaris, etc do any better than the Civic or Corolla?
how is it moot? Economy means more than what your car averages. The fact that the civic can go farther or just as far as any of those cars on much less gas still saves you some money.
my Civic is a bit more fun to drive, but my MIL's LeSabre could probably come close to outrunning it in the quarter.
wow. just...wow. def. one for the hall of fame.
if you use your argument, then why doesn't the Fit, Versa, Yaris, etc do any better than the Civic or Corolla?
easy. some of those engines use less techonology and/or are older than the engines in the larger cars. The fit has been around for FIVE years before even coming to the states; the r18 in the civic is a brand new engine. Most of these fuel saving techonlogies don't make it to such cheap cars and are reserved for people who have the dough to move up past that particular companies b-series offering. (the versa does have a cvt though, but it relies more on this than its rather plain (technology-wise) engine for good mpg.)
PLUS, if you look at the ratings for these cars, they usually do outclass their bigger brethren in city mpg. Reason being, a smaller engine usually is working harder on the highway keeping up with quick traffic, whereas its rather frugal in the city, and the bigger cars have to deal with their bigger engines. Easy as that.
I agree new small cars should do better on mpg. They are putting too much emphasis on hp and speed.
Civic has 140 hp. My grandparents used to have a v-8 Cadillac (4.1 liter) that had 130 hp. They were stunned when their new Taurus had a V-6 (3.0 liter)that had 140 hp.
My AC is on only 20% of the time during noon commutes. I know 25mpg city is close to the new EPA standards, but when I purchased it was stated as 30mpg.
My real gripe is that all my other cars give me the published mileage (per the old epa standard) for the exact same commute.
If you noticed the new Honda corporate add - goes something like this -- When the tank is half you can consider it is half empty or half full " an environmentally friendly company". For me when I fill up (top off) I have to consider it as only 3/4 full if I have to relate my 24 mpg to the 30mpg city published spec.
I average around 24\25 with 20% AC usage after 5 tanks, and I live in southern california. Daily commute is 25miles R\T with 8 of those miles on the freeway.
sorry pal, even the 30 mpg is an ESTIMATE not guaranteed. Do you even know what the old epa's test consisted of? lack of a/c or going over 40mpg. Some test. I never exceeded the old epa numbers, but by the new standards i always did.
agree new small cars should do better on mpg. They are putting too much emphasis on hp and speed.
it depends on what car you are talking about. There are small quick cars and small econmical cars. You want speed? don't complain about mileage. You want frugality? Don't complain about making barely 100hp.
jefferyg wrote: "Tank size is a moot point as well. MPG IS MPG."
You wrote: "how is it moot? Economy means more than what your car averages. The fact that the civic can go farther or just as far as any of those cars on much less gas still saves you some money."
Dude, why are you being so stubborn on this issue? All it is serving to do is the ruin your credibility for everything else you might have to say. Like it or don't, tank size has absolutely NOTHING to do with MPG calculations. Either you know how far you drove and how much fuel you used, or you can't do the calculation.
"There are small quick cars and small econmical cars. You want speed? don't complain about mileage. You want frugality? Don't complain about making barely 100hp."
My point is you don't have the choice. Where are the small cars that get excellent mileage that make barely 100hp. The Civic HX was one of the last of that breed.
Where ARE those low hp cars that got good mileage? Answer: they grew up! The current Civic is as large as an Accord of a few generations ago. Many (most) consumers want cars with creature comforts these days e.g. AC..power locks and windows etc. and these add weight. But even though the modern gasoline engine is more efficient than ever before in its history it has about been tapped out. The EPA standards are so stringent it a modern wonder they still can run. So, lets review: 1.tailpipe emissions on any recent car are cleaner than the air going in. 2. modern engines produce more power per liter than ever before. For example take the 1.8 liter 4 cylinder as used in the 06-07 Civic. It produces 140 hp. Compare that to the 350 cu in V-8 GM used in most cars. In the middle 70's they produced around that same 140 hp. I am sure some one will do the research and say they produced 145 hp but this is an estimate as I remember it. Anyhow I DO remember this one, the 3.0 liter Vulcan V-6 as used in the Taurus did produce that same 140 hp. 3. Driver speed is UP.High speed =lower fuel economy. 4. Safety sells now. So, tiny European 2 passenger city cars don't cut it here for various reasons. 5. Electric cars? can you say batteries? 6. Everybody wants it all in one package..safety...performance..space...fuel economy. Can you say really modern diesel??
The Civix HX is missing. In 2005 it got EPA 36/44 . This is a Civic not some micro car. That is 2 years ago with modern safety features, not 20 years ago. That is better mpg than the Fit, Yaris, Corolla etc. etc. and much better than the current Civic.
Take that drivetrain put it in a Civic wagon (or larger Fit type vehicle) and you have incredible efficiency with lots of room and a low price.
Key words here...EPA 36/44. What was the HX, some lightweight, stripped down, fuel efficiency foremost, hairshirt? what did it have or not have verses the other 2005 Civic models? Maybe the replacement you are looking for is called the Civic hybrid?
modern engines produce more power per liter than ever before
Ah, yes you are right - in part. The smaller 4-bangers produce the same horsepower, but at a much higher rpm. And even with equal horsepower, the 4's lag waaaaaaay behind on torque as compared with larger V8s and V6s.
I would love to say diesel is the wave of the future, but I'm afraid that by the time the EPA gets through cleaning them up they will not be that much better than their gasoline counterparts. The other downside (at least for now) with diesel is the same problem I have with hybrids. Unless you drive A LOT, they don't really save you that much money because of the extra cost in initial purchase price.
The new VW Bluetec diesel hitting our shores next January is supposed to deliver 140 hp and 235 lb-ft of torque AND return upwards of 50 mpg. Not too shabby.
As for initial cost, for the likes of VW and Mercedes-Benz at least, their diesel variants cost less than their gasoline fueled siblings. Go figure.
FWIW, I understand that Honda has developed some wonderful Diesel technology too and that 2008 or 2009 is the target release year here in the States. Geez, I'd love to see a Civic with a Diesel mill packing the kind of power and torque of the VW Jetta motor. Good performance and 50+ mpg. What's not to like?
Yes, VW and Honda are slated to release their new diesels. However, you still pay considerably more for the diesels here in the States because the dealers don't come off MSRP on them like they will on a gas burner. MOF, my brother who used to sell VWs often told me of how buyers were more than willing to pay sticker for new TDIs and top dollar for used ones.
True, true, a 4 cyl will almost always have less torque than a V-6/8 but with a lot less weight to lug around they are more than adaquate. If it is torque you want a diesel is the answer there too. Two companies have already cleaned them up so they (again) qualify for U.S. sales and if Honda has success in marketing a diesel here so goes the rest of the Asian auto industry. I have a payback problem with hybrids also but it isn't as large for a diesel based on past pricing verses gas engines in the same model. However I acknowledge with added technology to enable sales here the price may increase. But if everybody and their brother starts selling them (prompted by Honda?)competition will help stabilize prices. Besides much improved fuel economy will offset this somewhat IF diesel fuel prices don't increase (they probably will with increased popularity)...also biodiesel might help somewhat.
Yes EPA #'s are easy to beat so it would be much better than 44 on the highway. The actual EPA mileage number was 56 mpg before they dumbed it downn to 44 by taking off their standard 22%.
The hybrid is exactly what I am not looking for. Much more money with hardly any real world gain in efficiency - if any. Heavier, less responsive handling, unknown durability of batteries etc.
i wasn't being stubborn, i was making a point, and my opinion weighs in just as heavy as anyone elses!
Ruining my credibility? Yeah...well just leave it at that.
he was bringing up other cars with gas tanks that are the size of lawn mowers, and while it doesn't directly correlate with mpg calculations, throwing that point in there to defend bigger older cars ability to achieve mileage is kind of silly; my point simply was that, yes if you don't mind filling up with 30 gallons, thats cool if you average 25. Me? i'd rather fill up with 10 and get 28.
You mentioned diesel prices. It's only been in the past few months that we've seen the price of diesel in our area drop to below the cost of regular unleaded. For quite some time, diesel was the same cost as mid-grade unleaded in our area. However, I noticed that in most places I traveled over the holiday, diesel was 25-35 cents/gallon cheaper than regular unleaded.
I've had a Vdub and another is just not an option in my current location. I had to take it 75 miles to a dealer in Jackson to get it serviced. And the service dept was abysmal. By the time the new Honda diesels make it to market I will be ready to trade again, but I doubt I'll buy one until they've had a chance to prove themselves.
The diesel I'd most like to see is one to power a light-duty pickup. A medium to large sized 1/2 ton truck with the ability to haul four people comfortably, pull at least 5,000 pounds, and get 30 mpg on the highway would no doubt be a good seller. A friend of mine gets 21 on the highway in his F250, so I think 30 is completely reasonable for a 1/2 ton truck.
The point I was making was that if these land yachts can get 25-32 mpg highway, then why aren't these smaller newer cars doing MUCH better.
And furthermore, fuel tank size is irrelevant. Most people I know have to stop more often to empty their bladder than to fill their tank. I don't know many folks who can last more than 300 miles unless they're heading to the Cape wearing two diapers. :P
While I agree a hybrid isn't the ideal it is for much different reasons. The main sticking point for me is payback followed closely by and related to payback..initial price. There is a lot of real world gain in efficiency especially in city driving. If I lived in a true congested city I might ignore all my self imposed problems with them. I, for one, don't think the newest EPA numbers are all that easy to beat. They are more realistic. As for the "old" numbers well they were true "pie in the sky" especially city. Our 2006 Civic falls comfortably close to the new numbers and never did hit the old. Back to the hybrid though, the handling on the last Prius I drove was just fine and battery life has been shown to be very good now that there has been some miles/time under their belt.
While I'm not a truck kinda guy and not up to snuff on them don't Ford/Dodge/GM already sell light pick-ups with diesels available? Maybe they only make them available in larger 3/4 ton trucks e.g. F-250 ?
i didn't miss your point, you and shipo missed mine.
you see, i don't have the problem that you apparently had; i got very close to the original numbers for my civic; and exceeded the new ones. I did nothing special, only watch my foot on occassion. So, the ability for smaller cars too exceed the mileage of these boats, is totally possible, and i did it ALL THE TIME. Since you apparently have not, and are refusing to accept the many factors that play into smaller cars and their mpg(engine size, weight, safety features etc.) its a moot point for YOU, until you accept them.
even though tank size may be irrelevant for some, i will say this. Many who own the new civic are new to honda, and bought it for its efficiency. Regardless of what ANYONE says, how far you can go on a tank and how often you fill up does play a factor in having an economical vehicle in general.(just because YOU don't know anyone who exceeds 300 miles to tank is irrelevant; maybe you need more fuel efficient friends? :P ) I NEVER had a tank that was below 300 miles on my civic; in fact i have never had a tank below 300 miles with my gas sucking rabbit!
The point is, regardless of mpg, if you can go just as far on a civic as you could in a big boat of a car, even if you are averaging the same (which still floors me, the concept of it.), you are still driving a frugal vehicle that is costing you less to fill up,thus less money spent, and anyone with common sense will realize that there is more to a frugal car beyond mileage. And since this is a mpg forum, which has to do with one aspect of frugality in a car, then how far you can go on a tank should get more mention here than anywhere else.
Dude, you're still being horribly stubborn and, completely incorrect.
If you would simply change your language so that you differentiate what you are talking about, all would be well. For instance, you could start using MPT as opposed to MPG.
MPT=Miles Per Tank. That would fit your dialog nicely. MPG=Miles Per Gallon. If you don't know your fuel consumption over a given number of miles, this acronym cannot be used.
dude, i don't need to differentiate; when i'm talking about mpt, i've specifically mentioned it. When i jumped back to mpg, i did the same. I'm not speaking in code. and nothing i've said is 'incorrect'. If you don't know your fuel consumption over a given number of miles, this acronym cannot be used.
you are right, it cant in that instance, fortunately i know how to calculate, so this does not apply...at least not to me; but i know a few people you could go over it with :P
i really don't know what all the fuss is over; i'm not being stubborn, i'm expressing a point and have every right to defend it. No one has called those STILL complaining about not getting the epas old numbers (which if they did any kind of reasearch it would all be put to rest...)out on what THEY are saying, so if anything, its unfair to tell me im being stubborn about anything.
This is a forum, feel free to disagree. Thats what its here for. I've met some TRULY stubborn people here,some who wont even accept what a certain model of a make is even called...i'm hardly being stubborn.
Comments
I think you mean 30/40.
true, unless you have only EVER had to fill it up on 10 gallons. Even running my civic to the ground (light on, no bars on the guage) i was only ever able to fill it up a little past 10 gallons never 11. Most people dont run their cars down like this, or at least dont like to...so 'knowing' that you have 2 or 3 more gallons could result in disaster. ( i remember my 2001 civic; i did this and man it was embarassing. But then again i was 18 and kinda weird!)
That said, I still maintain that a defective gas gauge will have no bearing on mpg.
I guess i should ahve explained myself, or my theory a bit more. Assuming the person we are talking about IS the kind of person who goes by the fuel guage (light comes on, couple squares left, he goes to fill up.) this COULD affect ones 'percived' mpg.
He fills up with 10.5 gallons. If he/she is only able to drive 300 miles (lets say it was a mix of city and highway) before his defective light turns on, he/she would assume that they only averaged 28.5 mpg. Being an average person who does not want to get stranded on the road, they don't bother to run the car all the way down, or keep going because the manual says there is more gas in there. So in theory, it would result in an incorrect mpg calculation and even though it does not change the civics ability to achive good mpg, it seems like its doing poorly.
That was what i meant.
Why can't the Honda meet the published numbers when Toyota can. Even my third car Mazda protege) after 14 yrs still gets 23mpg in city for the same drive(what was published in the spec).
Am i supposed to drive the Honda any differently than the way I drive other cars to get published numbers?
On the way back 75 mph, cruise, AC on. 36.2 mpg.
I normally get 29-30 around town, with AC on 50%.
p.s. Mine was built in Canada.
Hope you are enjoying the car! My father loves his EX AT Sedan (Atomic Blue).
PERSONALLY, I don't think the EPA should revise the system. The higher EPA numbers ARE attainable, IF you strive for it. Why lower the ratings so the gas/brake crowd can feel good about itself?
After all EPA is supposed to protect the environment.
They are an indicator of the cars capability not a guarantee for anybody regardless of driving style.
But, mainly, I like that the new formula may give the auto industry a kick in the [non-permissible content removed] to finally start getting serious about efficient power plants. If you compare old to new EPA numbers what do you see - the old system ALWAYS produced higher numbers. And in some cases, especially for larger displacement 6 and 8 cylinder engines, the new numbers are dramatically lower. Also for some of the hybrids - look at the 2007 Prius numbers, which dropped by 9mpg.
Rather then let the auto makers continue to sit back and claim how much progress they've made, I hope the new numbers will cause them to really get innovative.
As much as I like my 2007 Civic EX/AT, and I am satisfied with it's mileage, I would point out that it does not get really any different mileage then my nearly 9 year old Chevy that I traded in. 9 years later, and now with an even smaller 4-banger (the Chevy was a 2.2 litre), and my mpg figures really are not noticeably different! (I routinely got in the high 20's mpg city, and high 30's mpg highway in the Chev) And this is supposed to be progress?
I say the EPA should be in the position to accurately rate vehicles to reflect what, on mass, across the whole diversity of the country, the average driver is likely to see. And if those numbers are lower then consumers and auto makers like, then hopefully that will get the industry off it's behind and start really innovating.
In comparison to the 2003 VW TDI (turbo diesel) (48-52 mpg daily commute), the 2004 Honda Civic is a gas hog!! (38-42 mpg (exact same) daily commute) AND the VW is app 500#'s heavier! (English translation: plus/minus 1 to 3 mpg per 100#'s (hit/advantage)
I also saw a blurb six months or so ago that Honda is well on their way to producing a hyper efficient (as in clean, powerful and economical) Diesel that (like the Jetta) will require no urea cannister to meet the CARB requirements. Geez, could you imagine a Diesel Civic that could turn 50+ mpg at 80 mph? I'd be all over that. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
you and i both shipo! But if the rabbit tdi ever makes it into production, i'll have some seriously hard choices to make!
have you checked what the new epa for your car is? its 25mpg in town. I'd say, that because of the fact that you are driving MOSTLY in the city and you have the ac on, the fact that you are getting EXACTLY what the epa says, is pretty darn good.
Personally, i averaged 28mpg in the city driving the same way you do.
More importantly the "Rabbit" is just a naming convention. So for example, in the platform there is the Jetta, Golf, New Beetle.
As others have said I think the car is perfectly capable of acheiving the advertised numbers. The worst mileage we've recorded since we got the car was 27.5, but that was with my wife driving it to school most days - a short trip with A LOT of stop and go driving. BTW, I think Don Garlitts was my wife's drivers' ed teacher! :P My next door neighbor's wife who teaches at the same school swears she cannot keep up with Beth in the mornings. But 27.5 is 10 better than she was getting driving the Odyssey every day.
That's my beef with the automakers as well. My dad had a Ford Festiva a number of years ago - two of them in fact. The older one which still had the carburated engine, routinely got high 40's. I know on one trip he made he got 52 mpg.
I also had a friend who drove a little Isuzu car with a diesel. On a 70+ mile round trip commute she got better than 50 mpg. That was 15 years ago.
Here we are 15 years later with much more advanced vehicles and yet mileage has not improved :confuse: Seems like a conspiracy to me.
The feds also impose more safety. That adds weight. A pound here and a pound there can add up. More weight burns more fuel and decreases performance.
I'm somewhat amazed that the mfg have been able to still achieve the same performance and economy while dealing with the feds mandates.
I had a Dodge Colt (Mitsubishi)1600, 8 speed, in the 70s that got 40+ on the road. Also had a 80's auto Civic wagon that got closer to 32 no matter how it was driven.
I think they have done about all they can with gas engines. Time to get out of the box! :sick:
Kip
Yup it sure was! It is aka giving the customer what they want in the rigid regulatory landscape of gassers only.
Yes, that's the argument everyone wants to make, but it just doesn't hold water. To make my point I use not a high performance street rod but pot-hole smoothing land yachts.
My MIL routinely gets 30+ in her LeSabre, My dad gets 25 from his 06 Grand Marquis, and to top it all off my friends down the road have a Buick Roadmaster - one of the huge ones. It weighs like 14 tons, has a 350 under the hood, and gets 27 mpg!
I'm sorry, but I just don't want to hear any more whining about emissions, safety equipment, etc keeping a car no bigger than my Civic from getting 50+ mpg AND delivering good if not great performance.
It seems more likely to me that Exxon has more weight with the Auto manufacturers than do the consumers.
and how many more gallons does it take than the civic to fill up i wonder?
I'm sorry, but I just don't want to hear any more whining about emissions, safety equipment, etc keeping a car no bigger than my Civic from getting 50+ mpg AND delivering good if not great performance.
you may not want to hear it, but its totally true. Physics are physics and you cant change them. Think about how little some older cars that achieve great mileage weigh. And don't throw diesels into the mix; you can still get a jetta tdi which is totally modern and will get the same kind of mileage. But you just can't compare a diesel to a reg. gasoline car, so its a moot point.
Yes performance and high mileage are hard to get hand in hand. Look at all the cars you just mentioned that have such good mileage despite their size/weight...you think they are really that entertaining to drive?
I've been tracking mileage for a few months, and here are the results. I haven't hit 30 as of yet. The longest highway drive was about 100 miles on the 5/17 tank, where I went to Ocean City, NJ and back from Cherry Hill, New Jersey (mostly Atlantic City expressway). You can see a significant change in mileage as the warmer weather started, raising the average several MPG. I was getting around 24-25 in the winter, now I'm more in the 27-28 range.
Date Miles Gas MPG
02/01/2007 233.1 9.51 24.51
02/12/2007 196.8 8.91 22.09
02/21/2007 252.7 10.28 24.58
03/02/2007 260.2 10.17 25.59
03/10/2007 288.9 10.82 26.70
03/21/2007 203.4 8.54 23.82
03/30/2007 298.8 10.77 27.74
04/11/2007 263.2 10.08 26.11
04/19/2007 277.1 9.71 28.54
04/26/2007 230.4 8.98 25.66
05/04/2007 265.2 9.86 26.90
05/11/2007 261.6 8.95 29.23
05/17/2007 294.5 10.24 28.76
05/25/2007 255.1 9.14 27.91
TOTAL 3,581.0 135.96 26.34
Last 6 1,583.9 56.88 27.85
And yes, my Civic is a bit more fun to drive, but my MIL's LeSabre could probably come close to outrunning it in the quarter.
But I will stick to my guns on gas mileage. An 07 Civic, Corolla, etc with modern technology should do better on mpg than they do. FURTHERMORE, if you use your argument, then why doesn't the Fit, Versa, Yaris, etc do any better than the Civic or Corolla?
how is it moot? Economy means more than what your car averages. The fact that the civic can go farther or just as far as any of those cars on much less gas still saves you some money.
my Civic is a bit more fun to drive, but my MIL's LeSabre could probably come close to outrunning it in the quarter.
wow. just...wow. def. one for the hall of fame.
if you use your argument, then why doesn't the Fit, Versa, Yaris, etc do any better than the Civic or Corolla?
easy. some of those engines use less techonology and/or are older than the engines in the larger cars. The fit has been around for FIVE years before even coming to the states; the r18 in the civic is a brand new engine. Most of these fuel saving techonlogies don't make it to such cheap cars and are reserved for people who have the dough to move up past that particular companies b-series offering. (the versa does have a cvt though, but it relies more on this than its rather plain (technology-wise) engine for good mpg.)
PLUS, if you look at the ratings for these cars, they usually do outclass their bigger brethren in city mpg. Reason being, a smaller engine usually is working harder on the highway keeping up with quick traffic, whereas its rather frugal in the city, and the bigger cars have to deal with their bigger engines. Easy as that.
Civic has 140 hp. My grandparents used to have a v-8 Cadillac (4.1 liter) that had 130 hp. They were stunned when their new Taurus had a V-6 (3.0 liter)that had 140 hp.
My real gripe is that all my other cars give me the published mileage (per the old epa standard) for the exact same commute.
If you noticed the new Honda corporate add - goes something like this -- When the tank is half you can consider it is half empty or half full " an environmentally friendly company". For me when I fill up (top off) I have to consider it as only 3/4 full if I have to relate my 24 mpg to the 30mpg city published spec.
it depends on what car you are talking about. There are small quick cars and small econmical cars. You want speed? don't complain about mileage. You want frugality? Don't complain about making barely 100hp.
"Tank size is a moot point as well. MPG IS MPG."
You wrote:
"how is it moot? Economy means more than what your car averages. The fact that the civic can go farther or just as far as any of those cars on much less gas still saves you some money."
Dude, why are you being so stubborn on this issue? All it is serving to do is the ruin your credibility for everything else you might have to say. Like it or don't, tank size has absolutely NOTHING to do with MPG calculations. Either you know how far you drove and how much fuel you used, or you can't do the calculation.
Best Regards,
Shipo
My point is you don't have the choice. Where are the small cars that get excellent mileage that make barely 100hp. The Civic HX was one of the last of that breed.
The option just is not there anymore.
1.tailpipe emissions on any recent car are cleaner than the air going in.
2. modern engines produce more power per liter than ever before. For example take the 1.8 liter 4 cylinder as used in the 06-07 Civic. It produces 140 hp. Compare that to the 350 cu in V-8 GM used in most cars. In the middle 70's they produced around that same 140 hp. I am sure some one will do the research and say they produced 145 hp but this is an estimate as I remember it. Anyhow I DO remember this one, the 3.0 liter Vulcan V-6 as used in the Taurus did produce that same 140 hp.
3. Driver speed is UP.High speed =lower fuel economy.
4. Safety sells now. So, tiny European 2 passenger city cars don't cut it here for various reasons.
5. Electric cars? can you say batteries?
6. Everybody wants it all in one package..safety...performance..space...fuel economy. Can you say really modern diesel??
Obviously - where are the replacemnts?
The Civix HX is missing. In 2005 it got EPA 36/44 . This is a Civic not some micro car. That is 2 years ago with modern safety features, not 20 years ago. That is better mpg than the Fit, Yaris, Corolla etc. etc. and much better than the current Civic.
Take that drivetrain put it in a Civic wagon (or larger Fit type vehicle) and you have incredible efficiency with lots of room and a low price.
Ah, yes you are right - in part. The smaller 4-bangers produce the same horsepower, but at a much higher rpm. And even with equal horsepower, the 4's lag waaaaaaay behind on torque as compared with larger V8s and V6s.
I would love to say diesel is the wave of the future, but I'm afraid that by the time the EPA gets through cleaning them up they will not be that much better than their gasoline counterparts. The other downside (at least for now) with diesel is the same problem I have with hybrids. Unless you drive A LOT, they don't really save you that much money because of the extra cost in initial purchase price.
The new VW Bluetec diesel hitting our shores next January is supposed to deliver 140 hp and 235 lb-ft of torque AND return upwards of 50 mpg. Not too shabby.
As for initial cost, for the likes of VW and Mercedes-Benz at least, their diesel variants cost less than their gasoline fueled siblings. Go figure.
FWIW, I understand that Honda has developed some wonderful Diesel technology too and that 2008 or 2009 is the target release year here in the States. Geez, I'd love to see a Civic with a Diesel mill packing the kind of power and torque of the VW Jetta motor. Good performance and 50+ mpg. What's not to like?
Best Regards,
Shipo
Two companies have already cleaned them up so they (again) qualify for U.S. sales and if Honda has success in marketing a diesel here so goes the rest of the Asian auto industry.
I have a payback problem with hybrids also but it isn't as large for a diesel based on past pricing verses gas engines in the same model. However I acknowledge with added technology to enable sales here the price may increase. But if everybody and their brother starts selling them (prompted by Honda?)competition will help stabilize prices. Besides much improved fuel economy will offset this somewhat IF diesel fuel prices don't increase (they probably will with increased popularity)...also biodiesel might help somewhat.
The hybrid is exactly what I am not looking for. Much more money with hardly any real world gain in efficiency - if any. Heavier, less responsive handling, unknown durability of batteries etc.
Ruining my credibility? Yeah...well just leave it at that.
he was bringing up other cars with gas tanks that are the size of lawn mowers, and while it doesn't directly correlate with mpg calculations, throwing that point in there to defend bigger older cars ability to achieve mileage is kind of silly; my point simply was that, yes if you don't mind filling up with 30 gallons, thats cool if you average 25. Me? i'd rather fill up with 10 and get 28.
Why is that such a big deal?
Sooo touchy people!
I've had a Vdub and another is just not an option in my current location. I had to take it 75 miles to a dealer in Jackson to get it serviced. And the service dept was abysmal. By the time the new Honda diesels make it to market I will be ready to trade again, but I doubt I'll buy one until they've had a chance to prove themselves.
The diesel I'd most like to see is one to power a light-duty pickup. A medium to large sized 1/2 ton truck with the ability to haul four people comfortably, pull at least 5,000 pounds, and get 30 mpg on the highway would no doubt be a good seller. A friend of mine gets 21 on the highway in his F250, so I think 30 is completely reasonable for a 1/2 ton truck.
The point I was making was that if these land yachts can get 25-32 mpg highway, then why aren't these smaller newer cars doing MUCH better.
And furthermore, fuel tank size is irrelevant. Most people I know have to stop more often to empty their bladder than to fill their tank. I don't know many folks who can last more than 300 miles unless they're heading to the Cape wearing two diapers. :P
you see, i don't have the problem that you apparently had; i got very close to the original numbers for my civic; and exceeded the new ones. I did nothing special, only watch my foot on occassion. So, the ability for smaller cars too exceed the mileage of these boats, is totally possible, and i did it ALL THE TIME. Since you apparently have not, and are refusing to accept the many factors that play into smaller cars and their mpg(engine size, weight, safety features etc.) its a moot point for YOU, until you accept them.
even though tank size may be irrelevant for some, i will say this. Many who own the new civic are new to honda, and bought it for its efficiency. Regardless of what ANYONE says, how far you can go on a tank and how often you fill up does play a factor in having an economical vehicle in general.(just because YOU don't know anyone who exceeds 300 miles to tank is irrelevant; maybe you need more fuel efficient friends? :P ) I NEVER had a tank that was below 300 miles on my civic; in fact i have never had a tank below 300 miles with my gas sucking rabbit!
The point is, regardless of mpg, if you can go just as far on a civic as you could in a big boat of a car, even if you are averaging the same (which still floors me, the concept of it.), you are still driving a frugal vehicle that is costing you less to fill up,thus less money spent, and anyone with common sense will realize that there is more to a frugal car beyond mileage. And since this is a mpg forum, which has to do with one aspect of frugality in a car, then how far you can go on a tank should get more mention here than anywhere else.
If you would simply change your language so that you differentiate what you are talking about, all would be well. For instance, you could start using MPT as opposed to MPG.
MPT=Miles Per Tank. That would fit your dialog nicely.
MPG=Miles Per Gallon. If you don't know your fuel consumption over a given number of miles, this acronym cannot be used.
Best Regards,
Shipo
If you don't know your fuel consumption over a given number of miles, this acronym cannot be used.
you are right, it cant in that instance, fortunately i know how to calculate, so this does not apply...at least not to me; but i know a few people you could go over it with :P
i really don't know what all the fuss is over; i'm not being stubborn, i'm expressing a point and have every right to defend it. No one has called those STILL complaining about not getting the epas old numbers (which if they did any kind of reasearch it would all be put to rest...)out on what THEY are saying, so if anything, its unfair to tell me im being stubborn about anything.
This is a forum, feel free to disagree. Thats what its here for. I've met some TRULY stubborn people here,some who wont even accept what a certain model of a make is even called...i'm hardly being stubborn.